Technical ReportPDF Available

IUCN UK Commission of inquiry on peatlands

January 2011

Authors:

Aletta Bonn

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research

Rob Stoneman

Yorkshire Wildlife Trust

Stephen Chapman

James Hutton Institute

Show all 24 authorsHide

Peat structure in a natural, functioning bog; reproduction with kind permission from Lindsay (2010), based on Clymo (1992)

…

Peatland distribution across Europe. The UK hosts a high percentage of deep peat soils largely in the form of blanket bog peatlands; from Montanarella et al. (2006), reproduced by permission of the journal Mires and Peat, acknowledging the European Soil Bureau Network and the Joint Research Centre, Ispra (I), European Commission as the original source.

…

Schematic gas fluxes of carbon dioxide from natural peatlands and degraded peatlands; reproduction with kind permission from DER SPIEGEL (Bode et al. 2010)

…

Change in baseflow and runoff after grip blocking. Blocking grips leads to reduced runoff with more water retained on the bog (Efficiency index) and a less concentrated flood response (Flashiness index). Data from Lorraine Wilson, see also Wilson et al. (2010; 2011a)

…

Figures - uploaded by Mark S. Reed

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Mark S. Reed

Content may be subject to copyright.

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY

PEATLANDS

This report should be cited as:

Bain, C.G., Bonn, A., Stoneman, R., Chapman, S., Coupar, A., Evans, M.,

Gearey, B., Howat, M., Joosten, H., Keenleyside, C., Labadz, J., Lindsay, R.,

Littlewood, N., Lunt, P., Miller, C.J., Moxey, A., Orr, H., Reed, M., Smith, P.,

Swales, V., Thompson, D.B.A., Thompson, P.S., Van de Noort, R., Wilson, J.D.

& Worrall, F. (2011) IUCN UK Commission of Inquiry on Peatlands. IUCN UK

Peatland Programme, Edinburgh.

October 2011

Published by the IUCN UK Peatland Programme

ISBN 978-0-9570572-1-0

The report and associated Commission of Inquiry material can be downloaded

from www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is a global

organization, providing an inuential and authoritative voice for nature

conservation. The IUCN UK Peatland Programme promotes peatland

restoration in the UK and advocates the multiple benets of peatlands through

partnerships, strong science, sound policy and effective practice.

Design by Dirty White Design

Front cover image © Laurie Campbell/SNH

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES 2

FOREWORD 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8

1. INTRODUCTION: WHY ARE PEATLANDS IMPORTANT? 20

2. WHAT ARE PEATLANDS? 24

3. WHAT IS THE DISTRIBUTION OF PEATLANDS? 30

4. WHAT KEY SERVICES ARE DELIVERED BY PEATLANDS? 36

4.1 Climate regulation 37

4.2 Biodiversity conservation 44

4.3 Water regulation 48

4.4 Sense of place: historic environment conservation 50

5. WHAT IS THE STATE OF UK PEATLANDS? 54

5.1 Burning on peatlands 60

5.2 External drivers: pollution and climate change 62

6. OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE 64

6.1 Business as usual 67

6.2 Conservation and restoration 67

6.3 Peatland restoration: a good investment 72

7. SECURING THE FUTURE OF UK PEATLANDS 74

7.1 Policy 77

7.2 Funding 85

7.3 Coordinated action 88

8. IUCN UK PEATLAND PROGRAMME: NEXT STEPS 96

9. CONCLUSION 98

10. REFERENCES 100

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1 Peat structure in a natural, functioning bog 27

Figure 2 Distribution of peatlands across the world 31

Figure 3 Peat and peaty soils of the United Kingdom 33

Figure 4 Peatland distribution across Europe 38

Figure 5 Schematic gas uxes of carbon dioxide

from natural peatlands and degraded peatlands 39

Figure 6 Annual CO2 emissions of peat soils

are higher under reduced mean annual water tables 40

Figure 7 Global Warming Potential (GWP) of UK

peat bogs under natural, drained and rewetted state 43

Figure 8 Dunlin populations are closely associated

with areas of high Sphagnum cover in peat bogs 46

Figure 9 Effects of a lowering water table on vegetation 47

Figure 10 Effects of grip blocking on DOC levels 48

Figure 11 Change in baseow and runoff after grip blocking 50

Figure 12 a) Distribution of peat soils in the UK

b) Burn intensity index across the UK 60

Figure 13 Illustrative GHG mitigation costs

and abatement potential 72

Table 1 Summary of organic-rich soils

extent and bogs and fen UK BAP type extent 32

Table 2 Example emission factors

relative to emissions from 1ha degraded peatland 73

Table 3 Key international commitments recognising peatlands 78

Table 4 Categories of policy instruments 79

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

FOREWORD

This IUCN UK Commission of Inquiry on Peatlands presents one of the most

extensive assessments of peatlands undertaken in the UK to date. It identies

the state and value of peatland ecosystems and develops ways to safeguard

and restore their natural capital.

Peatlands are vitally important for people, but this has not been widely

appreciated until recently. As a result the majority have been damaged or

destroyed. The valuable role of peatlands has been highlighted internationally

by the United Nations Environment Programme. The UK National Ecosystem

Assessment also emphasises the special importance of peatlands, particularly

in relation to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Peatlands support

important wildlife habitats, hold vast carbon stores, collect and supply much

of our drinking water, provide archives of archaeological and environmental

information and offer breathing spaces and a sense of place for many people.

Peatlands are a huge asset for society but we need to take urgent steps

to ensure the peatland resource, with its biodiversity, is properly managed

and secured for the future. This is an even more urgent task in the face of

a changing climate, which could accelerate the deterioration of damaged

peatlands. As it becomes clear across the world that damage to peatlands

comes at great cost, ways of halting damage and restoring peatlands have

been developed. In the UK, we have some world-leading examples of peatland

restoration and the expertise to manage them at a landscape scale. There

is considerable support across the different land management communities

to bring peatlands back into good condition, but to date there has been no

obvious, coordinated, driving-force to make it happen.

The IUCN UK Commission of Inquiry on Peatlands has brought together

over 300 contributors from over 50 organisations drawing on a wide range of

expertise from science, policy and practice. It comes at a crucial time, with

high level strategic decisions being made at a national and international level

on climate change, biodiversity, water and agriculture, which will impact on the

way we manage our peatlands and how we pay to keep them in a healthy state.

This Assessment draws together the Inquiry’s ndings and clearly demonstrates

the value of healthy peatlands to society, the damage which has been done to

them, and the huge liability of doing nothing to repair this damage.

Patrons of the IUCN UK Commission of Inquiry on Peatlands

Lord Jamie Lindsay Prof Andrew Watkinson

Sir Graham Wynne

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Commission of Inquiry was led by the IUCN UK Peatland Programme

and managed through partnership. A wide range of sectors engaged in

the production of scientic reviews and responded to an open consultation

process. The Inquiry process was supported by discussions at the two IUCN

UK Peatland Programme conferences ‘Investing in Peatlands: the Climate

Challenge’ in Durham, 2010, and ‘Investing in Peatlands: Delivering Multiple

Benets’ in Stirling, 2011, along with contributions of written and oral evidence

from the inquiry open event in Edinburgh in November 2010, organised with

kind support of the University of Edinburgh. Land management organisations

have been closely involved in the Inquiry, and opportunities were given to those

with practical peatland management experience to input to the ndings.

We are grateful to our Commission of Inquiry patrons Lord Jamie Lindsay,

Professor Andrew Watkinson and Sir Graham Wynne for high level support

and steering. The Inquiry was chaired by Martyn Howat, and Steve Chapman

provided the overall scientic coordination. The core panel of the Inquiry was

a team of peatland specialists from science, policy and practice comprising

Andrew Coupar, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), Martin Evans, University

of Manchester, Prof Hans Joosten, University of Greifswald, Wetlands

International, Richard Lindsay, University of East London, Harriet Orr,

Environment Agency, Matthew Shepherd, Natural England, Prof Pete Smith,

University of Aberdeen, Vicki Swales, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

(RSPB), Prof Des Thompson, SNH, and Prof Robert Van de Noort, University of

Exeter.

The Commission of Inquiry and Assessment Report preparation was supported

by an advisory panel. The following organisations have been extensively

consulted during the course of the Inquiry and on the content of the report and

have made important contributions to the development of the thinking behind it.

Cairngorms National Park Authority, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology

Edinburgh, Corrour Estate, Countryside Council for Wales, Department for

Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Environment Agency, English Heritage,

Forestry Commission, Heather Trust, John Muir Trust, Lancashire Wildlife Trust,

Moorland Association, Moors for the Future Partnership, National Farmers

Union, National Farmers Union Scotland, National Trust, National Trust for

Scotland, Natural England, NERC Carbon Landscapes and Drainage Network,

Northern Ireland Environment Agency, North Pennines AONB Partnership,

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Scottish Environment Protection

Agency, Scottish Government, Scotland's Moorland Forum, Scottish Land and

Estates Moorland Group, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Water, Scottish

Wildlife Trust, United Utilities, University of East London, Welsh Government,

Yorkshire Peat Partnership, Yorkshire Water and Yorkshire Wildlife Trust.

The Joint Nature Conservation Committee Soils and Upland Lead Coordination

Networks provided advice and information as input to the activities of the

Commission of Inquiry.

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

The work of the IUCN UK Peatland Programme and the Commission of Inquiry

is funded primarily by the Peter De Haan Charitable Trust and hosted by the

Yorkshire Wildlife Trust and Scottish Wildlife Trust. We are particularly grateful

to Peter De Haan for his personal support and interest. Additional funding for

the Commission of Inquiry was received for the production of reviews and

Sfor meetings from English Heritage, the James Hutton Institute, the Moorland

Association, the North Pennines AONB Partnership, the Rural Economy and

Land Use Programme, Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish

Natural Heritage.

Considerable in kind support was provided by academic institutions,

consultancies, government departments and agencies and NGOs in producing

technical reviews, providing evidence at the Inquiry event and participating

in core panel and advisory panel activities, as well as by many individuals

throughout the consultation, reecting the strong desire to see action for UK

peatlands.

We are very grateful to Mary Church for organising the Commission of Inquiry

events and successfully coordinating the design and publication of the Inquiry

report and associated material. We also thank Tom Edwards for thoroughly

editing the report and helpful suggestions.

Disclaimer

This Assessment Report is the result of the IUCN UK Peatland Programme’s

synthesis of the contributions to the Inquiry and may not necessarily reect

the views of all those involved.

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

The Assessment Report is based on signicant input from twelve technical

reviews produced as contributions to the Commission of Inquiry, namely

• Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2011) Towards an assessment of the state

of UK peatlands. JNCC report no 445.

• Worrall, F., Chapman, P., Holden, J., Evans, C., Artz, R., Smith, P. & Grayson, R.

(2010) Peatlands and Climate Change. Report to IUCN UK Peatland Programme.

Edinburgh.

• Littlewood, N., Anderson, P., Artz, R., Bragg, O., Lunt, P. & Marrs, R. (2010)

Peatland Biodiversity. Report to IUCN UK Peatland Programme. Edinburgh.

• Lunt, P., Allott, T., Anderson, P., Buckler, M., Coupar, A., Jones, P., Labadz, J. &

Worrall, P. (2010) Peatland Restoration. Report to IUCN UK Peatland Programme.

Edinburgh.

• Worrall, F., Clay, G.D., Marrs, R. & Reed, M.S. (2010) Impacts of Burning

Management on Peatlands. Report to IUCN UK Peatland Programme. Edinburgh.

• Labadz, J., Allott, T. Evans, M., Butcher, D., Billett, M., Stainer, S., Yallop, A.,

Jones, P., Innerdale, M., Harmon, N., Maher, K, Bradbury, R., Mount, D., O’Brien,

H. & Hart, R. (2010) Peatland Hydrology. Report to IUCN UK Peatland Programme.

Edinburgh. (funded by the North Pennines AONB Partnership.)

• Geary, B., Bermingham, N., Chapman, H., Charman, D., Fletcher, W., Fyfe,

R., Quartermaine, J., Charman, D., Van de Noort, R. & Heathcote, J. (2010)

Peatlands and the Historic Environment. Report to IUCN UK Peatland Programme.

Edinburgh. (funded by English Heritage.)

• Reed, M., Buckmaster, S., Moxey, A., Keenleyside, C., Fazey, I., Scott, A.,

Thomson, K., Thorp, S., Anderson, R., Bateman, I., Bryce, R., Christie, M., Glass,

J., Hubacek, K, Quinn, C., Maffey, G., Midgley, A., Robinson, G., Stringer, L., Lowe,

P. & Slee, B. (2010) Policy options for sustainable management of UK peatlands.

Report to IUCN UK Peatland Programme. Edinburgh.

• Joosten, H. (2011) Peatlands, policies and markets. Report to IUCN UK Peatland

Programme. Edinburgh.

• Moxey, A. (2011) Illustrative economics of peatland restoration. Report to IUCN UK

Peatland Programme. Edinburgh.

• Keenleyside, C. & Moxey, A. (2011) Public funding of peatland management

and restoration in the UK – a review for IUCN UK. Report to IUCN UK Peatland

Programme. Edinburgh.

• IUCN UK Peatland Programme (2011) Brief summary of the state of peatlands in

British Overseas Territories. IUCN UK Peatland Programme. Edinburgh.

We thank all authors for their considerable input and all funders for making this

possible. Parts of these reviews have been used and quoted to prepare this

Assessment Report.

All contributing material, including the above reviews, submissions to the Open

Inquiry and conference proceedings, is available as resources on the IUCN UK

Peatland Programme website www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org

More detailed brieng notes for key subjects will be provided by the partnership.

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

“Restoration of peatlands is a low hanging fruit, and among the most

cost-effective options for mitigating climate change.”

Achim Steiner UN Under-Secretary General and Executive Director UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Peatlands are areas of land with a naturally accumulated layer of

peat. These are formed under waterlogged conditions from carbon

rich, dead and decaying plant material. In the UK mosses, mainly

Sphagnum species, are the main formers of peat.

Peatlands are found in at least 175 countries – from the tropics to the poles

– and cover around 4 million km2 or 3% of the world’s land area. In Europe,

peatlands extend to ca. 515,000 km2. The UK is amongst the top ten nations

of the world in terms of its total peatland area. The UK has between 9-15%

of Europe’s peatland area (46,000-77,000 km2) and about 13% of the world’s

blanket bog – one of the world’s rarest habitats. There are three main types

of peatland in the UK: blanket bogs, raised bogs and fens. The international

importance of the peatlands found in the UK give it an especial responsibility

for their management and conservation.

The IUCN UK Commission of Inquiry on Peatlands has gathered up-to-date

knowledge from science, policy and practice. The assessment focuses on

blanket bog and raised bog peatlands, because they represent over 95% of

all UK peatland habitat and offer an opportunity to make early and substantial

progress in delivering a combination of economic, social and biodiversity

gains. However, we recognise that lowland, river and groundwater-fed fen

peatlands are also vital carbon stores, as well as existing and potential areas

of rich biodiversity, which have also been subject to intensive and damaging

management. Fen peatlands share many of the issues affecting rain-fed

peatlands but with distinct differences in terms of their functions, threats

and pressures, which merit further investigation.

A multidisciplinary team of experts produced this Report. It provides an

authoritative assessment of the available evidence, based on peer-reviewed

scientic consensus about the state of peatlands, the impacts of different

activities on peatland ecosystems and the services they provide and the

benets of restoring and conserving them. The assessment explores

mechanisms and processes for peatland conservation action, recognising the

different social, economic and environmental drivers. The evidence-gathering

approach was inclusive, engaging individual land managers as well as a wide

range of organisations, which in itself has helped to foster joint action for

peatland conservation and restoration.

The Assessment Report sets out the main conclusions, highlighting gaps

and opportunities for further action. It identies ways to secure additional

funding and develop expertise to help land managers restore the UK’s

peatlands and to allow decision makers to take better account of their

multiple benets.

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Blanket bog of the Flow Country, Forsinard © RSPB

KEY FACTS

Peatlands provide essential services to society,

globally, nationally and locally.

Peatlands are vitally important in the global carbon cycle and UK

greenhouse gas budgets. They represent the single most important terrestrial

carbon store in the UK. Blanket and raised bog peatlands cover around

23,000 km2 or 9.5% of the UK land area, with current estimates indicating they

store at least 3.2 billion tonnes of carbon. A loss of only 5% of UK peatland

carbon would equate to the total annual UK anthropogenic greenhouse gas

emissions. Healthy peat bogs have a net long-term ‘cooling’ effect

on the climate.

Peatlands include the largest remaining semi-natural habitats in the UK.

Our peatland habitats host nationally and internationally important biodiversity.

Many of the typical peatland species, however, are showing marked population

declines. The best available evidence suggests that less than 20% of the UK’s

peatlands are undamaged. The remaining peatlands are eroded, modied or

destroyed through extraction or conversion to other land uses. Even the best

protected sites (under EU wildlife legislation) have suffered, with less than 50%

in a favourable condition. However, much of the damage could still be reversed.

British Overseas Territories also support large areas of peatlands, particularly

in the Falkland Islands, with estimates of over 5,470 km2 of deep blanket peat.

Peatlands are important for drinking water. In the UK, 70% of all drinking

water is derived from surface water that comes mainly from upland catchments,

which are generally peat dominated. Healthy peatlands provide high-quality

water that is much cheaper to treat for drinking - damaged peatlands produce

higher concentrations of organic ‘brown water’ carbon, which has to be removed

at high cost.

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Peatlands are national treasures. They provide a sense of place for

many communities. As waterlogged soils, peat deposits provide a rich

archive of cultural and environmental change stretching back over

10,000 years. Peatlands have preserved some of the oldest and most

intriguing archaeological remains including roads, tracks, houses and

settlements, monuments, artefacts and bog bodies. The archive, that is peat

itself, has contributed greatly to our understanding of global climate change.

Peatlands have been identied as a priority for action under international

agreements. Global agreements such as the UN Convention on Biological

Diversity (CBD), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)

and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands include obligations and opportunities

for countries to maintain and restore peatlands. These agreements highlight

the need for policies and funding to better reect the value of peatland habitats

for the services they provide. At an EU level, legislation on wildlife and water

also recognises the importance of peatlands. By drawing on the work of a

wide range of public-body and private partnerships, the UK Government and

devolved administrations have an opportunity to demonstrate good practice in

peatland protection and restoration to other European countries and globally.

Peatlands rely on water. When drained, peatlands waste away through

oxidation, adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere – then, they are a liability.

A variety of activities have resulted in peatlands being damaged including

drainage for agriculture or forestry, track building and peat extraction. Fire,

overgrazing, climate change and atmospheric deposition can exacerbate the

effects of drainage. Lowered water tables on peat bogs encourage the growth

of plant species that do not easily form peat or that actively degrade the existing

peat stock, resulting in losses of soil carbon and emissions of carbon dioxide

to the atmosphere.

Blanket bog of the Flow Country, Forsinard © RSPB

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Damaged peatlands are expensive. Damaged and degraded peatlands place

a substantial nancial burden on society because of increased greenhouse gas

emissions, poorer water quality and loss of other ecosystem services. Damaged

peatlands may also exacerbate costly ood events, when water is rapidly

conveyed from peatlands through drainage ditches and erosion gullies into

downstream areas.

Peatland restoration is cost-effective. The cost of peatland restoration is

considerably lower than the ongoing costs to society from leaving peatlands

damaged. Early intervention also has lower restoration costs. Peatland

restoration is cost-effective in reducing emissions of carbon to the atmosphere,

improving water quality (reducing the costs for drinking water treatment) and

conserving biodiversity. Peatland restoration can also help with climate change

mitigation and adaptation. Funding for peatlands under current government

schemes, particularly through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), can be

an effective means of supporting management and restoration, but there is no

doubt that more could be done through current funding instruments. Peatland

restoration also presents new funding opportunities through links with business

and industry, carbon markets and payments for delivery of ecosystem services

within agri-environment schemes. This in turn could lead to better support for

rural communities and the creation of green jobs.

The UK has world leading expertise in peatland restoration. The UK has

globally relevant examples of peatland restoration and considerable land

management expertise in tackling different forms of peatland damage, with

many demonstrable successes. This creates an opportunity for peatland

restoration to make a positive contribution towards meeting the UK’s biodiversity

objectives and ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There

are several successful landscape scale restoration projects in the UK, for

example blanket bog restoration in the Flow Country in Scotland, Lake Vyrnwy

and Migneint in Wales, Exmoor, Dartmoor, Peak District and Pennines in

England and restoration of lowland raised bogs in Cumbria, Lancashire, and

Northern Ireland.

