RIS312193 Turfvrije potgrond bijlage 2

The Peatland Code is a voluntary standard which provides a consistent approach for UK peatland restoration projects wishing to attract carbon finance; providing validation and verification and ensuring businesses are given the assurance that a

restoration project will deliver the benefits they claim. Currently the Peatland Code provides assurance for carbon benefits only. We are working with the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the provider of the Peatland Code, to invest in its evolution and ensure it meets investors and landowner needs as outlined in the Action Plan. In the 2018 Budget, the Chancellor announced a package of funding for forestry, including a Woodland Carbon Guarantee, which will underwrite £50 million of the carbon credits registered under the Woodland Carbon Code. This provides long term certainty for participants and gives landowners a guaranteed price for the carbon credits, set at the level required to make the investment worthwhile. Once the reforms to the Peatland Code outlined above are implemented, we would like to explore whether the guarantee mechanism could be expanded or replicated to include peatland restoration. This could significantly open up carbon investment in peatlands. The carbon price is currently too low, meaning that peatland restoration projects aimed at long-term carbon abatement are often unviable. As these various revenue streams are unlocked, we shall look to develop mechanisms for layering or ‘blending’ investment, to monetise all of the potential ecosystem services provided by peatland restoration in all settings (Figure 3).

It is important that the value of the possible benefits is understood from project inception, so that investors can join from the beginning, and the benefits can be stacked. The valuation of natural capital assets and ecosystem services is developing at pace, both in the public and private sector, including through the government’s recently announced £5 million pilot on establishing a new Natural Capital and Ecosystem Assessment.

29

Figure 3: Schematic representation of blended finance for peatland restoration Blending funding streams would enable large-scale, strategic investments that deliver more than the sum of individual ones. For example, Defra is working with the private sector to develop the Landscape Enterprise Networks model, which blends different private revenue streams to unlock strategic landscape scale investments. Defra is committed to ensuring that new schemes that reward farmers and land managers for producing public goods. An Environmental Land Management Trial is currently taking place in Cumbria that will develop options for adding Environmental Land Management finance into the Landscape Enterprise Networks model. We will also ensure that the Nature for Climate Fund does not crowd out private sector funding but instead pump primes potential new funding streams, acting as a catalyst, incentivising private sector investors funding ecosystem services. We will develop effective project delivery models that can be replicated with confidence by others. As set out in the Green Finance Strategy, government has a role to play in paying for public goods that the market alone cannot provide, but also has a role in market development.

The establishment of Defra’s Natural Environment Investment Readiness Fund will kick-start the development of the domestic market for private sector natural capital investments. The Natural Environment Investment Readiness Fund will provide capacity and capability building support to organisations to develop a pipeline of commercially attractive, revenue-generative projects that support 25 Year Environment Plan goals, such as peatland restoration. Activities eligible for support could include, but are not limited to: project management, technical guidance (for example in evaluating ecosystem services), investment structuring and capital raising, and assessment of

investment risks. Peatland delivery partnerships will be well-placed to bid for funding and assistance as they are in an ideal position to unlock private funding opportunities. The activities outlined above will not only help to develop a market for peatland restoration, but also for sustainable management. Feedback from landowners and land managers indicates that until they understand the range of financial opportunities available to them and what their peatland asset is worth, making decisions on management practices can present a challenge, and they are less willing to invest in new technologies or make changes to their business models.

31

Annex B: Protecting peat

The Wildfire Review The peat archive shows that wildfire has been a feature of peatlands for a considerable length of time 25 but with a changing climate we expect that the frequency and severity of wildfires may increase. The summer of 2018 saw significant wildfires on Winter Hill and Stalybridge Moor covering 1,800 hectares. These wildfires burnt for three weeks, damaging both a Special Area of Conservation and a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Not only were greenhouse gases released, depleting the carbon that had been stored for thousands of years in the peat, but the fire also left areas of bare peat exposed to erosion and further degradation. It is estimated the full cost of restoration of these two significant 2018 wildfires could be £2.8 million. 26 Since 2018 wildfires have continued to occur. The risks associated with increased public access during the Coronavirus emergency has highlighted the need for continued improvements in how wildfire risk is planned for and responded to. Larger numbers of people accessing local areas of countryside at higher than normal levels resulted in wildfires and increased pressure on emergency services. Natural England recently published an Evidence Review 27 looking into the occurrence, causes, prevention and management of wildfires on heathlands and peatlands in England.

