Are you also confused by peatland restoration?
Across Europe, peatlands have a long history of being reshaped, drained, and dug up. What were once waterlogged, carbon-rich ecosystems — bogs, fens, and mires stretching across landscapes — have been converted for agriculture, grazing, and fuel. Today, over half of Europe’s peatlands are degraded, and many bear little resemblance to the wet and wonderful places they once were.
Thanks for reading RE-PEAT community! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Yet in the past decade, a wave of restoration efforts has begun to emerge. At the EU level, the Nature Restoration Law calls for 30% of agriculturally used peatlands to be rewetted by 2030. In the UK, the Peatland Code offers carbon credits to investors who fund restoration work. And in Scotland, the Peatland ACTION programme has already restored more than 10,000 hectares, with plans for seven times more (70,000 hectares) by the end of the decade.
These initiatives are hopeful — but restoring peatlands is not straightforward, there is no formula. No two peatlands are the same. Some have been drained for decades, others only recently. Some are scarred by intensive grazing, others by fire, forestry, or peat extraction. Beneath the surface lies thousands of years of accumulated plant matter, heritage, and history. To attempt restoration is to step into this complexity.
Most projects begin with rewetting, by blocking drains and raising the water table. But rewetting alone doesn’t guarantee recovery. Drained soils can contain nutrients and invasive seeds from past agriculture, fuelling invasive species that outcompete natives. Restored water levels may not bring back the fungal and microbial communities essential for peat formation.
Even when things go well, restoration has no fixed end point. A rewetted bog might still need regular management to keep invasive vegetation at bay, or to prevent nutrients from tipping the balance. Restoration is less about pressing “rewind” and more about negotiating an ongoing relationship with the land — a process of trial, error, and adaptation. And beyond the ecological challenges, how does the act of restoring change our relationship with the land?
Restoration raises many questions: What does success look like? Who decides when a bog is “restored”? And how do we balance carbon storage with biodiversity, heritage, or livelihoods?
In this series, we’ll explore these questions from different angles — the ecological, the legal, the financial, and communal. Together, these perspectives reveal that peatland restoration is not a single story, but many. And to understand it, we have to listen carefully to the whispers from the bog.
Today, we will talk to three experts on different aspects of peatland restoration. To begin, Garance Wood-Moulin will discuss how restoration is financed, diving deeper into the UK’s peatland code. Then, Matlide Fachini, from Wetlands International, will give us an introduction to European policy on restoration. To wrap it up, Frankie Turk will tell us about what restoration means within RE-PEAT, and the restoration academy project.
Garance Wood-Moulin
You’ve worked closely with the Peatland Code and carbon markets. Can you explain how the Peatland Code differs from other carbon credit systems? What makes a carbon credit from a peatland project trustworthy or effective in your view?
Peatlands are areas of land supported by an in-situ, naturally accumulated layer of peat. Peat soils are often formed over long time scales from carbon rich, dead and decaying plant materials, and underwater logged conditions. In their natural state peatlands build up carbon at a rate of about one millimeter per year, making them exceptional long-term carbon stores.
Unfortunately, however, the majority of our peatlands in the UK are no longer storing or sequestering carbon, and the funding required to restore them is often seen as a big barrier. This is where a mechanism like the Peatland Code is so key. The Peatland Code is the only UK government-backed domestic, voluntary carbon market standard, specifically for peatland restoration launched in 2015.
It plays a pivotal role in the fight against climate change by providing a credible mechanism to support and scale peatland restoration. It's underpinned by peer reviewed methodologies, a robust validation and verification process, and science led. A trustworthy peatland carbon credit comes down to three things: additionality, permanence, and integrity.
The Code ensures that the projects wouldn't happen without the carbon finance (that's the additionality), that the carbon benefits are long term, and the emission reductions are based on science now aligned with the UK greenhouse gas inventory. Crucially, the Code requires independent validation and verification by accredited third party bodies.
This builds confidence for buyers and ensures transparency, and it protects the reputation of the market in building that high integrity. This helps ensure that credits issued under the Peatland Codes reflect a real measurable emission reduction.
From your perspective, what are the current trends in how peatland restoration is being financed? Are we seeing a shift in who’s paying and why?
Yes, there's definitely a shift happening. I think traditionally, peatland restoration was largely funded through previous land management agreements or public grants, but now we are really seeing the growing role and need for blended private finance models where public funding and private funding, through the sale of credits in the voluntary carbon market can help fund the restoration that's taking place.