Functioning blanket bog, Forsinard © Norman Russell

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Damaged peatlands are substantially less resilient to climate change than

healthy ones. Given rapid climate change, which is likely to impact widely and

adversely on biodiversity, soils, water supply and quality, there is an even more

urgent need for action to protect and restore peatlands. Available evidence

suggests that a healthy peatland is a more resilient peatland in the face of

environmental change. Good management and restoration also help to secure

peatland wildlife and ecosystem services, under a changing climate. Restoration

therefore helps to safeguard important goods and services into the future and,

at the same time, can help to meet the UK’s emission-reduction targets. Not

restoring peatlands will lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions from

damaged peat carbon stores under a changing climate.

Peatland natural capital is not fully represented in national accounting.

The fact that the true value of peatlands and the costs of damaging them are

not reected in the resources available to conserve them represents

a clear example of market failure. The value of peatlands as a carbon store

and in mitigating climate change is not yet fully taken into account in the

national greenhouse gas inventory. In addition, there are monitoring gaps

in relation to the state of peatlands, progress towards biodiversity objectives,

delivery of ecosystem services and application of policy measures such as

agri-environment schemes. Improvement in these areas would allow better

accounting and reporting of progress against government objectives and

international obligations.

Sphagnum © Norman Russell

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

PEATLANDS: AN URGENT AGENDA

Securing the benets we derive from peatlands

requires an urgent step-change in action to redress

past damage. A speedy response to protect and

restore our peatlands under a changing climate is

challenging – but will cost us dear if we delay.

This Inquiry therefore calls for the multiple benets of

peatlands to be understood and appreciated. Our vision is

for the UK’s peatlands to be functioning to their full natural

potential. There should be no further loss of near-natural

peatlands in the UK, and all recoverable peatlands should be

restored to a peat forming state, resilient to climate change

and with long-term safeguards. Our four-pronged peatland

strategy comprises:

• Conserving peatlands in good condition, through

management that maintains a favourable state, and

preventing further damage to healthy peatlands (even

the best protected peatland sites have suffered, with

less than 50% in a favourable condition, so the rst

priority must be to prevent any further deterioration).

• Restoring partially damaged peatlands through

land-use changes and active habitat management

to return them to a peat forming state with typical

peatland vegetation and animal species (including

blocking drainage ditches, altering livestock

numbers or adjusting burning management).

• Intervening to repair severely damaged peatlands

through major operations, such as woodland removal,

gully blocking and re-vegetating bare peat.

• Communicating the contribution peatlands

make to meeting environmental, economic and

social goals – critically, to help combat climate

change and to halt the loss of biodiversity.

Peatlands are an important visitor attraction

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

We need strong public and business policy responses to

achieve this, focused on three actions:

a. Introducing a UK and devolved government policy

framework to protect and maintain existing peatlands

and ensure restoration of damaged areas. Peatland

policy objectives and delivery should be ‘joined-up’

across climate change, biodiversity, water, heritage,

development and access legislation.

b. Ensuring the necessary funding is in place to protect

and restore the UK’s peatlands. This requires continued

use of the key funding streams, such as the EU Common

Agriculture Policy (CAP), and maximising any additional

opportunities through forthcoming reform. Other funds

should be sought through the EU Environment – LIFE+

Programme, with additional core government funding

alongside the development of business investment in

ecosystem services.

c. Coordinating action to encourage partnerships to

secure an effective evidence base, with monitoring and

reporting on progress, along with knowledge exchange,

education and advice.

More detail on the actions needed to achieve our vision is set

out in Chapter 7 of this report.

Targets and timescales

The management and restoration of the UK’s peatlands is

an ambitious goal, with best estimates of 2.3 million ha of

blanket and raised bog, of which around 1.8 million ha is

damaged in some way. By creating a better framework to

integrate public and business policies and by putting the right

funding mechanisms in place, we should be able to secure

a much better future for our peatlands by 2050. A positive

interim target would be to work towards having

1 million ha of peatlands in good condition or under

restoration management by 2020 – a timescale consistent

with UK and international biodiversity objectives as well as

commitments to tackle global climate change.

Results of grip damming © Andrew Keen

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

MOVING TOWARDS HEALTHIER PEATLANDS

a. Policy framework

We need to muster the considerable peatland expertise and

potential resources across the public and private sectors to

achieve the scale and urgency of action required, recognising

the challenges of the current economic climate.

a1. Clear government signals need to empower public bodies, the private

sector, NGO’s and communities to maintain and restore peatlands.

• Establish a UK wide, coordinated, funded peatland restoration delivery

programme with agreed areas, targets and timescales, reecting

international commitments on peatlands.

a2. Coordination and cooperation across government sectors and agencies

would help deliver peatland biodiversity objectives and secure

ecosystem benets.

• Recognise the important role of peatlands under all relevant public

body duties, e.g. climate change mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity

conservation and water regulation.

• Take forward opportunities for delivery of landscape and

cross-catchment scale projects with cooperation across different

administrative boundaries.

• Establish a high-level peatland group to facilitate cross agency

coordination and to report on progress against peatland objectives.

a3. Develop an ecosystem-based approach to peatland policy.

• Adopt an ecosystem-based approach with healthy functioning peatland

habitat as the shared goal, rather than simply maximising individual

services from peatlands.

a4. Have better collaboration across public bodies, business, NGOs,

and communities with stronger connections between end-beneciaries

and those delivering services on peatlands.

• Support collaborative working at the site level to deliver peatland

management and restoration, showcasing good examples nationally

and internationally.

• Explore mechanisms to encourage better connection between peatland

managers and beneciaries of the ecosystem services.

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Bog pool at Blar nam Faoileag © Norman Russell

b. Funding

There are opportunities to greatly improve the sharing of costs experienced by

society in terms of damaging impacts to water, loss of biodiversity and carbon

emissions and the support given to the management of peatlands. Put simply,

we want to vastly reduce these costs. Support towards this includes direct

government and business funding along with government action to facilitate

international funds, business and private investment for peatland management

and restoration.

b1. Improved funding through the CAP, both Pillar I direct payments and Pillar II

Rural Development Programmes (especially agri-environment and forestry

measures) for peatland management and restoration.

• Improve the alignment of funds within the four UK country programmes

to the provision of benets for biodiversity, climate change and water.

• Ensure appropriate payment levels and integration with private/public

funding initiatives to incentivise land managers and cover the costs of

providing public benets from peatlands.

b2. Use public and private resources in a coordinated way to support peatland

restoration and management.

• Establish core government funding specically to support peatland

projects, and encourage public bodies and the business sector to work

jointly in funding peatland work.

b3. Development of new sources of funding for peatland conservation and

restoration.

• Explore opportunities to support business-led carbon investment in

peatlands including developing a Peatland Carbon Code.

• Support water company investment in upstream land management.

• Explore other funding opportunities such as payment schemes for

ecosystem services, biodiversity offsets and habitat banking.

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

c. Coordinated action

c1. Establish nationally coordinated and funded peatland accounting.

• Monitor the state of peatlands.

• Report on progress towards biodiversity targets and delivery of

international and national objectives, greenhouse gas emissions

savings and other ecosystem service benets.

• Assess the effectiveness and progress of policy measures, including

agri-environment measures.

c2. Provide support for a UK peatland hub for information and consensus

building, training and partnership working between scientists, policy

advisers, businesses and land managers.

• Provide a one-stop shop for information.

• Showcase cost effective and exible solutions for peatland restoration

and management through demonstration sites.

• Facilitate effective collaborations between policy, practice and

academic research.

c3. Encourage trans-disciplinary research on peatlands.

• Provide solutions for effective peatland conservation/restoration.

• Improve the evidence base for the services that peatlands provide and

the effects of restoration.

c4. Communicate the importance of peatlands, highlighting their benets to

society including market and non market values.

• Build on the wealth of peatland projects and stories to provide the tools

for wider communication, engaging expertise to incorporate peatlands

more extensively in media and education.

CONCLUSION

Throughout the course of this Inquiry, it has been evident that

there is a large community of interested people and organisations

willing to help deliver the vision for peatlands – but needing the

right signals and support. We now want to see a signicant shift in

public attitudes and support towards realising the immense value

of peatlands in making the planet healthier for us – and for nature.

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

1. INTRODUCTION:

WHY ARE PEATLANDS IMPORTANT?

“Peatland conservation is a prime example of a nature-based solution

to climate change but we urgently need to switch from aspiration to action

to secure the benets that peatlands provide.”

Julia Marton-Lefèvre Director General, International Union for the Conservation of Nature

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

This Assessment Report rst denes peatlands and explains the Commission

of Inquiry’s focus on blanket bogs and raised bogs. It provides a description

of the global and national distribution of peatlands and assesses their key

ecosystem services and biodiversity importance. The report then looks at the

state of peatlands in the UK, which leads to the evaluation of future options. The

nal part of the report develops a vision for peatlands with suggestions for key

actions across policy, industry, land managers, NGOs and science. The report

concludes by outlining the next steps of the IUCN UK Peatland Programme.

However, it will remain the responsibility of key actors in policy, science and

practice to take forward the shared agenda and harness the opportunity to

safeguard our peatland natural capital.

Peatlands are habitats with carbon-rich peat soil. They are manifestly important

for human well-being. Despite covering only 3% of the global land surface,

they globally comprise 30% of all soil carbon. Peatlands include the largest

remaining areas of semi-natural habitats in the UK supporting bog and fen

habitats and species that are protected under international and national

legislation. As iconic landscapes they offer breathing spaces for millions of

people, support livelihoods and provide a sense of place for many communities.

The peat itself harbours a rich palaeo-ecological and historic archive with

preserved artefacts from past human societies and a wealth of information

about our changing environment, land management and climate. Peatlands

are important source catchments for drinking water and also have a role in the

regulation of water ows.

Blanket bog of the Flow Country, Forsinard © RSPB

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

However, the majority of the peatland resource is damaged or deteriorating,

through drainage, peat cutting, re and the effect of livestock. Climate change

is likely to cause further deterioration of damaged peatlands with increased

erosion, carbon loss, oods and risk of wildres. This ongoing deterioration

of the UK’s peatlands represents a highly signicant hidden cost to society,

particularly through increased greenhouse gas emissions, wildlife loss and

reduced water quality.

Restoration of damaged peatlands to a naturally functioning state is vital to

ensure that carbon stored in the peat soil is locked up long into the future and to

safeguard nationally and internationally important wildlife. Restoration ensures

that these vital ecosystem services are maintained. Restoration is a cost-

effective way of resolving some of our most urgent environmental problems and

avoiding increasing future costs, as problems become larger and restoration

becomes harder and more expensive.

Peatland restoration and conservation are already at the heart of high level

strategic decisions being taken at a national and international level to deal with

climate change and the way land and water is managed. Global conventions

on biodiversity and climate change have seen world leaders agreeing on the

need for urgent action on peatlands. At the EU level, the reform of the Common

Agriculture Policy, the delivery of the Water Framework Directive and goals of

the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020 (European Commission 2011) present key

opportunities to help protect and restore peatlands at a far greater scale and

rate than we have achieved in the past.

At the UK and devolved government level, natural heritage, agriculture, water,

climate change and development planning policy all recognise peatlands

as important. However, these policy commitments are not yet effectively

coordinated or operating at the right scale and intensity to properly redress

the past damage, even within our most protected peatland sites. This report

explains how a UK wide, coordinated, funded peatland restoration delivery

programme with agreed areas, targets and timescales could achieve effective

conservation of the UK’s peatland natural capital with its important biodiversity

and services. As a globally inuential and peatland-rich nation, the UK is in a

strong position to show leadership by resolving the current failure to recognise

peatlands’ values and by investing in restoration and sustainable management.

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

2. WHAT ARE PEATLANDS?

“Peatlands are a crucial component of the Earth’s interacting landscape, biosphere

and climate systems. It is therefore right that we should do all we can to protect

peatlands so that they can continue to support a healthy Earth system and provide

a wide range of global, national and local benets for future generations.”

Joseph Holden, Professor of Physical Geography, University of Leeds

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Peatlands are areas of land with a naturally accumulated layer of peat,

formed from carbon rich dead and decaying plant material under water logged

conditions. Mosses, mainly Sphagnum species, are the main peat formers in

the UK. Semi-natural and undamaged peatlands can accumulate carbon at a

rate of 30-70 tonnes of carbon per km2 per year (Billett et al. 2010; Worrall et al.

2010b). In the UK, many peatland areas have been accumulating carbon since

the retreat of the last glaciers approximately 10,000 years ago and some peats

are more than 10 metres deep.

Peatlands develop under a range of different wetland vegetation, including

lowland or upland fens, reed beds, wet woodland and bogs. The Commission of

Inquiry focuses mainly on blanket bogs and raised bogs on deep peat (depths

of at least 30-50 cm), while recognising the importance of other peatland types

such as fens.

Blanket bog in the Flow Country © Norman Russell

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Denitions as used in this report

Land with a carbon rich peat soil. The soil may or may not

be currently covered by peat forming vegetation.

Peat soils of depths greater than 30-50 cm1 and up to 12 m

in some places.

Vegetation composed of species, such as Sphagnum

mosses or cotton grass, that grow in waterlogged conditions

and that decompose only slowly. High water tables and cool

climatic conditions further slow plant litter decomposition,

forming peat.

Restoration returns semi-natural vegetation cover, with

its typical species and habitats, to damaged peatland,

reducing or halting carbon loss and ideally allowing peat

accumulation to take place again. Restoration management

may range from slight adjustments, such as altering

grazing levels, to more substantial works such as changing

hydrology through ditch blocking or stabilising peat through

re-vegetation of bare eroding peat.

A habitat where deep deposits of peat blanket the

landscape. Includes habitat areas with peat accumulation

as well as degraded habitat with peat oxidation and erosion.

Natural blanket bog is usually rich in Sphagnum mosses

although there are many degraded variants, often with less

Sphagnum and more sedges, grasses and heather.

Bog habitat characterised by an accumulation of peat that

rises above the surrounding landscape often in lowland wet

oodplains and/or often over surface of existing fen peat.

Includes both active and degraded versions with semi-

natural vegetation.

The benets people and society obtain from the natural

environment, eg regulating services such as climate change

mitigation through carbon sequestration and storage.

Peatlands

Peat-forming

vegetation

Restoration

Blanket Bog

Raised Bog

Ecosystem

services

Deep peaty soil

1 Peat soils are dened as having at least 30 cm depth of peat at European level, but have been mapped using

40cm depths in England and Wales, and 50 cm depths in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In many areas, the

accuracy of these maps means that there is considerable variation in the actual depth of peat in mapped

peatland areas (see JNCC 2011).

For full denitions please refer to the glossary provided in JNCC report 445 (JNCC 2011)

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Natural peat-forming blanket bogs and raised bogs are characterised by having

a two-layered structure, which inuences the way peat is formed, carbon is xed

and water ows.

The surface layer, the acrotelm, is composed of the most recently deposited

material (top 10-20 cm). This top layer has a live matrix of growing plants, most

often Sphagnum. Here, carbon is sequestered and peat is formed and passed

to the lower layer, the catotelm.

The base layer, the catotelm, remains permanently waterlogged and anaerobic.

The lack of oxygen slows decomposition to extremely low levels. This layer

therefore acts as a passive storage layer of deposited peat for millennia.

Without some form of living acrotelm, peat does not accumulate in the catotelm

(Lindsay 2010).

Within the surface peat layer, the water table uctuates and water moves quite

freely. In the permanently water-logged catotelm water movement is extremely

slow. Run-off and nutrient transfer almost all occurs in the upper peat layer, with

up to 95% of run-off conned to the top 10 cm (Holden 2009).

Peat Structure

Figure 1 Peat structure in a natural, functioning bog; reproduction with kind permission from Lind-

say (2010), based on Clymo (1992)

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Fens

Fens are important peatland habitats. The UK supports a wide variety of

different fen types, which are among our most species rich and rare habitats.

Restoration of fen peatlands is important, as these can support some of our

deepest peat, and have been widely subject to the most intensive drainage

and agricultural management, leading to rapid loss of biodiversity, stored

carbon and water regulating functions. Fen habitats are not fully covered by

this Commission of Inquiry, but recent years have seen an increase in UK fen

activity, notably the Wetland Vision Partnership www.wetlandvision.org.uk, the

Fen Management Handbook www.snh.gov.uk/docs/B823264.pdf the Great Fen

project, the Anglesey and Llyn Fens LIFE project and others.

Sutton Fen RSPB Reserve, Norfolk © Ben Hall, RSPB Images

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

3. WHAT IS THE DISTRIBUTION

OF PEATLANDS?

“Peatland management remains both inuenced and dependent on continued

agricultural infrastructure of farms and crofts. As we move from the past policy

drivers which intensied environmental pressures, we now need the right

incentives for farmers to help deliver the peatlands in a state that provides

wider benets.”

Jonathan Hall, Head of Rural Policy, National Farmers Union Scotland

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Found from the tropics to the poles, and in 175 countries, peatlands cover

around 4 million km2 or 3% of the world land area (Joosten 2009). In Europe,

peatlands extend to ca. 515,000 km2. The UK has between 9-15% of Europe’s

peatland area and about 13% of the world’s blanket bog (Tallis 1998).

There are three main types of peatland in the UK: blanket bogs, raised bogs

and fens. All three types of peatland habitats are protected under international

and national wildlife law. They include six habitat types identied as priorities

for conservation within the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (Littlewood et al. 2010;

Natural England 2010; JNCC 2011).

The UK Biodiversity Action Plan lists 23,000 km2 of bog and fen peatland

habitat in the UK covering about 9.5% of the UK, with the majority in Scotland

(UK Biodiversity Group 1999). Peaty soils in the UK, however, are much more

extensive and indicate where peatland habitats existed in the past. Deep

peaty soils cover around 33,000 km2 with shallow peaty soils covering another

47,000 km2 – a third of all UK soils (JNCC 2011). In the UK, blanket and raised

bogs make up 95% of all peatland habitats (Table 1). The majority of UK bog

peatlands are in private ownership.

Figure 2 Distribution of peatlands across the world; reproduction with kind permission

from Joosten (2009)

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Soil map data UK BAP data

Shallow peaty or

organo-mineral soil

[km2]

Deep peaty or

organic soil

[km2]

Bogs

[km2]

Fens*

[km2]

England 7,386 6,799 2,727 80

Wales 3,592 706 718 62

Northern Ireland 1,417 2,064 1,609 30

Scotland 34,612 23,269 17,720 86

Total area 47,007 32,838 22,775 258

UK area cover 19.30% 13.48% 9.35% 0.11%

Table 1 Summary of organic-rich soils extent and bogs and fen UK BAP type extent; adapted with

kind permission from JNCC (2011)

* current best estimates of fen habitat, but actual area may be much larger (Peter Jones, CCW,

pers. comm.)

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Figure 3 Peat and peaty soils of the United Kingdom (map reproduced from JNCC 2011). Deep peat soils (dark

brown), shallow peaty soils (green), wasted deep peat soils (light brown). Peat in South-East England is largely

fen peat. Reproduction by permission of OS on behalf of HMSO@ Crown copyright and database Right 2010,

MLURI 100019294, AFBI 1:50000 soil digital Data, National soil Maps @ Craneld University, BGS 1:50000

digital data (license 2006/072)

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Peatlands in British Overseas Territories

UK Overseas dependencies also support some large areas of peatlands,

particularly in the Falkland Islands. The Falklands may support some of the

least disturbed soils on the planet, with soil processes progressing here, largely,

undisturbed for 150 million years. Some 45% of the 12,173 km2 Falkland land

area is thought to be blanket peat (over 5,470 km2) (Wilson et al. 1993). This

area is comparable to deep peat coverage in England. The remaining area of

lowland Falklands are dominated by shallower peaty soils.

Important peatland areas are also found in South Georgia, a Ramsar site with

coastal peatlands, the Bermuda islands with inland peat marshes and wet

woodlands as well as Gough and Inaccessible Islands of the UK overseas

territory of Tristan da Cunha, which are designated as a biological World

Heritage Site and a Ramsar site in recognition of their international importance

site for birds and wetland communities. Other examples include the mountain

top humid cloud forests of St Helena and Ascension Islands and peat swamp

forests in the Turks and Caicos Islands and the Cayman Islands.

The extensive peatlands in the UK overseas territories are threatened by many

of the same factors that have affected peatlands in the UK home territories: re,

livestock, drainage, agricultural improvement and forestry planting, leading to

erosion and potential loss of the peat carbon. In addition to these, the delicate

and unique ecosystems of many of these small island territories have been

threatened by the introduction, accidental or deliberate, of alien species, which

can overrun native vegetation or directly predate wildlife.

Work in the Falklands and Bermuda is now underway to restore and conserve

the peatlands and to prevent future threats. For more information see brief

summary of peatland in British Overseas Territories with web links to further

information (IUCN UK Peatland Programme 2011).