This work has highlighted a need for more evidence, but where robust conclusions can be drawn, the review shows that: ● ● ● ● ● ●

The incidence of wildfire in the UK tends to be episodic, coinciding with dry-spells and hot periods, with much variation between years. People are the main cause of wildfire ignition. On peatland, restoration reduces the risk of wildfire ignition and severity, and increases resilience. Raising awareness and public information campaigns can reduce wildfire occurrences. Rapid and reliable responses to wildfire, such as fire watching and good vehicle access, are effective at reducing incidences and spread. However, there is a need for greater evidence in the UK to support the effectiveness of firebreaks in reducing occurrence and spread of wildfire. Similarly, there is little UK research into the effectiveness of managing fuel load.

Defra also undertook a review of wildfire and the management of upland peatland habitats in England, to identify what changes to land management policy could further minimise the 25

https://www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/sites/www.iucn-ukpeatlandprogramme.org/files/8%20Burning%20%20final%20-%205th%20November%202014.pdf 26 Based on restoration costs per hectare associated with Defra’s current Capital Grant restoration scheme. 27 http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4741162353295360?category=5968803

risk of wildfire. The implementation of this will take forward actions that relate directly to peatland management. These were: ● ● ●

Continued action on peatland restoration. Detailed mapping of peatland, including peat depth, made available to land managers for inclusion in wildfire management planning, and to the Fire and Rescue Service to help tackle wildfire in emergencies. Consideration of how managed burns to reduce wildfire risk can, in exceptional circumstances, remain a part of the wider ‘toolkit’ available to manage wildfire risk.

The Review found that burning on peat habitats has the potential to increase long-term fire risk. Burning on deep peat is likely to set back habitat recovery and encourage the dominance of heather. Heather has a high, woody fuel-load when mature, and burns hotter than other moorland vegetation. This may present more of a wildfire risk in the long term especially when compared with restoration of peatland habitat, including rewetting. 28 Whilst cutting is the preferred management technique for heather on deep peat, the use of burning should remain an option under specific circumstances. Several other actions that could reduce future wildfire risk in upland peat habitats were highlighted in the review, namely: ● ● ● ●

●

Reviewing how public access is managed, Working with Natural England to improve public awareness and understanding of wildfire risks, Improving local resilience, Considering how we improve existing mechanisms (such as the Fire Severity Index) designed to raise awareness of wildfire risk and trigger actions to reduce the impact of wildfire and increase awareness of imminent risk. We will look at how these mechanisms are applied to better inform closures of public land, improve public awareness of those risks, and reflect changes within climatic conditions. Developing a standardised approach to information capture following wildfire incidences.

Continued and close working across central government will remain key to ensuring that policy and practice improvements are taken forward, support more effective and strategic responses to wildfire, and improve our understanding of wildfire risk and how to address it. This includes considering the need for longer-term research into the impacts of wildfire and ensuring that the recommendations of the Uplands Management Group, highlighted below, are widely supported.

28

Granath, G., Moore, P. A., Lukenbach, M. C., Waddington, J. M. (2016). Mitigating wildfire carbon loss in managed northern peatlands through restoration. Scientific Reports, 6. DOI: 10.1038/srep28498

33

Uplands Management Group and Forestry Commission Recommendations The Uplands Management Group were commissioned by Defra to compile advice and guidance to land manager to mitigate against wildfire. 29 Their advice is based on the Forestry Commission Practice Guidance, 30 and recommends a risk assessment approach to planning and preparing for wildfire, which should include: ● ●

● ●

●

A Wildfire Management Plan, to reduce the risk of wildfire, and the damage caused if one should occur and mitigate any risks identified in the risk assessment. A Wildfire Risk Assessment, carried out by land managers, to understand the likelihood of a wildfire event, and the potential severity if it does occur. This includes as a first step, the use of the UMG Wildfire Risk Scoresheet to evaluate the factors that may affect the likelihood of a fire starting and to determine if a full Wildfire Risk Assessment is required. Wildfire management zones, to protect life, property and infrastructure as well as provide a proportionate approach in land management planning. Wildfire prevention measures – implementation of planning using operations that will increase wildfire resilience on site and in the landscape. This could include a wide range of management practices including; controlled burning, grazing, tree thinning, cutting (manual or mechanical). A Wildfire Response Plan, to describe the response required in the event of a wildfire. It should include relevant information such as location of infrastructure, access routes, water sources, specialist equipment, contact details and site maps.