We're also seeing that many companies are looking to invest in quite big nature-based solution projects as part of their net zero strategies and peatlands are starting to gain the recognition for the benefits and the amazing things that they can do for climate and nature.
It's really no longer just about offsetting their emissions, but it's also about the kind of responsibility and, and reputation from a company's perspective. And the investors are looking a lot in a lot more detail for projects that can deliver that. The fantastic thing about thePeatland Code is that the credits that are issued aren't just about carbon, it's the associated benefits that come with the emission reductions, such as improved water quality and biodiversity. So it's really so much more than just the emission reductions.
Restoration is often marketed as a win-win - good for the planet and for business. But do you think the branding and communication around peatland restoration actually help the cause? Or are there risks in how it's being framed to the public and investors?
I think that's quite a difficult question. On one hand, it's a bit of a double-edged sword, so on one side, you've got the branding of peatland restoration in terms of climate benefit. That's so powerful and it helps bring new audiences and attract funding and build momentum, which we really need in the peatland community.
So framing it as good for the planet and for businesses - that really does appeal to a lot of investors and businesses, especially in the private sector. But I think we need to be really cautious that the communication is honest, nuanced and grounded in science as there's a danger of oversimplifying.
I think the messaging could very easily get into that greenwashing space. So it is a bit nuanced in a way. And so peatland restoration, I mean the beauty of it is - it's quite complex and it does require quite a lot of long-term work. Some of our projects are a hundred years long, so it doesn't really fit quite neatly into those short, snappy marketing campaigns or short term carbon targets.
I think there's also a bigger thing that we can't really ignore. The real concern for some communities is a worry that peatland restoration could mean the loss of their income or loss of their job as there's a change to the land use. So there will be certain trade-offs in the need for restoration in the uk. I don't think that it should be glossed over. I think there needs to be a real acknowledgement of that and a roadmap of how we ensure that those people are not left behind and not excluded from that conversation.
So that's one side of it and the other thing is to not just focus on the carbon. As I mentioned earlier, peatlands are so much more than just carbon. They're biodiversity rich and they have such a wide cultural heritage and play a real vital role in the community. And so when we do celebrate and talk about peatlands, we really need to be talking about all of the things that they do and then also say how complex they are and challenging they might be.
And lastly, I think it's really important that the local communities and land managers are part of the story and that they are included in the communication and the branding of peatland restoration because they are the best people to talk about the wonders of peatlands and how really beneficial they are for meeting our net zero targets, but also just for us as people, you know?
We've done a lot of work in the Code and the program around that celebration of peatlands, people and nature and that link. And we have to remember that these are places of cultural values sometimes. So yes, in short, I think it's incredibly fantastic that peatlands are getting the attention they deserve and I think we need more of it and we really need to celebrate them, but we need to ensure that when we do, the messaging isn't simplified and not lost at the nuances in that story that they have to tell.
Matilde Fachini
How would you describe the current state of European policy on peatlands and nature restoration?
Well... it's a bit of a mixed bag. Not perfect—but certainly better than a few years ago. I would say that we’ve taken a few meaningful steps forward, but we’re still not quite where we need to be.
From a policy standpoint, there have been some concrete advances in recent years:
First of all, under the current Common Agricultural Policy, the overarching policy framework dictating the direction of European agriculture, paludiculture is now officially eligible for payments from the EU. This is already quite a big deal. Even more importantly, peatlands are now explicitly included in the CAP’s environmental conditions for subsidies, through GAEC 2, which sets standards for protecting wetlands and peatlands.
Then came a major milestone: the Nature Restoration Law, adopted in June 2024. The Nature Restoration Law sets legally binding targets to restore degraded ecosystems, including peatlands, and what is especially worth noting is that it makes rewetting a required part of the process – meaning that Member States are legally obligated to rewet part of the area when restoring the peatland. This law is a real game-changer as it shifts the conversation from “should we restore nature?” to “we have to restore nature,” and it puts peatlands right at the center of Europe’s strategy to tackle biodiversity loss and climate change.
On top of that, the Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming Certification Framework, or CRCF, came into force in late 2024. Even though we’re still waiting on detailed methodologies to be rolled out, the idea is clear: create a system to certify and reward carbon removals from restored ecosystems like peatlands. This represents a promising tool to connect climate finance with ecological restoration.