Peatland in the Falkland Islands © Jim McAdam

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

4. WHAT KEY SERVICES ARE DELIVERED

BY PEATLANDS?

“There appear to be few downsides to peatland restoration and a real potential

for cost savings in providing long term public water supply. Peatland restoration

offers a more sustainable future in water quality terms, as we’re addressing

the causes of poor water quality, not treating the worsening symptoms.”

Andrew Walker, Catchment Development Leader, Yorkshire Water

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Peatlands are extremely important for human well-being (Bonn et al. 2009a;

van der Wal et al. 2011). What sets peatlands signicantly apart from other

ecosystems is their capacity for long-term carbon storage (Lindsay 2010;

Joosten 2011). Undamaged peatlands are waterlogged, which slows down

decomposition and enables semi-decomposed plant remains to be laid down

as peat. Carbon is removed from the atmosphere into the plant tissues by

photosynthesis and it is then stored in the dead plant remains, often over

millennia, as a thick layer of peat. This also allows for the preservation of

palaeo-environmental and archaeological remains. Since peatlands occur in

areas of high rainfall, peatland dominated upland catchments are also source

habitats for drinking water and play a role in ood water regulation. They also

provide places of solitude with a sense of freedom and inspiration for millions

of people. As waterlogged ecosystems, peatlands are habitats for many

specialised, rare and endangered species recognised as important under

international and national law. Many of these regulating and cultural benets

provided by peatlands take the form of non-market ‘public goods’ and are not

traditionally paid for through market transactions. The importance and value of

these services have been underestimated in the past.

In contrast, despite being less well suited for agriculture and forestry due to

their waterlogged condition, peatlands have been exploited for provisioning

goods, such as food and timber, often to the detriment of the ecosystem and

its provision of other services. In general, this production was encouraged

by grants and subsidies, e.g. for agricultural drainage and forestry planting

(Condliffe 2009). These incentives no longer remain, yet the true value of the

services provided by a functioning peatland is not fully reected in funding for

sustainable management. Below, we illustrate the potential of peatlands to

provide valuable services to society and the impact of damaging activities as

well as the potential for restoring these by focussing on four main services.

4.1 Climate regulation

Globally, peatlands store more carbon than the world’s rainforests.

Peatlands are globally important in the world’s efforts to stop dangerous climate

change for two reasons. Firstly, they store an enormous amount of carbon.

Peatlands cover only 3% of the world’s land surface yet form a huge store of

carbon, more than twice that of the world’s forest biomass, and containing 30%

of the total global soil carbon (Joosten 2011). They constitute the most spatially

efcient store of carbon of all terrestrial ecosystems. A loss of just 1.6% of

global peat would equate to the total global annual anthropogenic greenhouse

gas emissions. When peatlands are damaged e.g. by re or overgrazing

this carbon can be released, turning a carbon sink into a source. A growing

international awareness of their vulnerability is leading to an increased pressure

to minimize human impacts on peatlands (Joosten 2009; Verhagen et al. 2009).

Secondly, undamaged bogs remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere

(sequestration) through photosynthesis in mosses and other peatlands plants

and the carbon is stored in the peat which is composed of the dead, plant

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

remains. Temperate peatlands contain on average seven times more carbon per

hectare than any other ecosystem of that climatic zone. This is because even

the most productive non-peatland ecosystems eventually reach a stage where

the carbon capture slows down and the total amount of carbon stored in the soil

and vegetation levels off. In peatlands, the soil carbon store keeps growing as

the peat deposit deepens.

At a European scale, the UK’s peatlands contain among the highest

concentrations of stored carbon (Figure 4). Within the UK, peatlands

represent the single most important terrestrial carbon store with deep peat

bogs containing over 3,200 million tonnes of carbon (Worrall et al. 2010b),

approximately twenty times that of UK forests. Scotland holds around half of the

UK’s peatland carbon. This store can only be maintained, if peatlands remain

wet, or are rewetted where they have dried out. A loss of only 5% of UK peat

carbon would equate to the total annual UK human green house gas emissions.

It is therefore vital for the UK to avoid the huge losses arising from peatland

damage in order to meet its international obligations in tackling global warming.

Figure 4 Peatland distribution across Europe. The UK hosts a high percentage of deep peat

soils largely in the form of blanket bog peatlands; from Montanarella et al. (2006), reproduced by

permission of the journal Mires and Peat, acknowledging the European Soil Bureau Network and

the Joint Research Centre, Ispra (I), European Commission as the original source.

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Semi-natural and natural bog peatlands may remove approximately

30-70 tonnes of carbon per km2 per year from the atmosphere (Billett et al.

2010; Worrall et al. 2010b). However, peatlands also produce methane

– a greenhouse gas that is several times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Some studies suggest that in the short-term, peatland carbon sequestration is

at times outweighed by methane emissions. In the long-term, however, given

the relatively short lifespan of methane in the atmosphere, the amount of carbon

sequestered outweighs the methane emitted. So, overall, intact blanket and

raised bogs reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Peatlands occur naturally in wet places.

A continuously high water table prevents

normal decomposition of plant material.

In this way, carbon that plants assimilated

during their lifetime is stored in the soil

(carbon sequestration). This leads to the

formation of peat, which is deposited

layer on layer over millennia and stored

sometimes for millions of years (carbon

storage).

Drainage, peat extraction, afforestation,

inappropriate burning or conversion to

agriculture, lower the water table. As a

result the peat becomes exposed and

aerated. The stored carbon reacts with

oxygen, decomposes and is released

as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere

(greenhouse gas emissions).

Furthermore, these activities lead to

degradation of wildlife habitat, erosion and

a decline in water quality as well as to the

loss of the historic peat archive.

Peatlands need to stay wet

Figure 5 Schematic gas uxes of carbon dioxide from natural peatlands and degraded peat-

lands; reproduction with kind permission from DER SPIEGEL (Bode et al. 2010)

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

When drained, peatlands become major sources of greenhouse gases.

Small disruptions to the hydrology of peatlands can upset the balance from

carbon sink to carbon source. Lowered water tables allow oxygen to penetrate

the formerly permanently waterlogged peat allowing rapid decomposition

(Figure 5, 6).

Damaged UK peatlands are releasing almost 3.7 million tonnes CO2e (Carbon

dioxide equivalent2) each year (Worrall et al. 2011) – equal to the average

emissions of around 660,000 UK households, more than all the households of

Edinburgh, Cardiff and Leeds combined.

How much CO2 is released from drained peatlands depends on the type of land

use and geography. The more intensively the peatland is drained, the quicker

the peat degrades (oxidises) and the higher the losses of greenhouse gases.

These emissions continue for as long as the peat remains drained and may

continue for hundreds of years until all the peat is lost. It is this combination

of ‘large’ and ‘long-term’ emissions that make the climate effect of drained

peatlands fundamentally different from that of other ecosystems (Joosten 2011).

There are several routes by which soil organic carbon is lost from peat bogs

(Worrall et al. 2010b). Losses can be as a gas – carbon dioxide (CO2) or

methane (CH4), as particulate organic carbon by direct erosion or as dissolved

organic carbon in rainwater drainage and runoff. Carbon borne away in water

may generate greenhouse gases further downstream (Battin et al. 2008;

2 The carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) allows the different greenhouse gases to be compared on a like-for-like

basis relative to one unit of CO2. www.carbontrust.co.uk

Figure 6 Annual CO2 emissions of peat soils are higher under reduced mean annual water tables; reproduction

with kind permission from Couwenberg and Van den Akker (see also Verhagen et al. 2009; Couwenberg et al.2011)

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Pawson et al. 2008). Different types of losses and routes of loss impact on other

ecosystem services such as drinking water quality. There are now signicant

advances to develop standardised methods for assessing greenhouse gas

emissions from peatlands using vegetation cover as a proxy (Couwenberg et al.

2011). In addition, research is in progress to establish the extent to which non-

gaseous particulate or dissolved peatland carbon lost into watercourses results

in greenhouse gas emissions.

Globally 500,000 km2 of drained peatlands release as much as 2,000 million

tons of CO2 annually, with the UK as one of the top twenty peatland CO2 emitting

countries (Joosten 2009, 2011). International climate change agreements are

focussing on reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases with targets of up

to 80% reduction on 1990 levels by 2050. The United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) provides the framework for action

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Kaat & Joosten 2009). The technical

capacity, practical methodologies and user-friendly guidance for reporting and

accounting for the most signicant sources of emissions from peatlands are

already available or within reach before the start of the Kyoto Protocol’s second

commitment period in 2013 (Joosten 2011). Under proposed changes to the

Kyoto Protocol rules on land use, peatlands could feature more strongly in

national greenhouse gas accounting processes, with greater recognition given to

the benets of rewetting damaged peatland. Standards for trading carbon credits

from peatland on the high-quality-level international voluntary market have been

available since March 2011 with a veried carbon standard (www.v-c-s.org).

Restoration of peatlands is a low cost and effective method of reducing

greenhouse gas emissions from peatlands. This is true for heavily degraded and

eroded peat bogs as well as for those still supporting bog habitats where the

water levels are lowered.

Gas ux monitoring at Forsinard © Norman Russell

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Peatland rewetting may be signicant in relation to national climate change

targets. Figure 7 illustrates that rewetting a gripped peatland by blocking

drainage ditches has the potential to reduce emissions by over 250 tonnes

CO2e per km2 per year. This takes into account the temporary, increased

methane emissions which can arise in some situations from restoring peatland.

Even with methane emissions the benets of restoration clearly outweigh the

carbon losses from damaged peatlands (Baird et al. 2009).

The climate change impacts of peat bogs and restoration

The carbon benets of peatland restoration are threefold: reduced loss,

transitionary gain and a long-term gain (from Worrall et al. 2010b).

Reduced loss: Restoration changes a damaged peatland from a large net

source of carbon to a greatly diminished source.

Transitionary gain: The transitionary stage from damaged to restored peatland

can be of carbon benet due to both reduced losses and net gains of carbon.

For example, gully restoration might allow the re-vegetation of a gully oor,

reducing peat erosion and allowing peat to accumulate in the gully as well as

trapping carbon in the new vegetation.

Long-term gain: Restored peatlands generally accumulate carbon and provide

a long-term sink as atmospheric carbon is laid down as peat. Not all restored

peatlands may be immediate carbon sinks (due to localised, temporary,

methane emissions in some cases) but all have a smaller global warming

potential than damaged peatlands. Restoration is therefore benecial from a

greenhouse gas emissions mitigation perspective (Baird et al. 2009; Worrall et

al. 2010b; Joosten 2011).

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Blocked grip, Flow Country

Results of grip damming

Brown syke grip © Andrew Keen

Sphagnum, the sign of a

healthy bog © RSPB

Figure 7 Global Warming Potential (GWP) of UK peat bogs under natural, drained and rewetted state (gures are illustrative, using

conservative estimates, based on Silvola et al. 1996; Byrne et al. 2004; Wallage et al. 2006; Holden et al. 2007; Minkkinen et al.

2007; MacNamara et al. 2008; Billett et al. 2010; Worrall et al. 2010b; Couwenberg et al. 2011; Worrall et al. 2011).

Global warming potential of peat bogs

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

4.2 Biodiversity conservation

Peatlands form a highly signicant part of the UK’s natural heritage value.

Nationally, conserving and reversing the deterioration of Sphagnum dominated

bog habitat is a major priority for the UK Biodiversity Habitat Action Plans for

blanket bog and raised bog and for several Species Action Plans. Because of

the extreme conditions in peatland habitats they generally lack a high diversity

of species per unit area. But those plants and animals which do occur are

of high biodiversity importance because of their rarity or threatened state

nationally and internationally. The presence and abundance of these important

peatland species gives a more valuable indication of the state and health of the

ecosystem than simply using measures of species diversity or richness.

Peatlands support a large proportion of the plant and animal species which are

adapted to waterlogged, acidic and nutrient-poor conditions (Littlewood et al.

2010). These species include a range of rare, threatened or declining animals

and plants, such as rare species of Sphagnum mosses (e.g. Sphagnum austinii)

or invertebrates (such as the bog hovery Eristalis cryptarum). UK peatlands

support an important bird assemblage with an exceptionally high proportion

of species with legal protection under UK and European conservation law.

Bird species for which UK peatlands are especially important for conservation

include golden plover (Pluvialis apricaria), greenshank (Tringa nebularia),

red-throated diver (Gavia stellata), dunlin (Calidris alpina) and common scoter

(Melanitta nigra). Areas of peatland, such as the Flow Country in Scotland,

support some of the highest breeding densities of greenshank in Europe.

Sundew, a carnivorous plant © Norman Russell

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Blanket bogs and raised bogs are priorities for

conservation under the EC Habitats Directive.

The high importance of UK peatland habitats,

bird, invertebrate and plant assemblage is

recognised in the designation as Special

Protection Areas (SPA) and Special Areas

for Conservation (SAC) under EU wildlife

legislation. In England, 2196 km2 of deep

peaty soils are designated as SPA and/or

SAC. For Scotland the areas of qualifying

habitat in SACs are: blanket bog 2164 km2,

active raised bog 22 km2 and degraded raised

bog 19 km2. Nationally, a large proportion

of peatlands are included in land areas that

are designated for their biodiversity as Sites

or Areas of Special of Scientic Interest

(SSSI/ ASSI) and for their landscape value

as National Parks and Areas of Outstanding

Natural Beauty. In England, 2478 km2 SSSIs

are on deep peaty soils, of which 2226 km2 is

blanket bog or raised bog.

As peatland species are highly adapted to

acidic, waterlogged and nutrient-poor peatland

conditions, they are very sensitive to changes

in land management activity as well as

climate change and atmospheric deposition of

pollutants.

Northern Emerald Dragon Fly (Somatochlora arctica)

Bog cranberry © Norman Russell

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Dunlin © RSPB

Sphagnum mosses are key to peatland ecossystem functioning

Sphagnum mosses are keystone species for providing a range of ecosystem

services. Sphagnum mosses are the main peat forming species, thereby

contributing to carbon sequestration and carbon storage. Furthermore,

Sphagnum-dominated vegetation does not facilitate methane release unlike

vegetation dominated by various vascular plants (Frenzel & Karofeld 2000).

Some Sphagnum species hold up to 20 times their dry weight in water and with

their brous structure play a signicant role in moderating water ow and thus

helping to reduce downstream impacts of heavy rain.

There are 34 Sphagnum species in the UK, of which only ve species are major

peat formers, and two of these are rare today. Sphagnum species have their

growing points at the tips and are therefore easily damaged or destroyed by

grazing, burning, trampling and drainage.

Sphagnum tenellum © Andy Amphlett

Figure 8 Dunlin populations are closely associated with areas of high Sphagnum

cover in peat bogs; graph reproduced with kind permission of RSPB (Stephen et al. 2011).

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

A fully functioning, carbon sequestering peatland contains a mix of specialised

peatland plant species (with a prominent representation of Sphagnum mosses).

Lowered water levels are characterised by a replacement of Sphagnum-rich

hummocks, lawns and pools to a atter surface dominated by heathland species

(sedges, grasses and heather). Figure 9 also shows how particular species of

bog Sphagnum, some of which are nationally important, are vulnerable to falling

water tables (Lindsay 2010). Vegetation type and structure can therefore be an

effective guide to the state of a peatland.

Peatlands are popular places for people to visit, for example, the peatland

dominated upland English National Parks receive close to 60 million day visitors

a year. This is on a par with visits to the UK’s greatest monuments. Typical

peatland wildlife provides an unusual and stimulating experience that attracts

visitors from the UK and abroad, providing employment and tourism income

(Macpherson Research 1997). Many peatlands are in remote upland areas and

therefore offer experiences of wilderness and solitude, physical challenge and

inspiration, not easily experienced elsewhere (Bonn et al 2009b).

Peatlands are an important visitor attraction © Norman Russell

Figure 9 Effects of a lowering water table on vegetation. With lowered water table, the peat surface

will also subside and shrink - not shown in this graph for simplicity; reproduction with kind permis-

sion of Lindsay (2010)

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

4.3 Water regulation

Peatlands are the headwaters for some of the UK’s major water supply areas.

They can also play a role in regulating ood ows to downstream areas.

Water derived from functioning peatlands is naturally of very high quality.

However, over the last 30 years, the amount of dissolved organic carbon (DOC),

the brown colour of peaty water, has doubled across many UK catchments

(Labadz et al. 2010). To meet drinking water quality standards set out in the

European Drinking Water Directive, DOC has to be removed from drinking

water supplies, as otherwise chlorination during water treatment results in the

production of carcinogens. Removing DOC can be extremely costly for water

companies, especially if new treatment processes need to be added.

A number of reasons for increased DOC have been put forward, including

responses to increased temperatures (Worrall & Burt 2004) and recovery from

the effects of acid rain (Monteith et al. 2007). These processes act at a large

spatial and temporal scale. At a localised, catchment scale, there is evidence

that peatland condition and management can contribute to colour production

with damaged peatlands being associated with higher colour. For example,

dominant heather cover can lead to enhanced DOC levels in comparison to

Sphagnum-dominated blanket bog vegetation (Limpens et al. 2008, Holden et

al. 2011). Some studies point to the importance of recent burns in increasing

water colour (Yallop et al. 2010). The evidence on the direct effects of burning

is conicting, possibly because of the use of different methodologies (Worrall

Figure 10 Effects of grip blocking on DOC levels. While DOC levels initially increased in grips after

blocking in the rst 18 months, overall DOC concentrations in streams, however, did not change and

reductions in ow led to very large reductions in load (data from Lorraine Wilson, see also Wilson et al.

2011b)

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

et al. 2010c; Holden et al. 2011) and may be linked to the different scales of

investigation of these studies (Clark et al. 2010b).

Restoring peatlands within water catchments can help to improve water quality

(as peatlands often lie across catchment borders, action may be required over

more than one catchment). Grip blocking has been found to reduce dissolved

organic carbon in streams (Wallage et al. 2006; Armstrong et al. 2010; Wilson

et al. 2011b). Sediment and associated particulate organic carbon loads from

water coming out of degraded peatlands can also be very high, with bare peat

areas exporting up to 260 kg sediment per km2 per year or 100 kg carbon due

to erosion (Evans et al. 2006). Re-vegetation can stop surface erosion within

3-4 years and thereby minimise sediment and particulate organic carbon export

(Evans et al. 2009).

Restoration of damaged peatlands may also contribute to some amelioration

of ooding. The water table in intact peatlands uctuates a little, but is usually

close to the surface. The capacity to store signicant additional water is

therefore low and rain runs off intact peatlands quickly. However, the creation

of drainage channels accelerates the rate at which water leaves a peatland.

Blocking grips is likely to lead to less ashy peak ows a longer water retention

time and therefore slower run off rates (Figure 11, Labadz et al. 2010; Wilson et

al. 2011a). The greatest effect will result from blocking grips with large upslope

‘catchments’ (contributing areas) (Lane et al, 2004). Blocking grips elsewhere

in the peatland unit, however, is still important for restoring peatland function

including increased Sphagnum growth.

Run off may also be accelerated by the loss of vegetation, increased areas

of bare peat and desiccation, in damaged peatland, which can lead to peat

becoming so dry that water will no longer inltrate and thereby enhance quick

run-off and potentially exacerbate ood impact. Conversely, in areas with

vegetation cover ow peaks can be reduced and slightly delayed compared to

High levels of dissolved organic carbon (DOC)

may be lost from degraded peatlands

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

bare peat (Grayson et al. 2010). Catchment modelling indicates similar results

at a large scale (Holden in Bonn et al. 2010) and plot scale studies point to

Sphagnum being important in reducing ow velocities (Holden et al. 2008).

Slower run off and less ashiness helps with ood amelioration. Whilst grip

blocking does seem to have the potential to inuence local runoff, evidence is

still being gathered about how far these benets can be seen downstream.

4.4 Sense of place: historic environment conservation

Peatlands offer a tremendous insight into our past (Geary et al. 2010). Some of

our peatlands began forming after the last Ice Age and others developed later,

but UK peatlands in both uplands and lowlands have their origin in prehistory.

Some of the most evocative archaeological discoveries of the last century

come from peatlands. For example, the 4th millennium BC footpath, the ‘Sweet

Track’ in the Somerset Levels, and the best preserved ancient human remains

in the UK, the ‘bog body’ known as Lindow Man from Cheshire, were found in

peatlands.

Figure 11 Change in baseow and runoff after grip blocking. Blocking grips leads to reduced runoff with more

water retained on the bog (Efciency index) and a less concentrated ood response (Flashiness index).