In order to best protect people, businesses, property, habitats and ecosystem services from wildfire, the UMG provide templates for the three documents. It also provides a Wildfire Risk Scoresheet to use in the initial site assessment.

29

Uplands Management Group Moorland Wildfire Risk Assessment and Management Planning Recommendations https://www.uplandsmanagement.co.uk/ 30 Forestry Commission (2014) Building Wildfire Resilience into Forest Management Planning

Annex C: Delivery Approach

Better information We currently have a number of information gaps in relation to our peatland - where it is, what condition it is in, and what actions have been taken to recover it. These gaps should not be a barrier to action; addressing them will allow us to make better decisions, including targeting investment in areas that provide the greatest value for money. Over the next two years we intend to develop a number of tools to help close these information gaps. This will include an improved baseline map of England’s peatland. Our prioritisation of action and investment on peat is being hampered by the age of the data (>30 years) that is currently available. The map will allow us to: ● ● ● ● ●

Make more robust estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from peatlands; Prioritise investment in peatland restoration in areas that would deliver greatest costbenefit; Understand where successful peatland restoration action is possible and where it is not possible to restore peatland; Aid in the response to wildfires, as it will enable accurate risk assessment and mitigation; Assist in spatial planning, by for example, allowing the National Soil Map to be updated.

This map will integrate with the Living England habitat map and Natural Capital and Ecosystem Assessment pilot programme to show restoration outcomes for habitats and biodiversity in the future. The map will make full use of recent innovations such as satellite data. The intention is that all of our peatland will be mapped by 2024. Other tools will include: ●

●

●

An improved classification scheme for peatland condition (based on available data). Current classification schemes do not meet the needs of peatlands: most assess condition purely for biodiversity. The new scheme will be used to assess the condition of all peat for multiple objectives, including carbon storage, natural flood management and biodiversity. A peatland restoration register for projects in England. This will be a one-stop-shop for cataloguing key data, including end goals for the site, current restoration status, greenhouse gas emissions abatement, restoration/management plans, issues and actors. It will play an important role in tracking our progress against the five year stretch targets for peat restoration and it will be a requirement of government funding for peat restoration that projects complete a register entry. Recovery and management trajectories for different types of peatland. Once a restoration plan has been agreed and funding secured, restoration and management

35

will transition through stages to reach the end goal and to deliver the agreed environmental outcomes. Figure 4 illustrates an example trajectory with milestones and a likely timeframe for restoration. Using evidence from the pilot programme, and over the course of initial roll-out of the Action Plan, different trajectories will be developed and tested for different peatland types, aiding understanding of the stages necessary to move each site from its starting position to the desired end goal. 0 - 1Years

2-5 Years

10-15 Years

20-50 Years

Restoration works.

Detectable changes in water quality, water table depth and peat stabilisation by vegetation

Wet tolerant vegetation becoming dominant (including Sphagnum species).

Good hydrological and ecological functionality possible.

Figure 4: Plotting a recovery trajectory for blanket bog (adapted from RSPB).

Empower: support and facilitation on the ground As the custodians of our peatlands, landowners and managers are instrumental to their recovery. At a local level the last two decades have seen the emergence of significant peatland partnerships such as the Yorkshire Peat Partnership, Moors for the Future and the South West Peatland Partnership. These are usually led by National Parks or Areas of Outstanding National Beauty, water companies or environmental Non-Governmental Organisations such as Wildlife Trusts, and have proven to be vital in building trusted relationships with, and coordination between, landowners and managers, helping achieve shared values to protect and preserve the environment. Their work has been instrumental in driving peatland restoration as well as advancing our knowledge of restoration processes and its timescales for success. Social research commissioned as part of the Peatland Pilots emphasised the importance of respecting valuable local knowledge, and helping landowners and managers find solutions that work for their land, without being overly prescriptive. 31 The role of trusted intermediaries is vital as part of this process. In terms of building the infrastructure to deliver benefits for peat, we don’t want to replace what established partnerships are already doing effectively. We want to support and grow their approach.