Data from Lorraine Wilson, see also Wilson et al. (2010; 2011a)

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Peatlands maintain a unique archive of our cultural

past. Beneath the peat, large tracts of prehistoric

landscapes lie protected from modern disturbances.

The waterlogged peat matrix itself is an oxygen-

free environment, and in such conditions objects

and structures made of wood and plants survive for

millennia. The peatlands in the UK have preserved

some of the oldest roads and tracks, houses and

settlements, monuments and artefacts. It has been

estimated that in excess of 20,500 archaeological

sites exist beneath and within the peat in the UK

(Geary et al. 2010). Peatlands themselves also form

part of the historic landscape and contain evidence

of peat cutting, which goes back to the Roman period

and continued through the Middle Ages, offering an

alternative source for fuel. Some peatlands were

designated as medieval royal hunting forests (forest

in this period meant any land supporting game and

was not necessarily tree covered).

Lindow Man – the Iron Age bog body retrieved

during peat cutting in Lindow Moss, Cheshire, in

1984 © Trustees of the British Museum

Complex stratigraphy of peatlands tells stories about past

environmental change © Norá Bermingham

Late Neolithic trackway and platform on Hateld Moors, South Yorkshire ©

Henry Chapman

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Peatlands also record environmental change, as the peat layers of different

depth can be dated. This archive includes the history of the peatlands

themselves, in the form of the remains of the plants that make up the peat and

of the insects that lived on the bogs. We can also learn of past changes in the

landscape beyond the peatlands, which can be reconstructed from the pollen

that blew into peatlands. Occasionally, microscopic glass-like particles from

volcanic eruptions, known as tephra, settled down on peatlands. Together,

these archives of the environmental past provide unequalled information on

past climate and environmental change. Studies undertaken in peatlands have

contributed greatly to our understanding of global climate change (Charman

2002).

Peatlands provide many people with a ‘sense of place’. As large semi-natural

landscapes, they can provide local communities a sense of inspiration and

connectedness with their natural environment. This is reected in many ancient

local stories, legends and poems. Whilst peatlands have come to be regarded

and valued as wildernesses in some places, elsewhere peatland landscapes

have been formed through the centuries-long utilisation of the peat itself, and

this activity has contributed to the way communities understand peatlands.

Many communities have memories of people utilising peatlands for fuel,

eld sports or agriculture in the past and more recently. Identication and

presentation of this cultural and natural heritage can benet local economies

through the development of associated tourism.

Peat itself is used in some products and production processes. For example,

Sphagnum mosses were used for surgical dressings in the First World War.

In parts of the North and West Highlands and Islands of Scotland peat is still

cut and used as a fuel. Peat smoke is used in the production of some Scottish

single-malt whiskies, with the smoke absorbed by the malt giving a distinctive

avour. The water sources for many whisky distilleries also arise in peatlands. In

this way, peat has a signicant role in an important part of the Scottish economy

and helps dene local identities. One of the issues facing peatlands is that

memories of the past activities have largely involved damage to the peatland.

The challenge ahead is to manage peatland uses in ways that minimise the

damage and to look at new economic and employment opportunities such

as recreation and tourism or work in peatland restoration with volunteers and

contractors.

When peatlands deteriorate, their ability to provide a cultural and environmental

archive diminishes. Peat extraction, drainage, and other damaging land

management cause the exposure, oxidation and eventual destruction of these

archives. Peatland restoration is needed in order to preserve the historical value

of peatlands for future generations.

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

5. WHAT IS THE STATE OF UK PEATLANDS?

“Making a commitment to maintain and restore peatlands in line with national

and international biodiversity objectives offers the prospect of wider carbon and

water benets. There is clear evidence on the benets of peatlands to society

and, critically, mounting experience on how to manage them across the UK.”

Susan Davies, Director of Policy and Advice, Scottish Natural Heritage

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

The best available evidence suggests that less than 20% of UK blanket bog is

in a natural or near-natural condition (Littlewood et al. 2010). The majority of

UK peatlands are not peat forming: 16% are severely eroded, 10% have been

afforested, 11% are affected by past peat cutting and 40% have been modied

or destroyed by conversion to agriculture (Littlewood et al. 2010).

Within the most important, nationally and internationally protected sites (SSSIs/

SACs / SPAs), only around half (58%) of the blanket bog habitat is considered

to be in favourable condition (JNCC 2011). Of the remainder, only 15% is

considered to be recovering as a result of restoration work. For designated

lowland raised bog sites, the situation is even worse, with only around 20%

considered to be in favourable condition although 35% of the remainder is

under restoration management.

Peatland species are also under threat. Most of those identied as priority for

conservation under UK Biodiversity Action Plans (BAP) are still declining (JNCC

2011).

The UK Blanket Bog Habitat Action Plan set a target of restoring 845,000 ha

of blanket bog by 2015 (UK Biodiversity Group 1999), of which 620,000 ha

could be readily restored by adjustment in management. There are also many

more heavily eroded areas that need intensive restoration, including 22,500 ha

targeted by the UK BAP.

It is difcult to present a detailed picture of the state of UK peatlands because

different countries within the UK have developed different soil denitions

and different approaches to recording land use and cover (JNCC 2011). For

Great Britain (excluding Northern Ireland), the Countryside Survey 2007 data

indicates that, among survey kilometre squares with the most organic soils,

around a quarter of the survey squares remain dominated by “bog” or blanket

bog vegetation. However, for England for example, this matches only around

half of the area mapped as BAP priority habitat (JNCC 2011) suggesting some

degradation. Some 18% of this sample area is vegetated with acid grassland,

11 % is planted with coniferous forest and 13% supports upland heath, perhaps

reecting rotational burning management.

Scotland retains the largest areas of semi-natural and bog habitats over its

peatlands, although the Land Cover Mapping for Scotland indicates large

areas of peatland dominated by “moorland” and coniferous forestry as well as

bog vegetation. England’s blanket bog peatlands are largely semi-natural but

around a third of English blanket peatlands are subject to rotational burning,

a fth have been drained by upland grips and a seventh are severely eroded.

England’s raised bog peatlands retain less bog or semi-natural vegetation:

two fths have been drained for agriculture, a sixth are afforested and at least

a seventh continues to be affected by peat extraction. Almost all blanket and

raised bog in England is subject to damaging levels of historic atmospheric

sulphur deposition and ongoing nitrogen deposition. In Wales, three fths of

the blanket bog habitat is described as “modied” (often supporting heath or

grassy vegetation) and a little under half the raised bog habitat is also modied.

Northern Ireland’s blanket bog peatlands are mainly vegetated with bog and

semi-natural vegetation, although most have been affected by drainage and

peat cutting in the past. Northern Ireland’s raised bogs continue to decline in

condition and extent.

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

The overall picture shows that the majority of upland blanket bogs retain semi-

natural vegetation, but continue to suffer the legacy of past activities such as

peat cutting and moorland drainage. They are subject to continued large-scale

land management such as rotational burning or forestry and may be subject

to damaging pollution. The UK’s raised bog peatlands are subject to similar

threats, but continue to suffer from ongoing or recent peat extraction and

have been subject to greater agricultural intensication. The issues faced by

peatlands within the UK are similar across all constituent countries and affect

huge areas of our most treasured wildlife habitats and landscapes. Past and

present management of our peatlands and the vegetation this has created,

continue to affect the ability of peatlands to deliver the key ecosystem services

they provide to the benet of society.

There are different stages and drivers of bog degradation

i. Intact fully functioning peatlands

Intact or semi-natural peatlands are normally

peat forming, because the water level

remains high throughout the year.

ii. Degraded peatlands

Degraded peatlands have different

characteristics on a continuum between

slightly damaged bog and bare peat.

These peatlands may have been affected

by drainage or a combination of land

management activities and pollution. The

vegetation composition and structure reect

the degree of change with dominance of

bog mosses being replaced by grasses or

heather.

Drained Weardale bog © North Pennines AONB Partnership

Functioning blanket bog, Forsinard © Norman Russell

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Some of the key damaging impacts are:

Gripping (or ditching): drains are cut into

the peat to lower water levels. Large areas

of peatland were drained with agriculture

subsidies in the late 20th century. Although

new drains are no longer funded, the old

drains continue to have an effect.

Afforestation: about 10% of UK blanket

bog has been planted with commercial

forestry. Afforestation on deep peat may

require drainage, cultivation and fertilisation,

which can lead to peat shrinkage, cracking

and oxidation which signicantly increases

greenhouse gas emissions. Since 1990,

there has been a steep decline in new

plantings on deep peat soils. The UK

Forestry Standard (Forestry Commission in

press) discourages planting forests on deep

peat soils and on sites that would affect the

hydrology of adjacent bog sites. In Scotland,

there is an interim general presumption

against woodland creation on soils with peat

exceeding 50cm in depth. Re-stocking deep

peat sites is discouraged, and these areas

can be the focus for open habitat restoration

(Anderson 2010; Morison et al. 2010).

Sheep and deer management: heavy

grazing and trampling by sheep and deer

changes both the composition of vegetation

and its structure. Overgrazing damages

sensitive plants and can cause more rapid

surface water ow. It generally increases

erosion, eventually leading to bare peat

and gullies. Light grazing may be benecial

for peatland biodiversity helping reduce

competing vegetation.

Fire: managed burning on sporting estates

is used to encourage new heather growth

with a varied age structure for grouse.

Poorly managed burning on blanket bog

can damage bog vegetation and encourage

heather growth. Burning for livestock and

deer is widespread, but more sporadic in

frequency and less well recorded, though

individual burns tend to cover larger areas.

Over frequent burning can damage blanket

bog vegetation causing peat degradation.

Upland grazing © Penny Anderson

Brown syke grip © Andrew Keen

Afforested peatland in the Flow Country © RSPB

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Damaged peat bogs are drier and thus

the risk of accidental wildre is particularly

high and one of the most severe threats

to peatland carbon stores, water quality

and wildlife. Wildres are also extremely

expensive. For more information see work by

the FIRES partnership group (McMorrow et

al. 2009; FIRES 2010).

Windfarms: the main new built development

activity on peatlands is for windfarms (Stunell

2010) and communication mast construction.

Associated works, such as access tracks and

turbine foundations, can damage peatland

hydrology causing the vegetation to change

or allow erosion with ecological and carbon

loss effects often beyond the footprint of

the construction area. A methodology for

calculating the carbon impact of windfarms

on peat has been developed (Scottish

Government 2011). Planning guidance and

voluntary agreements with the wind industry

recognise the need to limit the carbon

impact of development and to avoid deep

peat and areas of high environmental and

landscape signicance (Scottish Renewables

2010). Windfarms can also be associated

with peatland restoration work to help bring

carbon and ecological improvements.

Commercial peat extraction: commercial

peat extraction occurs mainly on raised

bogs to provide peat for gardening. The

mechanised peat removal has a major

ecological impact, stripping away the living

layer and subsequently exposing large

quantities of peat to oxidation and loss of

carbon. Neighbouring areas of bog within

the same hydrological unit can become

degraded as a result of the drastically

lowered water table. Currently, nearly 3

million cubic metres of peat are sold for

horticultural use every year in the UK, one

third of which comes from UK peatlands. The

main users are amateur gardeners (69%),

followed by industry (30%) and a small

percentage by local authorities (1%) (Defra

2010). Most peat use in the UK can readily

be replaced by more sustainable alternatives.

The growing media industry has developed

high quality products often using composted

green wastes which are now widely used.

Windfarm south of Farr, Inverness-shire © Duncan Brown

Heather burn © North Pennines AONB Partnership

Commercial peat extraction © RSPB

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

iii. Bare peat

Bare peat can arise over large areas, after

commercial peat cutting or in areas of heavy

degradation arising from land management

and pollution, e.g. by erosion started by

wild res, intensive trampling by livestock,

atmospheric deposition of pollutants or a

combination of these.

Bare peat can be exposed after wildres on

drained peatlands.

Gully erosion is a localised form of bare peat.

iv. Cultivated peatland

Cultivated peatlands still retain a signicant

depth of peat, but the plant cover has been

articially changed for agriculture, e.g. to

grassland for grazing or to arable crops. This

is generally found on lowland peatlands,

particularly fens, but also widespread

on some raised and blanket bog areas

especially in northwest England and the

north and east Highlands of Scotland.

Wasted peatland has lost both its peat-

forming vegetation and a signicant depth of

peat soil. Agriculturally wasted peatlands are

thought mainly to occur in lowland England,

however, extensive examples also occur in

Wales.

Bare peat on Kinderscout © Aletta Bonn

Carrots growing on peaty soil on Lakenheath Fen, Suffolk, in 1995

RSPB have been working to restore 200ha of arable land back to

a wetland.

Eroded gully © Aletta Bonn

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

5.1 Burning on peatlands

During the public consultation process, stakeholders suggested that managed

burning was an important driver of ecological change on peatlands. It was

considered that other key drivers, such as forestry (Morison et al. 2010),

wildres (FIRES 2010) or peat extraction for horticulture (Defra 2010), were

effectively reviewed elsewhere. The Inquiry therefore included managed burning

as a review topic, focussing on blanket bog and raised bogs, as distinct from

burning on upland heath.

Burning has occurred over centuries and the palaeo-ecological record shows

that many peatlands shifted from a Sphagnum dominated vegetation to less

peat forming vegetation after re. Understanding the consequences of managed

burning today needs to be seen in the context of the current damaged state

of many peatlands having been affected by past re, drainage and intensive

livestock grazing.

Managed burning on sporting estates is used to encourage new heather growth

to create a mosaic of stands of varied age structure for grouse (Worrall et al.

2010c), particularly on upland heaths on mineral soils or shallow peat. On deep

peat the practice is largely restricted to the east Scottish Highlands, Southern

Uplands and the Pennines (see Figure 12). Burning for sheep grazing is

widespread but more sporadic and less well recorded.

Figure 12 a) Distribution of peat soils in the UK (see Figure 3 this report, reproduction with permis-

sion from JNCC 2011). b) Burn intensity index across the UK. The index of burning reects the

extent of ‘strip’ burning presented at a 10 km resolution from mainly 2005 – 2006 satellite images.

Note, Shetland is omitted, but no strip burning occurs there; reproduction from Anderson et al.

(2009) with permission from Elsevier

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Poorly managed ‘hot’ burns can have severe damaging consequences for

peatland ecology, hydrology and soil processes. Such burning can degrade

bog habitat, with reductions or loss of key bog species and structural diversity

and can encourage more typically heath species (Ratcliffe 1964; Rowell 1990).

Burning can also impact on aquatic invertebrate communities in watercourses

in peatland catchments (Ramchunder et al. 2009). Recovery back to bog

species after a re depends on the frequency and intensity of the burn along

with other factors such as the condition of remaining bog vegetation, water

levels, livestock numbers and altitude. It has been suggested that ‘cool’ burns,

under the right controlled conditions, may be compatible with the initial stages

of peatland restoration management while rewetting takes place. There are few

studies on the benets and practicalities of burning over other techniques such

as cutting or layering (Lunt et al. 2010).

In bogs with high water tables and ample Sphagnum growth, burning should

not be necessary as the growth of Sphagnum forces heather to generate new

shoots as the peat builds up (Adamson & Kahl 2003).

A number of studies point to the importance of vegetation type being

associated with different greenhouse gas balances. Sphagnum dominated

vegetation with a high water table is shown to have greenhouse gas benets

over heather dominated deep peat (Lindsay 2010; Couwenberg et al. 2011).

Thus if management alters the vegetation cover of sites, it is likely to alter the

greenhouse gas balance (Worrall et al. 2010b)

Studies suggest that there are benets for carbon budgets from the absence

of burning on deep peat compared to burning (MacDonald 2008; Worrall et al.

2010a). The specic impacts of ‘cool’ burning over other forms of burning on the

overall carbon budget is not yet clear.

Water colour is a major concern in drinking water catchments and an indicator

that carbon is being lost from the ecosystem. Recent reviews suggest that

on balance, burning impacts on water quality and results in increased colour

(Holden et al. 2011). Sphagnum and cotton grass dominated vegetation has

been associated with the lowest levels of colour (Limpens et al. 2008). Areas

of dominant heather vegetation on deep peat (Holden et al. 2011) and areas

of new burn on deep peat have been associated with increased water colour

(Yallop et al. 2010). Further work is required to determine whether the source of

this colour results from the act of burning or subsequent dominance of vascular

plants over Sphagnum.

Good practice guidance on prescribed burning has been produced in

partnership with statutory agencies and moorland managers (Defra 2007;

SEERAD 2008; WAG 2008) with proposals for further guidance to be developed

(Best Practice Burning Group 2010). There is general agreement amongst

these groups that burning should be managed to avoid adverse impacts on

active bog and to seek to restore blanket bog on deep peat areas modied by

past land management and/or atmospheric pollution. Research is underway

to assess the effects of burning on peatland biodiversity, river eco-hydrology

and carbon export (e.g. EMBER and several ongoing Defra funded research

projects).

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

In a changing climate with greater emphasis on mitigation and adaptation,

determining appropriate burning management on degraded deep peat areas

requires further monitoring and research. A more coordinated and consistent

approach to describing the different peatland types and states is urgently

required in future studies to avoid the confusion that has arisen from generic

research on “peatlands” and “heather moorland”.

5.2 External drivers: pollution and climate change

Atmospheric deposition of pollutants also affects peatlands. Whilst the levels

of pollution cannot be directly altered on site, it may be possible to reduce the

level of impact on the peatland habitat through site management to limit other

compounding pressures, such as drainage and re. Historically, atmospheric

pollution across the South Pennines and South Wales has contributed to the

loss of Sphagnum and the acidication of head waters and soils. Sulphate

deposition has been linked to inhibition of dissolved organic carbon production

(Monteith et al. 2007), and recovery from acidication has led to a rise in water

colour. Nitrogen deposition, arising from fertilisers, transport emissions and

factory farming can also causes species change and, for example, allows for

Sphagnum species, which are typically found in more nutrient-rich fens, to grow

on bogs. In England, it has been estimated that 98% of blanket bog peatlands

and 100% of raised bog peatlands are subject to levels of nitrogen deposition

that are damaging to these habitats (Natural England 2010).

Climate change is predicted to make damaged peatlands more vulnerable

to degradation through drying, particularly where temperatures increase and

rainfall decreases (Clark et al. 2010c; House et al. 2010). Climate change

is also likely to change the species composition, affect water quality, and

potentially increase greenhouse gas emissions from peatlands, although it is not

yet possible to determine the rate at which this might occur (Clark et al. 2010a).

The peat archive shows that peatlands have previously responded to changes

in climate by shifts in peat forming vegetation (biotic response) to moss species

which can tolerate drier climates and continue the role of laying down peat and

storing carbon (Dise 2009; Lindsay 2010). Peatland restoration is particularly

important given the threat of climate change, as restored peatlands are likely to

be more resilient to additional stresses from climate change impacts.

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

6. OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE

“With an increasing responsibility to deliver more sustainable land management,

peatlands demonstrate how this can be done with minimal outlay in comparison

with other less understood interventions.”

Ian Crosher, Peat, Soils & Climate Change Adaptation, Natural England

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

We are at a pivotal point in determining the future of our peatlands. The global

threat of ongoing loss of biodiversity (TEEB 2010; UKNEA 2011) and climate

change requires urgent action to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and

provide adaptive strategies for resilient ecosystems.

• Damaged UK peatlands are already releasing almost 3.7 million

tonnes CO2e each year (Worrall et al. 2011) - equivalent to the average

emissions of around 660,000 UK households. These emissions are

likely to increase with further peatland deterioration as the climate

changes. Net emissions can be reduced through restoration action.

• Peatlands are recognised as one of our most threatened and valuable

habitats under international and national wildlife legislation. However

only 18% of bogs have vegetation that can be described as ‘near-

natural’.

• Water companies are acutely aware of the cost implications of brown

water from degraded peatlands. Rising levels of dissolved organic

carbon from peat catchments has a high treatment cost that inevitably

means higher water bills.

• Climate change is likely to cause more extreme weather. Damaged

peatlands may exacerbate ooding and have a higher wildre hazard

- highly damaging to the peat carbon store and biodiversity as well as

being very expensive to control.

To date, UK policy obligations in relation to peatlands have had a limited impact

(Reed et al. 2010). There is a clear choice to be made: business as usual,

leaving the majority of peatlands to deteriorate, or concerted action to protect

and restore peatlands.

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Business as usual Peatland restoration management

Climate change

mitigation

Signicant greenhouse gas emissions

from currently damaged peatlands.

A loss of 5% of UK peatland carbon

equates to the total annual UK

greenhouse gas emissions.

Safeguarding the biggest UK terrestrial carbon store.

Key opportunity to deliver greenhouse gas emissions

savings from damaged bogs by restoration.

Potential to contribute to UK national climate change

targets under Kyoto Protocol, Land use, land-use

change and forestry (LULUCF).

Climate change

adaptation

Loss of resilience for peatland

function, habitats and species.

Potential exacerbated ood impact

and wildres with associated costs.

Reduced vulnerability to changing climate and extreme

weather events with reduction in further peatland

degradation and associated impacts water and carbon.

Maintaining important peatland biodiversity and helping

species/habitats to adapt to changing climate.

Water quality Increased water quality deterioration.

Failing of ‘good ecological status’

and Water Framework Directive

requirements.

Anticipated need for new water

treatment can be very costly.

Improved condition of catchments with water quality

problems.

Quick reduction of sediment loads with benets for

sheries and reservoir storage.

Decrease in water colour and treatment costs.

Biodiversity Further decline in condition and loss

of important peatland habitat and

species of national and international

conservation importance.

Protected areas remain largely in

unfavourable condition.

Reduced connectivity between

surviving peatland habitat units –

making species more vulnerable to

local extinction.

Peatland habitats and typical species brought into

favourable condition, within protected areas and in the

wider countryside.

Deliver international obligations and agreements for

peatland conservation and restoration (Ramsar, EC

Habitats Directive).

Reaching EU, UK and country specic biodiversity

targets.

Connectivity of peatland ecological networks

increased.

Sporting Salmon breeding habitats affected

through sedimentation.

Gullies and erosion leading to

potential reduction in quality of habitat

for grouse on deep peat.

Improved habitat condition for game populations on

deep peat and increased mosaic of habitats in upland

areas.

Recreation Recreation opportunities affected

by wildre risk, erosion and loss of

wildlife.

Enhanced landscape and wildlife experience.

Historic

environment

Loss of important relics and palaeo-

environmental information.

Preservation of historic environment and palaeo-

archive including important information about past

climate change impacts.

The stark choice: effects of business as usual or active restoration management

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

6.1 Business as usual

With the majority of peatlands in a damaged state, simply leaving them alone

could create further liabilities as they deteriorate. Damaged peatlands are rarely

stable. Rather, they undergo ongoing degradation, as drains erode and form

deep gullies, and vegetation composition changes from blanket bog vegetation

to dwarf shrub heath, due to lower water tables or associated management.

Increases in heather, grasses and trees can cause yet more peat drying and

degradation. High livestock densities and inappropriate burning or wildres can

make a bad situation worse, triggering further erosion and the eventual creation

of bare peat areas. Drained peatlands also impact on the hydrology and

biodiversity of adjacent peatland causing further deterioration.

6.2 Conservation and restoration

Safeguarding the carbon store of peatlands is both straight-forward and low cost

(Parish et al. 2008; Joosten 2011). Conserving our best peatlands and avoiding

further damage to them is an important priority that requires continued action,

but with the majority of peatlands in a damaged state we must also direct our

efforts at restoration.

Eroding peat with deep gully formation in the North Pennines © North Pennines AONB Partnership

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Achim Steiner, the United Nations Environment Programme Director, observed

“restoration of peatlands is a low hanging fruit, and among the most cost-

effective options for mitigating climate change”. Restoration with simple dams,

for example, often made from peat on-site, is sufcient to reduce drainage, raise

water tables and quickly conserve the carbon store, even re-instating carbon

sequestration by re-starting peat accumulation.

A stitch in time saves nine

As sites deteriorate, restoration becomes more complicated and expensive.

Highly degraded aerated peat is difcult to re-wet. Early action is therefore

far more effective. Severely damaged bogs, with bare peat, require both

drainage blocking to raise the water level and re-vegetation of bare peat. Such

degraded surfaces are inherently difcult to deal with as the peat must rst

be stabilised and then re-vegetated with seed from brash, with plug plants or

through Sphagnum propagation (Lunt et al. 2010). Re-vegetation must be done

in conjunction with action to re-wet the peat, as otherwise the peatland will

continue to lose carbon. Tackling the issue of adverse livestock numbers is a

more complicated issue requiring policy intervention through agri-environment

schemes, for example, but is nevertheless essential.

UK expertise in peatland restoration

The UK is world leading in peatland restoration. Information on over 120 UK

peatland projects was collated in the UK Peat Compendium

(see www.peatlands.org.uk).

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

6.2.1 Success of peatland restoration

Peatland restoration can vary from simple grip blocking to major engineering.

In partially damaged peatlands, short-term measures such as changing

livestock numbers and controlling burning management as well as ditch

blocking can be successful in recovering peat forming mosses within a few

years. On more degraded peatland, especially those with very low water tables

and bare peat, peatland restoration is slower. Stabilisation of the peat surface

can be achieved in around 5 years, however, full hydrological restoration may

take 20-50 years: a challenge given typical funding timescales.

There is clear evidence that re-wetting of peats by drain blocking can be

effective in raising water tables and promoting recovery of bog vegetation,

providing it is done effectively. Grip blocking has been shown to reduce the

loss of particulate organic carbon and also appears to reduce dissolved organic

carbon, although there may be short-term increases (Labadz et al. 2010; Wilson

et al. 2011b). It can also reduce the peak of stream-ow downstream, following

rain (Wilson et al. 2010). A range of vegetation management practices have

been deployed to restore peatlands including restriction of grazing (particularly

in association with re-vegetation of bare areas) and removal of scrub and trees.

In the Flow Country, for example, average Sphagnum cover increased from

15% to 25% within 6 years after tree removal (Stephen et al. 2011). In extremely

damaged sites, seeding bare peat with a nurse crop of grasses, sometimes with

lime, fertiliser and heather brash, allows for rapid re-vegetation and stabilisation

of bare peat. Although difcult, re-vegetation has been shown to stop erosion

and associated particulate organic carbon loss within 3-5 years (Evans et al.

2009). Once the peat is stabilised, Sphagnum re-introduction can be used to

help restore hydrological function and to re-start carbon sequestration (peat

accumulation). This is a commonly used technique in Canadian peat workings

and is being trialled currently in the Peak District and the Yorkshire Dales

National Parks.

Restoration at Kinder Edge © Moors for the Future

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Restoration at windfarm site © Scottish Power Renewables

Grip re-proling © North Pennines AONB Partnership

Restoration at Blackpitts © Exmoor National Park Authority

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

6.2.2 Partnership as key to success

Peatland restoration has wide benets across a range of social, environmental

and economic agendas. While peatland restoration was once primarily aimed

at conserving and enhancing biodiversity, the wider benets of restoration for

other ecosystem services has led to broad partnerships across a range of

sectors. The Yorkshire Peat Partnership, for example, encompasses moorland

managers, Yorkshire Wildlife Trust, two National Park Authorities, Nidderdale

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Natural England, Environment Agency,

National Trust and Yorkshire Water. Other good examples of partnerships are

the North Pennines AONB Partnership Peatscapes project, Moors for the Future

Partnership in the Peak District, the peatland partnerships in the Flow Country

of northern Scotland, the Mires-on-the-Moors project in Exmoor and Dartmoor,

the Sustainable Catchment Management Programme (SCaMP) project as well

as the Pumlumon, Migneint and Lake Vyrnwy projects in Wales. These involve

local land managers, local authorities and government agencies, NGOs such as

the RSPB, the National Trust and the Wildlife Trusts and industry such as water

companies.

Within these partnerships, different areas of public policy and business interests

can be addressed in a way which engages communities and operates across

whole peatland units, at a landscape scale. Diverse topics such as climate

change, game management, wildre reduction, wildlife conservation, obligations

under the Water Framework Directive and Drinking Water Regulations are

all wrapped into a single project. Large partnerships can also generate an

economy of scale and allow an accumulation of skills and capacity to aid

peatland restoration on individual land holdings that would otherwise nd it

difcult to achieve results on their own.

Partnerships make restoration happen © Mark Reed

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Figure 13 Illustrative GHG mitigation costs and abatement potential (Moxey 2011)

6.3 Peatland restoration: a good investment

In recent studies, stakeholders valued carbon storage next to water regulation

and biodiversity conservation as the most important ecosystem service of

blanket bogs (Bonn et al. 2010; Christie et al. 2011; UKNEA 2011).

Peatland degradation reduces these services. The costs of this degradation

have yet to be fully quantied but are likely to be signicant (drinking water

treatment costs to tackle water colour are a good example) and more costly

than peatland maintenance and restoration. A recent ecosystem services

valuation estimated that blanket bogs in terms of climate regulation and other

services are worth £226 million per year to the UK economy (Christie et al.

2011).

Restoring peatlands can be cost-effective in relation to the market price of

carbon (Natural England 2010). Moxey (2011) compared the cost of peatland

restoration with other carbon abatement measures in the UK climate change

programme. Although some mitigation measures, such as improved fertiliser

usage in agriculture or domestic air source heat pumps for renewable heat,

may be implemented at no cost or even negative cost, £6 to £13/tonne CO2e for

drain blocking in peatlands compares favourably with a range of other mitigation

measures such as anaerobic digestion (£1-24/tonne CO2e), afforestation

sequestration (£0-41/tonne CO2e) and renewable biomass or biogas heat

generation (£18 and £56/tonne CO2e). Peatlands have an estimated abatement

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Table 2 Example emission factors relative to emissions from 1ha degraded peatland (precaution-

ary emissions gure used for a gripped and drained peatland, see Figure 7)

*derived from Defra/DECC (2010)

Activity Example Annual emissions

1 ha damaged peatland

(drained, gripped)

2.6 t CO2e

9489 km Executive petrol car* Just under average UK annual car

mileage 2.6 t CO2e

2653 km articulated lorry* Two lorry trips from Lands End to John

O’Groats 2.6 t CO2e

4770 kWh Electricity

consumption*

Average energy consumption of a UK

household 2.6 t CO2e

potential of around 2.2 million tonnes CO2e per year, based on the 845,000 ha

of peatland to be restored under the UK Blanket Bog HAP and a mid estimate of

2.6 tonnes CO2e per ha per year saving (Figure 13, Table 2, for more detail see

Moxey 2011).

Restoration is also a good investment for water quality regulation. Models

developed by United Utilities and Yorkshire Water predict that an increase of

one Hazen (water colour unit) per megalitre per day of water treated will result

in an increase in treatment costs of between 10p to 20p. When modications

to a works are required or new pipes need to be laid costs start to become

increasingly signicant. A typical magnetic ion-exchange (MIEX) process

added on to a 10 megalitre per day conventional three stage water treatment

works may cost between £5 and £7 million to construct. Naturally, an additional

process would only be installed if all other more cost effective solutions have

been exhausted. In addition to the initial capital cost, MIEX is an energy

intensive solution that greatly contributes to the operational cost and carbon

footprint of the treatment process (Kate Snow, Andrew Walker, pers. comm.).

The level of benets that peatland management can bring will of course vary

from site to site, dependent on individual site conditions (level of degradation in

particular) and the value of the various services a peatland generates. Valuing

services is not straight-forward, with better estimates currently available for

carbon than for water or wildlife conservation. Further work to improve the

available cost-benet information would help guide land management decisions

and ensure better funding for sustainable peatland management by illuminating

the short and long-term economic benets of ecosystems services secured.

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

7. SECURING THE FUTURE OF UK PEATLANDS

“Looking after our peatbogs goes hand in hand with good game management,

and repairing damage enhances the environment we rely upon for our livelihoods.”

Lindsay Waddell, Chairman, National Gamekeepers Organisation

“Peatland restoration in Wales is beginning to achieve real benets for biodiversity

and carbon - and increasingly on a landscape scale. However, long-term funding

support is needed to expand this work from its initially modest beginnings into

an ambitious national peatland restoration programme that reects the biodiversity

and wider ecosystem service value of these fantastic places.”

Peter Jones, Peatlands Ecologist Countryside Council for Wales

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Peatland restoration makes sense. Securing the benets we

derive from peatlands requires an urgent step-change in action to

redress past damage. A speedy response to protect and restore

our peatlands under a changing climate is challenging, but will be

more costly with delay.

This Inquiry calls for the multiple benets of peatlands to be understood and

appreciated. Our vision is for the UK’s peatlands to be functioning to their full

natural potential. There should be no further loss of near-natural peatlands in

the UK and all recoverable peatlands should be restored to a peat forming state,

resilient to climate change and with long-term safeguards. Our four-pronged

peatland strategy comprises:

• Conserving peatlands in good condition, through management that

maintains a favourable state, and preventing further damage to healthy

peatlands (even the best protected peatland sites have suffered, with

less than 50% in a favourable condition, so the rst priority must be to

prevent any further deterioration).

• Restoring partially damaged peatlands through land-use changes

and active habitat management to return them to a peat forming state

with typical peatland vegetation and animal species (including blocking

drainage ditches, altering livestock numbers or adjusting burning

management).

• Intervening to repair severely damaged peatlands through major

operations, such as woodland removal, gully blocking and re-vegetating

bare peat.

• Communicating the contribution peatlands make to meeting

environmental, economic and social goals – critically, to help combat

climate change and to halt the loss of biodiversity.

The management and restoration of the UK’s peatlands is an ambitious goal,

with best estimates of 2.3 million ha of blanket and raised bog, of which

around 1.8 million ha is damaged in some way. By creating a better framework

to integrate public and business policies, and by putting the right funding

mechanisms in place, we should be able to secure a much better future for our

peatlands by 2050. A positive interim target would be to work towards having

1 million ha of peatlands in good condition or under restoration management

Restoration of bare peat on Black Hill in the Peak District, 2006 and 2009 © Moors for the Future Partnership

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

by 2020 – a timescale consistent with UK and international biodiversity

objectives – as well as commitments to tackle global climate change.

Signicant gains could be made for biodiversity if this goal is achieved.

Securing 1 million ha of peatland under restoration management would meet

the UK Biodiversity Action Plan targets for blanket and raised bog restoration

(845,000ha) and could bring all designated sites into favourable or recovering

state. In terms of greenhouse gas benets, emissions savings factors to be

applied for reporting peatland rewetting are currently being developed at an

international level by the IPCC, but taking a conservative estimate could mean

savings of 2.5 million tonnes CO2e per year (assuming 2.5 tonnes CO2e savings

per ha per year, Figure 7 ). This equates to 1% of the annual greenhouse gas

reductions which need to be made from now to reach the UK climate change

target for 2027.

The total costs of meeting this target would be in the order of £240 - £690 million

for restoration. Spread over several years this is not a high cost considering

the benets. The total is only a fraction of the current annual budget for agri-

environment schemes, itself a minor component of government support for

agriculture. There is also the potential to access climate change budgets, and to

leverage private investment, including carbon markets.

To achieve this vision requires a strong public policy response, focussed around

three main sets of actions:

a. Introducing a UK and devolved government policy framework to protect

and maintain existing peatlands and ensure restoration of damaged areas.

Peatland policy objectives and delivery should be ‘joined-up’ across climate

change, biodiversity, water, heritage, development and access legislation.

b. Ensuring the necessary funding is in place to protect and restore the UK’s

peatlands. This requires continued use of the key funding streams, such as

the EU Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), and maximising any additional

opportunities through forthcoming reform. Other funds should be sought

through the EU Environment – LIFE+ Programme, with additional core

government funding alongside the development of business investment in

ecosystem services.

c. Coordinating action to encourage partnerships to secure an effective

evidence base, with monitoring and reporting on progress, along with

knowledge exchange, education and advice.

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

7.1 Policy

7.1.1 Current approach

In the UK and devolved administrations, there is no overarching peatland policy

or strategy with clear objectives towards delivering functioning peatlands (Reed

et al. 2010).

Several international agreements on biodiversity, climate change and wetlands

have emphasised the need for peatlands to be included in national governance

mechanisms, policies, plans and investment strategies (see Table 3).

The urgency of action required is underlined by challenging targets for

biodiversity and climate change. The EU Biodiversity Strategy seeks to halt

the loss and degradation of ecosystems by 2020 (European Commission

2011), whilst the UK 2020 climate change target is to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions from 1990 levels by at least 34% (42% under the stronger Scottish

targets).

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Detailed plans Requirements References

Convention

on Biological

Diversity

Strategic Plan for 2011-2020

and Aichi Targets.

EU Biodiversity Strategy to

2020

Conservation and restoration of

peatlands, highlighting their role in

mitigating and adapting to climate

change

Halt loss of biodiversity and

degradation of ecosystems by 2020,

and restoring them

100% more Habitat Assessments for

SACs show improved conservation

status

Nagoya, Japan COP10. Decision X/2 and

X/33

www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/

biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_

ACT_part1_v7%5b1%5d.pdf

Framework

Convention

on Climate

Change

Kyoto Protocol and LULUCF Protect and enhance carbon

reservoirs

Account for losses/gains from

peatlands

Kyoto Protocol Article 2, 1 (a)(ii)

http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.

php

Ramsar

Convention

Strategic Plan 2009-2015

and Global Action Plan for

Peatlands

Establish and manage a network of

protected sites

Encourage wise use and recognition

of ecosystem service benets

COP 10 Resolution X.1

www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-home/main/

ramsar/1_4000_0__

EU Habitats

Directive

Blanket Bog Raised Bog and

Fens - listed habitats.

Classify protected sites and ensure

favourable status of peatland habitats

across their natural range, including

typical species

Council Directive 92/43/EEC (Annex 1,

71 Sphagnum Acid Bogs)

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/

legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm

EU Water

Framework

Directive

Horizontal Guidance on

Wetlands

Prevent deterioration, protect and

enhance aquatic ecosystems. Delivery

through River Basin Management

Plans

Peatlands included as ecosystems

which inuence water quality or

quantity as well as those dependent

on groundwater

Council Directive 2000/60/EC

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/

LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0060:E

N:HTML

www.uicnmed.org/web2007/

cdow/conten/5/pdf/5_1_2/

WetlandsHorizontalGuidance/Wetland-nal.

pdf

Table 3 Key international commitments recognising peatlands

The UK and devolved governments have a range of policy instruments that

could be directed at protecting and restoring peatlands (see Table 4), but

there is limited information available on the contribution these initiatives make

(Keenleyside & Moxey 2010).

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Detailed plans Requirements References

Convention

on Biological

Diversity

Strategic Plan for 2011-2020

and Aichi Targets.

EU Biodiversity Strategy to

2020

Conservation and restoration of

peatlands, highlighting their role in

mitigating and adapting to climate

change

Halt loss of biodiversity and

degradation of ecosystems by 2020,

and restoring them

100% more Habitat Assessments for

SACs show improved conservation

status

Nagoya, Japan COP10. Decision X/2 and

X/33

www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/

biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_

ACT_part1_v7%5b1%5d.pdf

Framework

Convention

on Climate

Change

Kyoto Protocol and LULUCF Protect and enhance carbon

reservoirs

Account for losses/gains from

peatlands

Kyoto Protocol Article 2, 1 (a)(ii)

http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.

php

Ramsar

Convention

Strategic Plan 2009-2015

and Global Action Plan for

Peatlands

Establish and manage a network of

protected sites

Encourage wise use and recognition

of ecosystem service benets

COP 10 Resolution X.1

www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-home/main/

ramsar/1_4000_0__

EU Habitats

Directive

Blanket Bog Raised Bog and

Fens - listed habitats.

Classify protected sites and ensure

favourable status of peatland habitats

across their natural range, including

typical species

Council Directive 92/43/EEC (Annex 1,

71 Sphagnum Acid Bogs)

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/

legislation/habitatsdirective/index_en.htm

EU Water

Framework

Directive

Horizontal Guidance on

Wetlands

Prevent deterioration, protect and

enhance aquatic ecosystems. Delivery

through River Basin Management

Plans

Peatlands included as ecosystems

which inuence water quality or

quantity as well as those dependent

on groundwater

Council Directive 2000/60/EC

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/

LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0060:E

N:HTML

www.uicnmed.org/web2007/

cdow/conten/5/pdf/5_1_2/

WetlandsHorizontalGuidance/Wetland-nal.

pdf

Category Type Peatland Examples

Direct State Control Public ownership of land. Areas managed

by public bodies

Peatlands within the Public forest estate,

managed by Forestry Commission Peatland

managed by e.g. Scottish Water/NI Water

Small areas of peatlands owned and

managed by local authorities

Classic Regulation and Advice

Prohibited activities, licences/permits,

planning zones, delivery of conservation

objectives

Minerals controls on peat extraction

Renewable energy policy SSSI, SPA,

SAC legislation The UK Forestry Standard

Heather and Grass burning code Deer

Control Schemes

Financial Instruments Grants, subsidies, tax incentives, user fees,

taxes, external funds eg EU LIFE +

CAP agri-environment and forestry

measures for peatlands, land management

payments e.g. in SSSIs

Capacity Building Skills training, capital grants, infrastructure

funding None at present

Information Provision Leaets, websites, research and advisory

services

Peatland research under Scottish

Government Main Research Provider

contracts or Farming for a Better Climate

programme, Defra Peat Partnership

Creating New Markets /

Voluntary Payment Schemes

Payments for ecosystem services, voluntary

schemes, corporate social responsibility

schemes

None at present, although research work

under way on Payments for Ecosystem

Services through Defra

Table 4 Categories of policy instruments

In recent decades, peatland policy across the UK has focussed on securing

networks of protected sites. This approach has largely been successful in

preventing new developments from adversely affecting designated sites.