We also want to encourage the growth of new or developing peat partnerships in areas with limited current coverage. The original focus of peat restoration occurring in areas of greatest value for biodiversity means that there are still large parts of the country that don’t have a strong grass-roots partnership providing expertise and pressing for change.

31

Reed MS, Kenter JO, Hansda R, Martin J, Curtis T, Saxby H, Mills L, Post J, Garrod G, Proctor A, Collins O, Guy JA, Stewart G, Whittingham M (2020) Social barriers and opportunities to the implementation of the England Peat Strategy. Final Report to Natural England and Defra, Newcastle University

Given Natural England’s role in providing national coordination and expertise they are developing a broader offer of support that will: ● ●

seed the creation of peatland partnerships in areas of the country where they don’t currently exist; ensure existing partnerships have support and continuity of resource to create a pipeline of ongoing restoration, for example, through the funding of planning grants as well as grants for restoration projects in the Nature for Climate Fund.

Plan: developing the pipeline of restoration We are aware that capital funds to carry out restoration works are not the only funding required by organisations. We know there is a large amount of untapped potential to restore peat, however most sites do not have restoration plans. Developing these plans involves significant work – coordination between multiple landowners and managers, archaeological assessments, surveying work, logistical planning to secure contractors – can take months, sometimes years. Funding and capacity for this work is vital. The Nature for Climate Fund will provide support and funding for development work on sites that have been identified as suitable for restoration. In addition, pre-market engagement will facilitate the formation of new peatland partnerships, and planning grants will be available for the new partnerships through the grant scheme. This will help to significantly increase restoration efforts nationally, in order to meet our targets.

Building the knowledge & evidence base: Better knowledge sharing between researchers and practitioners on how to do effective peatland restoration is needed. We will look to develop an evidence and knowledgeexchange programme. We will partner with and influence the direction of other institutions. We want to encourage all research funders to help us to address these gaps. Our top evidence and knowledge gaps for sites on a pathway to healthy functioning peatforming wetland habitat are: ●

●

●

●

How can restoration success be quantified and monitored? Can we move from intervention-based (e.g. number of ditch blocks) to outcome-based (e.g. demonstrable improvements in peat hydrology, habitat composition) assessment, e.g. using remote sensing? How might future changes in climate and land use/management affect degradation processes (including hydrological, microbiological, greenhouse gas flux and nutrient cycling) in different types of English peatland (upland and lowland), and how can these risks be effectively mitigated or avoided? How resilient is current peatland restoration activity in England to climate change? Are there particular types of restoration that may provide better returns than others in terms of peatland ecosystem services, including cultural services, or resilience to climate change? Are there areas of the country where anticipated warming risks successful outcomes for any restoration approach? How do the changes that peatland systems have undergone due to different types of management affect the outcomes of restoration? Does reversing the causes of

37

●

●

degradation return the peatland to delivering its original ecosystem services or has the peatland system been so changed that it now operates in a different way? What factors influence the costs of restoration in different contexts across England, and how does this influence the cost-effectiveness of restoration investments? How can these values be converted into ecosystem service benefit values for use in accounting and monitoring in private investment schemes? What are the greenhouse gas implications of restoring forest to peatland compared with retaining productive forest under an improved management regime?

Improving guidance on peatland restoration Peatland restoration projects and heritage stakeholders have a common objective to halt and prevent further damage to peatland. Degrading peatland can rapidly loose its ability to safeguard historic information. Considering the impact that peatland restoration proposals will have on the historic environment at the earliest stages of project planning, and including appropriate mitigation measures, helps to minimise the possibility of costly delays at later stages of projects. The preservation and enhancement of the historic environment requires careful consideration from the very earliest stages of project planning for peatland restoration. Collaborative working relationships and embedding historic environment advice into projects from the outset are key to allowing historic and natural environment stakeholders to maximise the opportunities to deliver public goods by peatland restoration. Natural England and Historic England will be developing joint guidance around peatland restoration and the historic environment. The guidance will demonstrate the need to consider the scale of losses not only of historic information, but also of the other public goods and services inherent within degrading peatland habitats.

By adhering to the new guidance, stakeholders will have assurance that historic environment issues have been duly considered, and peatland restoration projects can progress with less risk.

PB 14668