Inappropriate windfarm development proposals on designated sites have been

resisted in parts of the UK where government planning policy acknowledges

that ambitious renewable targets can be met without compromising wildlife

site protection (Scottish Government 2011). UK site protection policy reects

international obligations to go beyond protection and includes measures to

promote restoration of damaged peatland habitat. This has, however, been

hampered by a lack of core funding and insufcient payment under agri-

environment schemes and other land management incentives.

Most of the UK’s peatland, however, is not designated. Outside protected

areas, peatlands can be targeted by developers in the belief that these are not

considered to be environmentally important. Peatland restoration is also given

lower priority in non-designated areas under some agri-environment measures.

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Drain blocking at Lake Vyrnwy using heather bale and peat dams © LIFE Active Blanket

Bogs in Wales

Removal of self seeded Sitka spruce at Lake Vyrnwy © LIFE Active Blanket Bogs in Wales

Securing peatland habitats at a favourable conservation status in their natural

range to avoid reduction in area and maintain typical species, is an obligation

under the EC Habitats Directive. Adapting to climate change also requires larger

peatland units than the currently often fragmented habitat, and for the habitat

to be in good condition across its full hydrological (or landscape) area (see also

Lawton et al. 2010). Forestry policy is one area, which has embraced the need

to protect functioning peatlands wherever they occur by discouraging planting of

trees on deep peat, whether in protected areas or not (Forestry Commission in

press).

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

7.1.2 A revised policy framework

A strong national steer at UK and individual country level could help muster the

considerable peatland expertise and potential resources across the public and

private sectors to achieve the scale and urgency of action required.

The Inquiry has identied an urgent call for a high level government

commitment to conserve and restore peatland in response to the recognised

benets. A consistent message throughout the Inquiry was the need for

government sectors (e.g. environment, agriculture, climate change, water,

planning, culture) working to this shared objective rather than pursuing each

ecosystem service in isolation. Strategic goals and monitoring of progress under

different policy instruments would allow progress to be better accounted for and

trigger more decisive and concrete policy action.

Evidence gathered from stakeholders pointed to the need for integrated

policies across different sectors, effective implementation of existing

policy and strengthened policy in key areas:

Biodiversity Action Plan objectives and targets identied at UK and devolved

administration levels supports effort at the local Biodiversity Action Plan level,

provides positive feedback and a framework to monitor progress towards

national and international targets. Clearly identifying funds and peatland action

in this process will help coordinate effort across the public and private sector

and extend peatland conservation and restoration beyond designated sites.

The CAP is a major funding stream and reform of the CAP after 2013 is

anticipated to enhance its role in helping to mitigate and adapt to climate

change, combat biodiversity loss and improve water quality. Construction of the

post 2013 agri-environment schemes in each of the devolved administrations is

one of the most important ways in which public policy can be aligned to manage

and restore peatlands. Rural development programmes (funded through Pillar

II of the CAP) are critical in this reAppropriate agri-environment and forestry

measures need to be made available for the full range of peatland restoration

and management requirements. Monitoring of progress and effectiveness of

these measures in relation to peatlands should be established by the country

administrations.

Biodiversity

Common

Agriculture

Policy

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Delivering water quality and ood management obligations under the EU

Drinking Water, Water Framework and Flood Risk Management Directives

(Council Directive 98/83/EC, Directive 2000/60/EC and Directive 2007/60/

EC respectively) are powerful drivers to encourage peatland restoration.

Sustainability duties on the water industry support peatland restoration as a

cost effective alternative or compliment to water treatment. UK Government,

devolved administrations and the regulators, should highlight these duties

in relation to peatlands to promote further investment across the UK water

companies.

The EU Water Framework Directive embraces all peatlands, but UK guidance

is needed to explain the relevance of blanket and raised bogs to complement

the work on wetlands produced by the Ramsar Convention (Trepel 2004). River

Basin Management Plans present a good opportunity to conserve and restore

peatlands at a catchment scale, but also need to recognise that many peatlands

lie across catchments.

The important role of peatlands in mitigating and adapting to climate change

is recognised under international climate change agreements. The UK has

the potential to showcase its signicant peatland restoration projects at an

international level and to use these to help inform policy through monitoring and

research. Focussed action and investment in peatland restoration provides a

cost-effective approach to reduce carbon emissions that would sit comfortably

alongside other measures.

Greenhouse gas accounting –The second Kyoto Protocol commitment phase

from 2013 will potentially allow accounting of a new activity ‘peatland rewetting

and conservation’ (see Joosten 2011 for full details). Practical methodologies

and user-friendly guidance for reporting and accounting for the most signicant

sources of peatland emissions are available at international level and need to

be developed at the UK level.

Adaptation policies - The need to restore damaged peatlands in order to build

resilience and avoid unnecessary loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services

should be highlighted in UK and devolved government statutory frameworks

and plans for adaptation. The role of peatlands in helping communities adapt to

increased ood risk should also be recognised.

Climate Change

Water

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Planning policy can play a key role in conserving and restoring peatlands

by guiding development away from important peat areas with a presumption

against development on peatlands. The Forestry Commission presumption

against new woodland planting on deep peat habitat (Forestry Commission in

press) should be considered by statutory planning authorities for other forms of

development.

Local planning authorities urgently need to be guided not to permit further

peat extraction development on new or existing sites (as in the draft National

Planning Policy Framework for England, DCLG 2011) and to ensure proper

peatland restoration on extraction areas.

Planning tools such as the Scottish Government’s windfarm and peatlands

carbon calculator (Scottish Government 2011) should be considered for other

forms of development on peatlands.

Authorities should also be encouraged to map peatlands at a catchment level

to guide partnership, identify restoration opportunities and reduce planning

conicts. Opportunities for planning gains (community infrastructure levies,

habitat banking) could provide mechanisms to support peatland restoration.

A number of public bodies, including the Forestry Commission and the Ministry

of Defence, manage important peatland areas. Opportunities to help deliver

functioning peatland habitat should be identied strategically with investment

targeted at delivering restoration.

Whilst natural heritage is protected under biodiversity policy and cultural

heritage under protection of monuments policy, a policy gap has been identied

in which the valuable archive of environmental information and archaeology

preserved in the peat itself is not protected under public policy. The protection

of geological sites under, for example the Countryside and Rights Of Way Act

2000 in England, as Geological Conservation Review sites could be extended

to apply to peat, with a strong direction to protect long time series records or

geographically isolated peat archives. Management activities to protect these

records should also be implemented. In most cases the best approach would be

to restore the peatland through re-wetting.

Management of

state land and

role of statutory

undertakers

Planning

Heritage

conservation

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

a. Key approaches for a policy framework

We need to muster the considerable peatland expertise and potential resources

across the public and private sectors to achieve the scale and urgency of action

required, recognising the challenges of the current economic climate.

a1. Clear government signals need to empower public bodies, the private

sector, NGO’s and communities to maintain and restore peatlands.

• Establish a UK wide, coordinated, funded peatland restoration delivery

programme with agreed areas, targets and timescales, reecting

international commitments on peatlands.

a2. Coordination and cooperation across government sectors and agencies

would help deliver peatland biodiversity objectives and secure ecosystem

benets.

• Recognise the important role of peatlands under all relevant public

body duties e.g. climate change mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity

conservation and water regulation.

• Take forward opportunities for delivery of landscape and cross-

catchment scale projects with cooperation across different

administrative boundaries.

• Establish a high-level peatland group to facilitate cross agency

coordination and to report on progress against peatland objectives.

a3. Develop an ecosystem-based approach to peatland policy

• Adopt an ecosystem-based approach with healthy functioning peatland

habitat as the shared goal, rather than simply maximising individual

services from peatlands.

a4. Have better collaboration across public bodies, business, NGOs, and

communities with stronger connections between end-beneciaries and

those delivering services on peatlands.

• Support collaborative working at the site level to deliver peatland

management and restoration, showcasing good examples nationally

and internationally.

• Explore mechanisms to encourage better connection between peatland

managers and beneciaries of the ecosystem services.

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

7.2 Funding

It is only recently that the benets to society of fully functioning peatlands

have been realised. Indeed, for centuries peatlands have been considered

as wastelands to be ‘improved’ with little appreciation of the costs of peatland

degradation, so much so that it was funded at public expense by subsidies

and tax incentives for forestry and agriculture. Subsidies for activities which

directly led to peatlands being damaged have now been largely removed. But

an equivalent level of investment to restore the damage is not yet in place, and

peatlands continue to deteriorate even within protected sites.

There is a disconnect between the costs experienced by society in terms of

damaging impacts to water quality, loss of biodiversity and carbon emissions

from degraded peatlands and the lack of support given to the management of

peatlands. Peatlands can be seen as a repository of largely un-priced public

goods of major national importance (Hubacek et al. 2009). Policy intervention is

required to address these market imperfections and failures, with the provision

of benets better reected through payments for ecosystem services to those

who manage peatlands. This is especially important given that peatlands mainly

exist in rural and often remote areas where communities face challenges of

lower employment and economic opportunities. With no current mechanism to

reward those who maintain functioning peatlands there is no perceived benet.

Public policy needs to develop effective funding mechanisms that ensure

peatlands are well managed and restored to ensure the full suite of ecosystem

services is maintained long into the future.

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

The Inquiry examined many different funding streams that, if properly integrated

together with core government funding, could deliver peatland restoration and

management without substantially increasing cost to the tax-payer:

The UK’s devolved CAP Rural Development programmes and agri-environment/

forestry measures are already signicantly contributing to the management

and restoration of UK peatlands. Within the four UK country programmes there

is a need for improved funds to better reect ecosystem service benets and

contribute to wider government objectives for biodiversity, water and carbon:

• Ensure an appropriate range of payments across peatland

management activities at the right level of payment to incentivise initial

and ongoing management.

• Explore opportunities to integrate private /public initiatives to fund

payment for ecosystem services as a means of helping ensure

payments reect the costs to the land manager of peatland restoration

and management.

• Promotion of whole farm conservation and management encompassing

payment for maintaining and restoring peatlands. A coordinated

approach to support collaborative payment applications for peatland

management at a landscape scale across multiple land holdings.

• Improved monitoring of environmental objectives under the payment

schemes to allow proper assessment of effectiveness and progress.

The food and drink industry in the remote rural areas of the UK where peatlands

exist often rely on a clean healthy natural environment as branding to promote

their products. In some cases industry are involved directly in helping restore

peatlands as part of their contribution to maintaining a healthy environment.

There are opportunities for companies and businesses to engage more with

those who manage the peatlands to nd out about the wildlife and other

features which can help brand the products. Businesses are also keen to

support environmental projects through their corporate social responsibility

activities, such as the donation of the Co-operative Foundation to the Moors

for the Future Partnership to regenerate Sphagnum on degraded peatlands.

With better information and understanding of the importance of peatlands, more

businesses could be willing to help.

CAP

Business

support

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

The planning system allows for agreements with developers to undertake

environmental management projects. The renewable energy industry has

already made signicant investment in restoring and maintaining peatland

habitats in areas around windfarm developmentsm but this need to be more

widely applied and better enforced. Several thousand hectares of peatland

are now under active management. For example, Scottish Power Renewables

has a multimillion pound investment programme that includes managing 8,150

ha of peatland as part of its Habitat Management Plan. By putting in place

scientic monitoring and sharing data with other stakeholders, where possible,

the industry can also help improve our understanding of the effectiveness of

peatland restoration (Scottish Renewables 2010).

Water companies are some of the largest peatland landowners in the UK.

Individual companies are already investing in peatland restoration to stabilise

and improve the hydrology of deep peat systems in drinking water catchments.

Repeating such investment during the next asset management programme

could deliver considerable benets. Furthermore, there is considerable research

work and survey that could be undertaken as part of these projects, which could

contribute to improving our understanding the effect of peatland management

on water quality. Similar opportunities for restoration and survey exist in the

public water sector. The UK public and private water industry as a whole could

benet from a coordinated approach to its research and information exchange.

There is potential for new funding for peatlands through private nancing

initiatives under carbon markets. In the short-term it should be possible to

provide standard information to support companies or trust fund holders who

wish to fund projects that deliver climate change and wider environmental/

biodiversity benets as a matter of corporate social responsibility (Rabinowitz

& d’Este-Hoare 2010), rather than seeking to offset carbon emissions or earn

tradable credits. In the longer term, it may be possible to access additional

funds, if peatland restoration projects were to become part of a programme that

could enable carbon credits to be traded on voluntary carbon markets. This will

require some form of peatland carbon code with rm standards, accreditation

and a national register to prevent double counting with the governments own

greenhouse gas reductions (Joosten 2011).

Developer

contributions

Water

Carbon

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

b. Key approaches for funding

There are opportunities to greatly improve the sharing of costs experienced by

society in terms of damaging impacts to water, loss of biodiversity and carbon

emissions and the support given to the management of peatlands. Put simply,

we want to vastly reduce these costs. Support towards this includes direct

government and business funding along with government action to facilitate

international funds, business and private investment for peatland management

and restoration.

b1. Improved funding through the CAP – both Pillar I direct payments and

Pillar II Rural Development Programmes (especially agri-environment and

forestry measures) for peatland management and restoration.

• Improve the alignment of funds within the four UK country programmes

to the provision of benets for biodiversity, climate change and water.

• Ensure appropriate payment levels and integration with private/public

funding initiatives to incentivise land managers and cover the costs of

providing public benets from peatlands.

b2. Use public and private resources in a coordinated way to support peatland

restoration and management.

• Establish core government funding specically to support peatland

projects, and encourage public bodies and the business sector to work

jointly in funding peatland work.

b3. Development of new sources of funding for peatland conservation and

restoration.

• Explore opportunities to support business-led carbon investment in

peatlands including developing a Peatland Carbon Code.

• Support water company investment in upstream land management.

• Explore other funding opportunities such as payment schemes for

ecosystem services, biodiversity offsets and habitat banking.

7.3 Coordinated action

The management and restoration of the UK’s peatlands is an ambitious but

achievable goal. With a better framework to integrate public policy and the right

combination of funding mechanisms in place, this goal could be realised within

a generation – a timescale required under international law and as part of the

UK’s commitment to tackle climate change. However, achieving this goal will

require focus and coordination.

The Commission of Inquiry identied the following areas as crucial:

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Policies that affect peatlands extend across key sectors such as environment,

climate change and water management. National level partnerships involving all

relevant Government agencies and departments are required to conserve and

restore peatlands (Reed et al. 2010).

Developing programmes that achieve multiple objectives across government

policy areas will reduce costs. Spatial land use policy at a national level is

particularly useful in this regard in helping to resolve peatland conservation

with seemingly conicting policies, such as forestry expansion and renewable

energy development, as well as helping partnerships to work towards shared

objectives. Management zoning for varying peatland objectives, e.g. strict

nature reserve, recovery areas or sustainable management under different land

management objectives such as agriculture or grouse moor, can help balance

the different land use interests within a landscape.

Any investment should be based on sound evidence. Current knowledge shows

a clear overall benet for conserving and restoring peatlands but more work

is required to fully quantify the individual benets, particularly in relation to

climate change mitigation and water. Targeting research to inform policy and

investment decisions and monitoring the effectiveness of investment will allow

better targeting of investment and reporting of outcomes. A more coordinated

approach is required:

• Key peatland policy research requirements, against which the academic

community can plan their study and knowledge exchange, should be

supported through initiatives such as CAMERAS (Coordinated

Agenda for Marine, Environment and Rural Affairs Science

www.camerasscotland.org), LWEC Programme (Living with

Environmental Change, www.lwec.org.uk) and UK Research Councils

thematic programmes.

• To assess the future impact of restoration and management of

peatlands and allow for learning and adaptive management, a cohesive

network of intensively monitored demonstration sites is needed. There

are already a range of successful research collaborations between

restoration projects and universities across disciplines, such as the

Rural Economy and Land Use ‘Sustainable Uplands’ Project and

others. There are also several peatland research and observation

sites in the UK, such as the CEH carbon catchment sites, from

which important lessons can be learned. These need coordination to

synthesise information and facilitate learning.

• Guidance for standardised monitoring of restoration projects is required

to assess success of restoration measures. Methods need to be

practical, low cost and maintenance, compatible across a range of sites

and conditions, and easy to conduct after little training. Monitoring must

become integral to restoration projects to assess effects of restoration.

Monitoring needs clear objectives, appropriate study design and

controls.

• Finances for restoration monitoring, including before and after

treatment, need to be made available as an integral part of project

Coordination

and

partnerships

across policy

areas

Research and

evidence

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

budgets to assess the success of restoration and impact on biodiversity

and ecosystem services, as changes in peatland functioning following

restoration may take many years.

• Long-term monitoring of peatland ecosystems in a range of conditions

is needed to help assess the impacts of climate change and the

effectiveness of resilience measures (Murphy et al. 2009). The

opportunity to involve peatland sites in targeted monitoring within

the Environmental Change Biodiversity Network (ECBN) should be

considered. In addition, continued support and collation of fragmented

peatland datasets should be provided to assess long-term change, e.g.

Countryside Survey, Environmental Change Network, UK Acid Waters

Monitoring Network.

While some questions can be answered through monitoring, others need

concerted primary research effort. Particular research gaps identied by the

Inquiry include:

• The state of peatlands is not fully understood or mapped, and better

information is required on peat depth and carbon storage throughout

the UK.

• Better information is needed to assess the contribution of peatlands

to national greenhouse gas uxes. Methods need to be developed to

measure, report and verify the contribution of peatlands to greenhouse

gas uxes in line with the conclusions of the United Nations Climate

Change conference in Cancun 2010. A full quantication of the UK’s

peatland greenhouse gas balance under different land management

and restoration scenarios is required. (A review by the Joint Nature

Conservancy Council has outlined a research programme which

would achieve this, and needs to be adopted and implemented by UK

research councils and agencies and funded by the EU, UK government

and industry).

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

• To address the need to halt rising trends of dissolved organic carbon,

further research is needed to assess the impact of land management,

such as burning, vegetation composition and restoration on the quality of

water derived from peatlands.

• Better understanding and valuation is needed of the costs and benets of

peatland restoration on peatland ecosystems services and biodiversity.

There is also a need to account for the opportunity cost of not taking

action to conserve peatlands and the ecosystem services they provide.

• More research is needed into how different restoration techniques,

change in vegetation cover or land-use affect run-off and contribute to

mitigating ood risk.

• The lack of consistent methodologies in some areas of peatland research

needs to be addressed to allow for better evaluation and comparison of

studies. Examples include different approaches to measuring dissolved

organic carbon uxes from peatlands, or vague, inaccurate or missing

denitions of the peatland habitats used in different studies, eg. often

mixing upland heath and blanket bog.

Establishing a peatland ecosystem research focus within the LWEC programme

to foster focussed research on peatlands would be extremely useful. This should

include a strong engagement of practitioners and policy advisers within the

process of identifying, conducting and publishing research to increase relevance,

ownership and swift integration of results into practice.

There is a need for ongoing development and sharing good practice based on

scientic evidence. This evidence is, however, often not available in accessible

format to end users to inform practice on the ground or to justify public spending.

Ongoing synthesis of highly dynamic peatland research and active knowledge

exchange between knowledge users and providers are required.

This Inquiry has gathered available evidence to date and collated a consensus in

this report. The assessment shows that sufcient evidence is already available to

allow policy development to fully support peatland conservation and restoration,

in principle, to maintain essential ecosystem services and support important

biodiversity. Further quantication of the benets is required however to improve

delivery.

As a next step, a centralised authoritative information hub would benet policy

advisers, practitioners and researchers. A UK peatland hub could support

collaboration between research providers and stakeholders engaged in delivering

peatland restoration and sustainable management by providing:

• A Peatland network: Coordinate and provide ongoing support for the

different peatland projects to share successes and to provide training on

peatland management to support land managers.

• Development of a demonstration site network: Showcase cost effective

solutions for peatland restoration and management that will meet

government commitments towards climate, soil, water and biodiversity

goals.

Effective

knowledge

exchange

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

• Training & Monitoring: Provide peatland ecology training among

researchers and land managers including monitoring guidance.

Support the collation and analysis of monitoring data to assess

impacts of restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services.

• Development and sharing of good practice based on scientic

evidence: synthesise and communicate peatland research to users in

accessible formats and thereby provide a stronger evidence-base for

policy and practice.

There are opportunities to engage people in survey and monitoring. Many

volunteers are already employed in monitoring for restoration projects. One

compelling idea is for a Big Peat Watch that could provide a far better estimate

of the carbon stored in UK’s peatlands by involving people to measure peat

depth across the UK. A scoping study, as part of the national peat depth

and carbon content project, is underway with Natural England and the North

Pennines AONB Partnership.

Local partnerships involving different agencies, local authorities and multiple

land owners/managers are required to conserve and restore peatlands across

whole peatland units (rather than conned to single owner/managers). This

brings water catchment and landscape scale benets. Successful partnerships

to conserve and restore peatlands include those where one organisation has

taken a lead, committing resources to drawing partners together and helping

to forge a shared agenda, often drawing in new resources from international

funds or the private sector.

Critical to these partnerships is engaging the land management community.

Most UK peatlands are owned and managed by private individuals and

companies, although there are also signicant state and civic society

interests. There is a collective expertise here that can be marshalled through

stakeholder groups such as Scotland’s Moorland Forum. Advice and guidance

to the land management community is important. There is a strong need to

provide peatland management guidance (a free web-based resource would

be particularly useful) and to share good practice in relation to survey and

monitoring, and simple, low cost peatland restoration techniques.

National Park Authority

Monitoring

and engaging

people

Local

partnerships

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Peatlands have been described as having been the Cinderella of Britain’s

wildlife resource, badly treated and their importance poorly understood.

Addressing the gap between the real benets of peatlands and the public

knowledge of these is important if their future is to be secured. Public

engagement activities are already taking place through demonstration site visits

of restoration partnerships or through visitor centres by National Parks and civic

society organisations. Other opportunities include engaging school children

where imaginative and interactive climate change activities on peatlands,

such as the National Parks Moorland Indicators of Climate Change Initiative

(MICCI), lead by the Peak District National Park, or the Changing Environment

Landscape Lab programme of the North Pennines AONB Partnership have

been successfully deployed. These experiences should be shared and good

programmes replicated across the UK.

National media opportunities to engage interest in peatlands through outlets

such as the BBC should be pursued utilising the wide range of peatland

showcase sites in nature reserves and peatland partnerships. Coordinated

effort across NGOs and public bodies to collate the wildlife spectacles, people

engagement stories and heritage interests would help provide a valuable

resource to communicate the peatland benets through various media.

National Park Authority

Communications

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

c. Key approaches for coordinated action

c1. Establish nationally coordinated and funded peatland accounting.

• Monitor the state of peatlands.

• Report on progress towards biodiversity targets and delivery of

international and national objectives, greenhouse gas emissions

savings and other ecosystem service benets.

• Assess the effectiveness and progress of policy measures – including

agri-environment measures.

c2. Provide support for a UK peatland hub for information and consensus

building, training and partnership working between scientists, policy

advisers, businesses and land managers.

• Providing a one-stop shop for information.

• Showcasing cost effective and exible solutions for peatland restoration

and management through demonstration sites.

• Facilitating effective collaborations between policy, practice and

academic research.

c3. Encourage trans-disciplinary research on peatlands.

• Provide solutions for effective peatland conservation/restoration.

• Improve the evidence base for the services that peatlands provide and

the effects of restoration.

c4. Communicate the importance of peatlands, highlighting their benets to

society including market and non market values.

• Build on the wealth of peatland projects and stories to provide the tools

for wider communication, engaging expertise to incorporate peatlands

more extensively in media and education.

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

8. IUCN UK PEATLAND PROGRAMME:

NEXT STEPS

“We’ve always had a strong ecological case for investment in peatlands,

thanks to the work of the Peatland Programme we now have a compelling

economic case too.”

Jonathan Hughes, Director of Conservation, Scottish Wildlife Trust

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

The Commission of Inquiry is one of the initiatives undertaken by the Peatland

Programme under its three year strategy 2009-2012. The Inquiry process and

the wider work has helped build important partnerships and demonstrated that

progress can be made through a coordinated effort across science policy and

practice.

The Peatland Programme has provided critical and previously missing capacity

to coordinate policy, practice and research. Maintaining the momentum of

the Peatland Programme after the initial 3-year privately funded period is an

important part of this vision.

A continued Peatland Programme will focus on:

UK Peatland Hub: Proposals for funding and managing a Hub are still to

be considered by the various partners and in the meantime the Peatland

Programme will facilitate further discussion and undertake some of the work of

the Hub.

Advisory Panel: The Inquiry process was supported by an informal UK

partnership of individuals from across the statutory agencies, voluntary bodies

and land managing interests. The Peatland Programme intends to facilitate

further meetings of this group and to engage with relevant devolved Country

initiatives with a view to identifying agreed peatland actions arising from the

Inquiry that could be implemented, with progress monitored and reported.

Stakeholder events and briengs: The Peatland Programme will organise a

series of stakeholder knowledge exchange events and produce a range of

briengs exploring in more detail key topics covered by the Inquiry. These will

include:

• Carbon funding and national greenhouse gas accounting

• Survey and monitoring methods on peatlands

• Evaluation of ecosystem service benets and biodiversity

• Land management advice

Conferences: The Peatland Programme has held two major annual conferences

with the next conference ‘Investing in Peatlands – Demonstrating Success’

planned for 26-28 June 2012 as joint symposium with the British Ecological

Society. The aim of these is to pull together and inform the wider peatland

policy, practice and research community.

Communications: The Peatland Programme will continue to gather media

resources and make these available through its website. This will help facilitate

the development a strategic approach to peatland communications across

Government and NGOs.

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

9. CONCLUSION

“Science has shown that peatlands deliver important services to society.

We need to continue to understand more about their condition and resilience

whilst getting on with conserving and restoring them, so that we can ensure

the best for their long-term future.”

Tim Burt, Professor of Geography, Durham University

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

Throughout the 18 month course of this Inquiry, it has been evident that there is

a large community of interested people and organisations willing to help deliver

the vision for peatlands – but needing the right signals and support. Greater

effort towards realising the immense value of peatland ecosystems in their

fully functioning condition offers so much in return, for all of us and for nature.

Conversely if we delay in pursuing a strong vision for peatlands then we impose

greater costs to society in future. We have identied some of the main hurdles

and barriers and set out clear approaches which could help deliver the urgently

needed action, building on the huge range of peatland expertise that exists in

the UK and abroad.

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

10. REFERENCES

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

100

Adamson, J.K. & Kahl, J. (2003) Changes in vegetation at Moor House within

sheep exclosure plots established between 1953 and 1972. CEH, Merlewood.

Anderson, B.J., Arroyo, B.E., Collingham, Y.C., Etheridge, B., Fernandez-De-

Simon, J., Gillings, S., Gregory, R.D., Leckie, F.M., Sim, I.M.W., Thomas, C.D.,

Travis, J. & Redpath, S.M. (2009) Using distribution models to test alternative

hypotheses about a species' environmental limits and recovery prospects.

Biological Conservation, 142, 488-499.

Anderson, R. (2010) Restoring afforested peat bogs:results of current research.

Forestry Commission. www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcrn006.pdf/$FILE/fcrn006.pdf

Armstrong, A., Holden, J., Kay, P., McDonald, A., Gledhill, S., Foulger, F., &

Walker, A. (2010) Peatland drain-blocking reduces dissolved organic carbon

loss and discolouration of water; results from a national survey. Journal of

Hydrology, 381, 112-120.

Baird, A.J., Holden, J. & Chapman, P.J. (2009) A literature review of evidence on

emissions of methane in peatlands. Report to Defra SP0574.

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=SP0574_8526_FRP.pdf

Battin, T.J., Kaplan, L.A., Findlay, S., Hopkinson, C.S., Marti, E., Packman,

A.I., Newbold, J.D. & Sabater, F. (2008) Biophysical controls on organic carbon

uxes in uvial networks. Nature Geoscience, 1, 95 -100.

Best Practice Burning Group (2010) Interim statement on burning rotations on

heather moorland. Best Practice Burning Group. Natural England, Shefeld.

Billett, M., Charman, D.J., Clark, J.M., Evans, C., Evans, M., Ostle, N., Worrall,

F., Burden, A., Dinsmore, K., Jones, T., McNamara, N., Parry, L., Rowson, J. &

Rose, R. (2010) Carbon balance of UK peatlands: current state of knowledge

and future research challenges. Climate Research, 45, 13-29.

www.int-res.com/articles/cr_oa/c045p013.pdf

Bode, K., Fuhrin, K. & Schwägerl, C. (2010) Mais und Moor. Der Spiegel, 44,

www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-74822605.html

Bonn, A., Allott, T., Hubacek, K. & Stewart, J. (2009a) IN Drivers of

environmental change in uplands. Routledge, London and New York.

Bonn, A., Rebane, M. & Reid, C. (2009b) Ecosystem services: a new rationale

for conservation of upland environments. Drivers of environmental change

in uplands (eds A. Bonn, T. Allott, K. Hubacek & J. Stewart), pp. 448-474.

Routledge, London and New York.

Bonn, A., Holden, J., Parnell, M., Worrall, F., Chapman, P.J., Evans, C.D.,

Termansen, M., Beharry-Borg, N., Acreman, M.C., Rowe, E., Emmett,

B. & Tsuchiya, A. (2010) Ecosystem services of peat - phase 1. Report

to Defra. Project code SP0572. http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.

aspx?Document=SP0572_9018_FRP.pdf

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

101

Byrne, K.A., Chonjicki, B., Christensen, T.R., Drosler, M., Freibauer, A., Friborg,

T., Frolking, S., Lindroth, A., Mailhammer, J., Malmer, N., Selin, P., Turunen, J.,

Valentini, R. & Zetterberg, L. (2004) EU Peatlands: Current Carbon Stocks and

Trace Gas Fluxes. Carbo-Europe Report.

www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/bgp/uploads/Teaching/Peatreport_nal.pdf

CCC (2010) The Fourth Carbon Budget - Reducing emissions through the

2020s. Committee on Climate Change.

www.theccc.org.uk/reports/fourth-carbon-budget

Charman, D. (2002) Peatlands and environmental change. John Wiley & Sons,

Chichester.

Christie, M., Hyde, T., Cooper, R., Fazey, I., Dennis, P., Warren, J., Colombo, S.

& Hanley, N. (2011) Economic Valuation of the Benets of Ecosystem Services

delivered by the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Report to Defra. Project code

SFFSD 0702.

http://archive.defra.gov.uk/temp/sffsd0702-economic-valuation-uk-bap.pdf

Clark, J., Gallego-Sala, A., Allott, T.E.H., Chapman, S.J., Farewell, T.,

Freeman, C., House, J., Orr, H., Prentice, I. & Smith, P. (2010a) Assessing the

vulnerability of blanket peat to climate change using an ensemble of statistical

bioclimatic envelope models. Climate Research, 45, 131-150.

www.int-res.com/articles/cr_oa/c045p131.pdf

Clark, J.M., Bottrell, S.H., Evans, C.D., Monteith, D.T., Bartlett, R., Rose, R.,

Newton, R.J. & Chapman, P.J. (2010b) The importance of the relationship

between scale and process in understanding long-term DOC dynamics. Science

of the Total Environment, 408, 2768-2775.

Clark, J.M., Orr, H.G., Freer, J., House, J., Smith, P. & Freeman, C. (2010c)

Assessment of projected changes in upland environments using simple climatic

indices. Climate Research, 45, 87-104.

www.int-res.com/articles/cr_oa/c045p087.pdf

Clymo, R.S. (1992) Models of peat growth. Suo, 43, 127-136.

Condliffe, I. (2009) Policy change in the uplands. IN Drivers of environmental

change in uplands (eds A. Bonn, T. Allott, K. Hubacek & J. Stewart), pp. 59-90.

Routledge, London and New York.

Couwenberg, J., Thiele, A., Tanneberger, F., Augustin, J., Bärisch, S., Dubovik,

D., Liashchynskaya, N., Michaelis, D., Minke, M., Skuratovich, A. & Joosten, H.

(2011) Assessing greenhouse gas emissions from peatlands using vegetation

as a proxy. Hydrobiologia, DOI: 10.1007/s10750-10011-10729-x.

DCLG (2011) Draft National Planning Policy Framework. Department for

Communities and Local Government.

www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1951811.pdf

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

102

Defra (2007) The Heather and Grass Burning Code (2007 Version). Defra,

London.

www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/heathergrassburningcode_tcm6-7795.pdf

Defra (2010) Monitoring the horticultural use of peat and progress towards the

UK Biodiversity Action Plan target. Defra, London.

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=SP08020_9282_FRP.pdf

Defra (2011) The natural choice: securing the value of nature. Defra.

www.ofcial-documents.gov.uk/document/cm80/8082/8082.pdf

Defra/DECC (2010) 2010 Guidelines to Defra / DECC’s GHG Conversion

Factors for Company Reporting: Methodology Paper for Emission Factors.

www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/reporting/pdf/101006-guidelines-ghg-

conversion-factors-method-paper.pdf

Dise, N. (2009) Peatland response to global change. Science, 326, 810-811.

European Commission (2011) Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU

biodiversity strategy to 2020. Communication from the Commission to the

European parliament, the council, the economic and social committee and

the committee of the regions. COM (2011) 244 nal. http://ec.europa.eu/

environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_ACT_part1_

v7%5B1%5D.pdf

Evans, M.G., Pawson, R., Daniels, S., Yang, J., Wilkinson, R., Rowson, J. &

Worrall, F. (2009) Carbon Flux from Moorland Restoration Sites. Interim Report

- Year 2. Moors for the Future Report No 19. Edale.

Evans, M.G., Warburton, J. & Yang, J. (2006) Sediment budgets for eroding

blanket peat catchments: global and local implications of organic sediment

budgets. Geomorphology, 79, 45-57.

FIRES (2010) Fire interdisciplinary research on ecosystem services: re and

climate change in UK moorlands and heaths.

www.res-seminars.org.uk/downloads/FIRES_Policy%20Brief_nal.pdf

Forestry Commission (in press) The UK Forestry Standard. Forestry

Commission, Edinburgh.

Frenzel, P. & Karofeld, E. (2000) CH4 emission from a hollow-ridge complex in

a raised bog: the role of CH4 production and oxidation. Biogeochemistry, 51,

91-112.

Geary, B., Bermingham, N., Chapman, H., Charman, D., Fletcher, W.,

Fyfe, R., Quartermaine, J., Charman, D., Van de Noort, R. & Heathcote, J.

(2010) Peatlands and the historic environment. Report to IUCN UK Peatland

Programme, Edinburgh. www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/scienticreviews

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

103

Grayson, R., Holden, J. & Rose, R. (2010) Long-term change in storm

hydrographs in response to peatland vegetation change. Journal of Hydrology,

389, 336-343.

Holden, J. (2009) Upland hydrology. IN Drivers of environmental change

in uplands (eds A. Bonn, T. Allott, K. Hubacek & J. Stewart), pp. 113-134.

Routledge, London and New York.

Holden, J., Chapman, P., Evans, M., Hubacek, K., Kay, P. & Warburton, J.

(2007) Vulnerability of organic soils in England and Wales. Final technical report

to DEFRA and Countryside Council for Wales.

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=SP0532_5213_TRP.pdf

Holden, J., Chapman, P.J., Palmer, S.M., Kay, P. & Grayson, R. (2011) A review

of moorland burning impacts on raw water quality with a focus on water colour.

Report to Yorkshire Water Services.

Holden, J., Chapman, P.J., Palmer, S., Grayson, R. and Kay, P. (in review)

The impacts of prescribed moorland burning on water colour and dissolved

organic carbon: a critical synthesis. Submitted to Journal of Environmental

Management.

Holden, J., Kirkby, M.J., Lane, S.N., Milledge, D.G., Brookes, C.J., Holden, V.

& McDonald, A.T. (2008) Overland ow velocity and roughness properties in

peatlands. Water Resources Research, 44, W06415.

House, J., Orr, H., Clark, J., Gallego-Sala, A., Freeman, C., Prentice, I. &

Smith, P. (2010) Climate change and the British Uplands: evidence for decision-

making. Climate Research, 45, 3-12.

Hubacek, K., Beharry, N., Bonn, A., Burt, T., Holden, J., Ravera, F., Reed, M.,

Stringer, L. & Tarrasón, D. (2009) Ecosystem services in dynamic and contested

landscapes: the case of UK uplands. Land use and management: the new

debate (eds M. Winter & M. Lobley). Earthscan, London.

IUCN UK Peatland Programme (2011) Brief summary of the state of peatlands

in British Overseas Territories. IUCN UK Peatland Programme, Edinburgh.

www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/scienticreviews

JNCC (2011) Towards an assessment of the state of UK peatlands. Joint Nature

Conservation Committee report No 445.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5861#download

Joosten, H. (2009) The global peatland CO2 picture. Peatland status and

drainage related emissions in all countries of the world. Wetlands International.

www.wetlands.org/LinkClick.aspx?leticket=o%2bd%2bTaPldLI%3d&tabid=56

Joosten, H. (2011) Peatlands, policies and markets. Report to IUCN UK

Peatland Programme, Edinburgh.

www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/scienticreviews

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

104

Kaat, A. & Joosten, H. (2009) Factbook for UNFCCC policies on peat carbon

emissions. Wetlands International.

www.wetlands.org/LinkClick.aspx?leticket=OMprLKqOHCM%3d&tabid=56

Keenleyside, C. & Moxey, A. (2010) Public funding of peatland management

and restoration in the UK – a review for IUCN UK. Report to IUCN UK Peatland

Programme, Edinburgh. www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/scienticreviews

Labadz, J., Allott, T., Evans, M., Butcher, D., Billett, M., Stainer, S., Yallop, A.,

Jones, P., Innerdale, M., Harmon, N., Maher, K., Bradbury, R., Mount, D., O

Brien, H. & Hart, R. (2010) Peatland hydrology. Report to IUCN UK Peatland

Programme, Edinburgh. www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/scienticreviews

Lawton, J., Brotherton, P.N.M., Brown, V.K., Elphick, C., Fitter, A.H., Forshaw,

J., Haddow, R.W., Hilborne, S., Leafe, R.N., Mace, G.M., Southgate, M.P.,

Sutherland, W.J., Tew, T.E., Varley, J. & Wynne, G.R. (2010) Making Space

for Nature: A review of England's Wildlife Sites and Ecological Network.

Report to Defra. http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/biodiversity/

documents/201009space-for-nature.pdf

Lindsay, R. (2010) Peatbogs and carbon: a critical synthesis to inform policy

development in oceanic peat bog conservation and restoration in the context of

climate change. University of East London.

Limpens, J., Berendse, F., Blodau, C., Canadell, J.G., Freeman, C., Holden , J.,

Roulet, N., Rydin, H. & Schaepman-Strup, G. (2008) Peatlands and the carbon

cycle: from local processes to global implications a synthesis. Biogeosciences,

5, 1475-1491.

Littlewood, N., Anderson, P., Artz, R., Bragg, O., Lunt, P. & Marrs, R. (2010)

Peatland biodiversity. Report to IUCN UK Peatland Programme, Edinburgh.

www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/scienticreviews

Lunt, P., Allott, T., Anderson, T., Buckler, M., Coupar, A., Jones, P., Labadz,

J. & Worrall, P. (2010) Peatland restoration. Report to IUCN UK Peatland

Programme, Edinburgh. www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/scienticreviews

MacDonald, A.J. (2008) Fire and compaction as management tools on raised

bogs. Scottish Natural Heritage commissioned report.

MacNamara, N.P., Plant, T., Oakley, S. & Ostle, N. (2008) Gully hotspot

contribution to landscape methane and carbon dioxide uxes in a northern

peatland. Science of the Total Environment, 404, 354-360.

Macpherson Research (1997) RSPB Forsinard Reserve visitor survey 1997.

Report to RSPB.

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

105

McMorrow, J., Lindley, S., Aylen, J., Cavan, C., Albertson, K. & Boys, D. (2009)

Moorland wildre risk, visitors and climate change: patterns, prevention and

policy. IN Drivers of environmental change in uplands (eds A. Bonn, T.E.H.

Allott, K. Hubacek & J. Stewart), pp. 404-431. Routledge, Abingdon and New

York.

Minkkinen, K., Laine, J., Shurpali, N.J., Makiranta, P., Alm, J. & Penttila, T.

(2007) Heterotrophic soil respiration in forestry drained peatlands Boreal

Environment Research, 12, 115-126.

Montanarella, L., Jones, R.J.A. & Hiederer, R. (2006) The distribution of

peatland in Europe. Mires and Peat, 1, 1-10.

Monteith, D.T., Stoddard, J.L., Evans, C.D., de Wit, H.A., Forsius, M., Hogasen,

T., Wilander, A., Skjelkvale, B.L., Jeffries, D.S., Vuorenmaa, J., Keller, B.,

Kopacek, J. & Vesely, J. (2007) Dissolved organic carbon trends resulting from

changes in atmospheric deposition chemistry. Nature, 450, 537-U539.

Morison, J., Vanguelova, E., Broadmeadow, S., Perks, M., Yamulki, S. &

Randle, T. (2010) Understanding the GHG implications of forestry on peat soils

in Scotland. Forest Research. www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FCS_forestry_peat_

GHG_nal_Oct13_2010.pdf/$FILE/FCS_forestry_peat_GHG_nal_Oct13_2010.

pdf

Moxey, A. (2011) Illustrative economics of peatland restoration. Report to IUCN

UK Peatland Programme.

www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/scienticreviews

Murphy, J.M., Sexton, D.M.H., Jenkins, G.J., Boorman, P.M., Booth, B.B.B.,

Brown, C.C., Clark, R.T., Collins, M., Harris, G.R., Kendon, E.J., Betts, R.A.,

Brown, S.J., Howard, T.P., Humphrey, K.A., McCarthy, M.P., McDonald, R.E.,

Stephens, A., Wallace, C., Warren, R., Wilby, R. & Wood, R.A. (2009) UK

Climate Projections Science Report: Climate change projections. Met Ofce

Hadley Centre, Exeter.

Natural England (2010) England's Peatlands. Carbon Storage and Greenhouse

Gasses. Natural England, Peterborough.

Parish, F., Sirin, A., Charman, D., Joosten, H., Minayeva, T., Silvius, M. &

Stringer, L. (2008) Assessment on Peatlands, Biodiversity and Climate Change:

Main Report. Global Environment Centre, Kuala Lumpur and Wetlands

International, Wageningen. www.wetlands.org/LinkClick.aspx?leticket=rrsz0gG

wYfA%3d&tabid=56

Pawson, R.R., Lord, D.R., Evans, M.G. & Allott, T.E.H. (2008) Fluvial organic

carbon ux from an eroding peatland catchment, southern Pennines, UK.

Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 12, 625-634.

Rabinowitz, R. & d'Este-Hoare, J. (2010) Feasibility of Creating a Funding

Mechanism for UK Carbon Reduction Projects.

www.ukcarbonreporting.org/lelibrary/IP17_10.pdf

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

106

Ramchunder, S.J., Brown, L.E. & Holden, J. (2009) Environmental effects

of drainage, drain-blocking and prescribed vegetation burning in UK upland

peatlands. Progress in Physical Geography, 33, 49-79.

Ratcliffe, D.A. (1964) Mires and bogs. IN The vegetation of Scotland (ed. J.H.

Burnett), pp. 426-478. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh.

Reed, M., Buckmaster, S., Moxey, A., Keenleyside, C., Fazey, I., Scott,

A., Thomson, K., Thorp, S., Anderson, R., Bateman, I., Bryce, R., Christie,

M., Glass, J., Hubacek, K., Quinn, C., Maffey, G., Midgely, A., Robinson,

G., Stringer, L., Lowe, P. & Slee, B. (2010) Policy options for sustainable

management of UK peatlands. Report to IUCN UK Peatland Programme,

Edinburgh. www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/scienticreviews

Rowell, T.A. (1990) Management of peatlands for conservation. British Wildlife,

1, 144-156.

Scottish Government (2011) Calculating Potential Carbon Losses &

Savings from Wind Farms on Scottish Peatlands. Technical Note Version

2.0.1. Scottish Government., Edinburgh. www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/

Doc/917/0120448.pdf

Scottish Renewables (2010) Good practice during windfarm construction.

www.scottishrenewables.com/static/uploads/publications/good_practice_during_

windfarm_construction.pdf

SEERAD (2008) The Muirburn Code. Scottish Executive Environment

and Rural Affairs Department, Edinburgh. www.scotland.gov.uk/

Publications/2011/08/09125203/0

Silvola, J., Alm, J., Ahlholm, U., Nykanen, H. & Martikainen, P.J. (1996) CO2

uxes from peat in boreal mires under varying temperature and moisture

conditions. Journal of Ecology, 84, 219-228.

Stephen, L., England, B., Russell, R. & Malone, K. (2011) Habitat Condition

Monitoring of the RSPB Forsinard Flows Nature Reserve 2002 to 2008. RSPB

Scotland Reserve s Ecology Report, RSPB, Edinburgh.

Stunell, J. (2010) Investigating the impacts of windfarm development on

peatlands in England. Report to Natural England NECR032.

http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/NECR032

Tallis, J.H. (1998) Growth and degradation of British and Irish blanket mires.

Environmental Reviews, 6, 81-122.

TEEB (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming

the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and

recommendations of TEEB. www.teebweb.org

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

107

Trepel, M. (2004) The European Water Framework Directive - A chance for mire

conservation and peatland restoration? IMCG Newsletter, 5, 3-4.

UK Biodiversity Group (1999) Blanket bog Habitat action Plan. Tranch 2 Action

Plans Vol IV. Defra.

UKNEA (2011) UK National Ecosystem Assessment. Defra.

http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org

van der Wal, R., Bonn, A., Monteith, D., Reed, M., Blackstock, K., Hanley, N.,

Thompson, D., Evans, M., Alonso, I. & Beharry-Borg, N. (2011) UK National

Ecosystem Assessment. Chapter 4: Mountains, Moorlands and Heaths. Defra.

http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/LinkClick.aspx?leticket=CZHaB2%2fJKlo%3d&ta

bid=82

Verhagen, A., van den Akker, J.J.H., Blok, C., Diemont, W.H., Joosten, J.H.J.,

Schouten, M.A., Schrijver, R.A.M., den Uyl, R.M., Verweij, P.A. & Wösten,

J.H.M. (2009) Climate Change. Scientic Assessment and Policy Analysis.

Peatlands and carbon ows. Outlook and importance for the Netherlands.

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/500102027.pdf

WAG (2008) The Heather and Grass Burning Code for Wales 2008. Welsh

Assembly Government.

Wallage, Z.E., Holden, J. & McDonald, A.T. (2006) Drain blocking: an effective

treatment for reducing dissolved organic carbon loss and water discolouration in

a drained peatland. Science of the Total Environment, 367, 811-821.

Wilson, L., Wilson, J., Holden, J., Johnstone, I., Armstrong, A. & Morris, M.

(2010) Recovery of water tables in Welsh blanket bog after drain blocking:

Discharge rates, time scales and the inuence of local conditions. Journal of

Hydrology, 391, 377-386.

Wilson, L., Wilson, J., Holden, J., Armstrong, A., Johnstone, I. & Morris, M.

(2011a) The impact of drain blocking on an upland blanket bog during storm and

drought events, and the importance of sampling scale. Journal of Hydrology,

404, 198-208.

Wilson, L., Wilson, J., Holden, J., Johnstone, I., Armstrong, A. & Morris, M.

(2011b) Ditch blocking, water chemistry and organic carbon ux: Evidence that

blanket bog restoration reduces erosion and uvial carbon loss. Science of the

Total Environment, 409, 2010-2018.

Wilson, P., Clark, R., McAdam, J.H. & Cooper, E.A. (1993) Soil erosion in the

Falkland Islands: an assessment. Applied Geography, 13, 329-352.

Worrall, F., Bell, M.J. & Bhogal, A. (2010a) Assessing the probability of carbon

and greenhouse gas benet from the management of peat soils. Science of the

Total Environment, 408, 2657-2666.

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

108

Worrall, F., Chapman, P., Holden, J., Evans, C., Artz, R., Smith, P. & Grayson,

R. (2010b) Peatlands and climate change. Report to IUCN UK Peatland

Programme, Edinburgh. www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/scienticreviews

Worrall, F., Chapman, P., Holden, J., Evans, C., Artz, R., Smith, P. & Grayson,

R. (2011) A review of current evidence on carbon uxes and greenhouse gas

emissions from UK peatlands. JNCC research report 442, Peterborough.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/jncc442_webFinal.pdf

Worrall, F., Clay, G.D., Marrs, R. & Reed, M.S. (2010c) Impacts of burning

management on peatlands. Report to IUCN UK Peatland Programme,

Edinburgh. www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/scienticreviews

Yallop, A.R., Clutterbuck, B. & Thacker, J.I. (2010) Increases in humic dissolved

organic carbon export from upland peat catchments: the role of temperature,

declining sulphur deposition and changes in land management. Climate

Research, 45, 43-56. www.int-res.com/articles/cr_oa/c045p043.pdf

IUCN UK PeatlaNd Programme CommIssIoN of INqUIry oN PeatlaNds

109

“Peatland conservation is a prime example of a nature-based

solution to climate change but we urgently need to switch from

aspiration to action to secure the benets that peatlands provide.”

Julia Marton-Lefèvre, Director General,

International Union for the Conservation of Nature

The report and associated Commission of Inquiry material

can be downloaded from

www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature

(IUCN) is a global organization, providing an inuential

and authoritative voice for nature conservation. The IUCN

UK Peatland Programme promotes peatland restoration

in the UK and advocates the multiple benets of peatlands

through partnerships, strong science, sound policy

and effective practice.

Mining impacts peatland hydrology reducing discharge and water storage volumes

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2024
J HYDROL

Environmental water requirements and climate sensitivity of Australia's upland swamps

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2025
SCI TOTAL ENVIRON

Exploring testate amoebae as taxonomic and functional bioindicators to inform peatland habitat status and blanket bog restoration

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2025
SOIL BIOL BIOCHEM

Annual extent of prescribed burning on moorland in Great Britain and overlap with ecosystem services

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2024

In the UK uplands, prescribed burning of unenclosed heath, grass and blanket bog (‘moorland’) is used to support game shooting and grazing. Burning on moorland is contentious due to its impact on peat soils, hydrology and habitat condition. There is little information on spatial and temporal patterns of burning, the overlap with soil carbon and sensitive habitats and, importantly, whether these patterns are changing. This information is required to assess the sustainability of burning and the effectiveness of new legislation. We developed a method for semi‐automated detection of burning using satellite imagery – our best performing model has a balanced accuracy of 84.9%. We identified annual burn areas in Great Britain in five burning seasons from 2017/18 to 2021/22 of 8333 to 20 974 ha (average 15 250 ha year⁻¹). Annual extent in England in 2021/22 was 73% lower than the average of the four previous seasons. Burning was identified over carbon‐rich soils (mean 5150 ha or 34% by area of all burning annually) and on steep slopes – 915 ha across the five seasons (1.3%), contravening guidance. Burning (>1 ha) was recorded in 14% of UK protected areas (PAs) and, within these, the percentage area of moorland burned varied from 2 to 31%. In England in some years, the percentage area of moorland burned inside PAs was higher than outside, while this was not the case in Scotland. Burning in sensitive alpine habitats totalled 158 ha across the five seasons. The reduction in burned area in England in 2021/22 could relate to England‐specific legislation, introduced in May 2021, to prohibit burning on deep peat in PAs. This suggests that regulation can be effective. However, the continued overlap with sensitive features suggests that burning falls short of sustainable practices. Our method will enable repeatable re‐assessment of burning extents and overlap with ecosystem services.

Application of a hand-held supplementary light for extending field-based net ecosystem exchange carbon flux measurements in low light conditions

Preprint

Full-text available

Mar 2024

Manual chamber-based carbon flux measurements are frequently used to capture terrestrial carbon cycle processes over vegetated areas. Light response curves, achieved by sequential shading, enable obtaining model parameters of light compensation points, maximum photosynthetic rates and dark respiration. However, light conditions in the field are often limited, especially in darker seasons and areas with frequent cloud and fog, which questions the robustness of model parameters. Artificial light therefore offers a crucial way to assess and address these potential limitations, especially recent advances in LED lights with improved wavelength spectra and intensity. However, previous LED lights were fixed on the chamber top, blocking out natural light, heavy and with a high power demand unsuitable for remote field deployment. Here we tested a handheld LED flashlight as a flexible, low power and low weight option. We investigated the wavelength spectrum and photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) output under controlled conditions and applied it under light limiting field conditions. Carbon uptake benefited from the increased PAR range without affecting chamber temperatures, and whilst there was overall good agreement for model parameters between with and without supplementary light, model fit was improved by the wider light range for situations with higher variability.

Assessment of peatland burning in Scotland during 1985–2022 using Landsat imagery

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2023

In the Scottish uplands, prescribed burning of moorland vegetation is widely practised either to boost gamebird numbers for recreational shooting or to improve livestock grazing. In recent years, this system of land management has become controversial due to concerns over the potential impacts on ecosystem services. However, there are limited data on the extent, distribution or frequency of burning and it is unclear whether there are long‐term trends in burning. Crucially, the extent of burning on peat soils is not well known. We used a time series of Landsat imagery covering 7750 km ² of moorland in Eastern Scotland to detect annual variation in area burnt from 1985 to 2022. Burnt areas were detected using annual changes in Normalised Burn Ratio. An accuracy evaluation conducted over eight sites covering 415 km ² using a combination of Google Earth imagery, and field studies suggested a user's accuracy of 90% and a producer's accuracy of 77%. We estimate an average annual mean area burnt of 61 km ² with large interannual variability and no significant change in area burnt over the 38‐year study period. We estimate that 32% of burning (19 km ² year ⁻¹ ) occurred on deep peat soils with no reduction in burning on deep peat after the revision of national guidelines (the Muirburn Code) in 2017 recommended ceasing this practice. We find that in Eastern Scotland there has been no significant change in moorland area burnt over the last four decades. The fractional area burnt that is on deep peat is a matter of management concern.

Towards Resilient Peatlands: Integrating Ecosystem-Based Strategies, Policy Frameworks, and Management Approaches for Sustainable Transformation

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2025

This paper examines the critical importance of peatlands in climate regulation, biodiversity conservation, and the provision of essential ecosystem services, emphasizing the urgent need for their preservation and restoration. Although peatlands cover just 3% of global land, they store 30% of the world’s terrestrial carbon, making them vital for mitigating climate change. However, activities such as agriculture, forestry, and peat extraction have caused significant degradation, compromising their ecological integrity and climate functions. This review makes a unique contribution by applying a systems thinking approach to synthesize the interconnected technical, environmental, and socioeconomic dimensions of peatland management, an often underrepresented perspective in existing literature. By offering a holistic and integrative analysis, it identifies key leverage points for effective and sustainable conservation and restoration strategies. This paper also explores the European Union’s policy response, including the EU Restoration Law and sustainability initiatives aimed at peatland recovery. It highlights the shift from peat use in energy production to its application in horticulture, reflecting growing demand for sustainable alternatives and eco-friendly restoration practices across Europe. Furthermore, this review addresses the environmental consequences of peat extraction, such as increased greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity lossand emphasizes the need for robust EU legislation aligned with climate neutrality and biodiversity enhancement goals. It concludes by advocating for comprehensive research and proactive, policy-driven measures to ensure the long-term protection and sustainable use of these vital ecosystems.

Using Quad-Polarimetric SAR (ALOS-2) to Monitor Wetness of Bogs in Scotland and Sweden

Conference Paper

Jul 2024

Application of a GIS-Based Hydrological Model to Predict Surface Wetness of Blanket Bogs

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2024

Understanding hydrological processes operating on relatively intact blanket bogs provides a scientific basis for establishing achievable restoration targets for damaged sites. A GIS-based hydrological model, developed to assess restoration potential of Irish raised bogs, was adapted and applied to four relatively intact blanket bogs in Ireland. The Modified Flow Accumulation Capacity (MFAC) model utilised high-resolution topographic data to predict surface wetness, based on climatic conditions, contributing catchment and local surface slope. Modifications to MFAC parameters aimed to account for differences in hydrological processes between raised bogs and blanket bogs. Application of a climatic correction factor accounted for variations in effective rainfall between the four study sites, while monitoring of water table levels indicated a log-linear relationship between MFAC values and summer water table levels and range of water table fluctuations. Deviations from the observed relationship between MFAC and water table levels were associated with hydrological pressures, such as artificial drainage or the occurrence of subsurface macropores (peat pipes), which further lowered summer water tables. Despite being effective as a predictor of relative surface wetness, the relationship between MFAC and ecological variables such as Sphagnum spp. cover proved poor, pointing to the impact of past activities and damage caused by anthropogenic pressures. Findings demonstrated MFAC as an effective tool in predicting surface wetness within blanket bog-covered landscapes, thus proving useful to peatland practitioners in planning and prioritising areas for restoration. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13157-023-01765-5.

Assessing the effectiveness, practicality and cost effectiveness of mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from intensively cultivated peatlands

Article

Nov 2023
LAND USE POLICY

Making Space for Nature: A Review of England's Wildlife Sites and Ecological Network

Technical Report

Full-text available

Jan 2010

Lawton, J.H., Brotherton, P.N.M., Brown, V.K., Elphick, C., Fitter, A.H., Forshaw, J., Haddow, R.W., Hilborner, S., Leafe, R.N., Mace, G.M., Southgate, M.P., Sutherland, W.J., Tew, T.E., Varley, J. & Wynne, G.R. (2010) Making Space for Nature: a review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological networks. Report to Defra.

Climate change and the British Uplands: evidence for decision-making INTRODUCTION

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2010

We summarise the work of an interdisciplinary network set up to explore the impacts of climate change in the British Uplands. In this CR Special, the contributors present the state of knowledge and this introduction synthesises this knowledge and derives implications for decision makers. The Uplands are valued semi-natural habitats, providing ecosystem services that have historically been taken for granted. For example, peat soils, which are mostly found in the Uplands, contain around 50% of the terrestrial carbon in the UK. Land management continues to be a driver of ecosystem service delivery. Degraded and managed peatlands are subject to erosion and carbon loss with negative impacts on biodiversity, carbon storage and water quality. Climate change is already being experienced in British Uplands and is likely to exacerbate these pressures. Climate envelope models suggest as much as 50% of British Uplands and peatlands will be exposed to climate stress by the end of the 21st century under low and high emissions scenarios. However, process-based models of the response of organic soils to this climate stress do not give a consistent indication of what this will mean for soil carbon: results range from a very slight increase in uptake, through a clear decline, to a net carbon loss. Preserving existing peat stocks is an important climate mitigation strategy, even if new peat stops forming. Preserving upland vegetation cover is a key win-win management strategy that will reduce erosion and loss of soil carbon, and protect a variety of services such as the continued delivery of a high quality water resource.

UK Climate Projections Science Report: Climate Change Projections

Book

Jun 2009

Policy change in the uplands

Article

Jan 2009

I. Condliffe

Literature review of emissions of methane from peatlands

Article

Jan 2009

Models of peat growth

Article

Jan 1992

R.S. Clymo

Two pictorial and descriptive models of the surface of a peat-forming bog are given, and a third shows the rate of peat accumulation. A simple quantitative model of the surface layers leads to the conclusion that the surface layer is in a steady state, fixing carbon, losing some by decay, and passing some on to the underlying peat proper. A similar model for the underlying peat shows that if decay is at a rate that is a constant proportion of what remains then there is an upper asymptotic limit to the depth of peat. But if the rate of decay decreases then peat accumulation continues indefinitely through at an ever-decreasing rate. A simulation model allowing greater realism but diminished understanding is outlined. -from Author

Biophysical Controls on Organic Carbon Fluxes in Fluvial Networks

Article

Jan 2008

Economic Valuation of the Benefits of Ecosystem Services delivered by the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (Defra Project SFFSD 0702)

Article

Aug 2011

Policy options for sustainable management of UK Peatlands

Article

Jan 2010

Moorland wildfire risk, visitors and climate change: Patterns, prevention and policy

Chapter

Dec 2008

This chapter reviews the wildfire problem in UK moorlands and heaths. It uses the Peak District National Park (PDNP) as a detailed case study to examine the spatial pattern and timing of wildfire occurrence, as well as associated policy implications.

IUCN UK Commission of inquiry on peatlands

Figures

Recommended publications

Research to empower and inspire from Durham University Business School

Research to empower and inspire from the Science Faculty at Durham University

Research to empower and inspire from the Social Sciences Faculty at Durham University

Research to empower and inspire from the Arts and Humanities Faculty at Durham University

Changes of cultural landscapes in Northwest Germany - Considerations regarding a sustainable spatial...

Evaluating ecosystem good and services after restoration of marginal upland peatlands in South-West...

The Research Agency of the Forestry Commission A Strategic Assessment of the Afforested Peat Resourc...

The effect of drain blocking on the dissolved organic carbon (DOC) budget of an upland peat catchmen...

Impact of gully erosion on carbon sequestration in blanket peatlands