So, on the one hand, the trends around the policy framework are quite positive and especially represent a step forward from the past; but, on the other hand, a lot depends on when and how they will become operational. And, from this perspective, what we can already say is that the political climate is not helping. The European Parliament elected in 2024 has become more conservative, and environmental ambition, which had gained real ground over the past few years, now risks being overshadowed by a growing focus on economic competitiveness, market resilience, and defense.
It goes without saying that wetlands protection is also affected by this change of trend. And to make matters more uncertain, we now have a CAP simplification package on the table - which means that the Commission made a proposal to simplify the existing CAP regulation; this already happened last year due to farmers' pressure, and it’s justified as to reduce administrative burden. However, several proposed changes threaten key environmental safeguards — especially GAEC 2. If these standards are weakened or made more flexible, we could lose one of the few binding tools currently in place to protect wetlands and peatlands.
So overall, we have the policy architecture—but there’s a real risk of losing momentum, or even backsliding, if political priorities continue to drift away from climate and nature.
What are some of the main challenges and opportunities you face in navigating EU policy processes and keeping peatlands and nature restoration on the agenda?
One of the main challenges is the lack of political and public awareness around peatlands’ role in climate mitigation, biodiversity, and water regulation. Even though peatlands exist in nearly every European country, they are still largely absent from mainstream policy conversations.
This invisibility is also reinforced by long-standing land use traditions and decades of CAPs that have encouraged draining land for productivity - and continue to be highly influenced by powerful agro-industrial interests.
At the same time, peatlands are facing a bit of a paradox. If on the one hand, they are largely ignored, paradoxically, they have also become a bit of a buzzword – suddenly seen as a silver bullet for multiple crises. So yes, the attention is welcome – it puts peatlands on the radar and can help unlock funding for their protection and restoration. But it’s also a double-edged sword, because their value is often reduced to purely economic terms. As such, restoration is often framed purely in terms of carbon credits and investment returns, which reduces peatlands protection to just another form of economic speculation—instead of a long-term ecological and ethical commitment.
Another major challenge is the cultural and practical disconnect between traditional farming models and the concept of wet agriculture. For generations, land drainage was seen as progress. So now asking farmers to rewet land really goes against the grain and without a strong policy framework – especially within the CAP - it’s hard to see how that transition could work.
Finally, another challenge comes from the fact that there is no one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to proposing solutions as paludiculture. It is possible to replicate it, but it’s also being observed that every country has specific soil and environmental conditions, so there is a need for locally tailored solutions. This represents a challenge, but also an opportunity as through projects like Paluwise, where we are working with partners across Europe to upscale paludiculture, we are creating a space for learning, knowledge exchange, and developing approaches that can both scale – but also adapt to different local contexts.
In general, the greatest opportunities come from the policy framework; as I was anticipating before with NRR and CRCF, we are finally in a stage where peatlands are formally embedded in EU legislation, which gives the opportunity to really move forward with their protection and restoration.
What do you think is most urgently needed to protect and restore peatlands and nature across Europe?
What we really need—urgently—is a shift in how we value peatlands. Not just as carbon stores or economic assets, but as living ecosystems that deliver long-term benefits for climate, biodiversity, and people. That shift starts with better implementation of the policies we already have.
We also need to support farmers and land managers in making the transition. It's unrealistic to expect change if we don’t offer the right tools, incentives, and knowledge. That includes funding for restoration, training for practices like paludiculture, and more flexibility in how land use is supported under the CAP.
From a policy perspective, we really need stability—and more ambition. We were seeing tentative progress in the right direction when it comes to recognizing and protecting peatlands and wetlands through the Common Agricultural Policy. But now, unfortunately, we’re seeing a step backwards. The CAP keeps shifting, and not necessarily in the right direction. That makes it incredibly difficult to plan long-term restoration or support farmers in transitioning to more sustainable land use.
If we’re serious about meeting climate and biodiversity targets, peatland protection can’t be a side note. It has to be built into the core of our agricultural and land use policies.
And finally, we need to keep challenging the dominant narrative that protecting nature is a cost or a burden. In reality, restoring peatlands is one of the smartest investments we can make for climate resilience, biodiversity, and sustainable water management.
Frankie Turk
Peatland restoration is a nuanced topic. On what level does RE-PEAT engage with it, and why is it still valuable to do so?
Why is peatland restoration such a nuanced topic?
Well…
One of the special things about peatlands is how diverse they are. They form in mountain crevices and along valleys, they creep up behind coast lines and under icy sheets, they can be found on plateaus or hidden inside dense rainforests. These wetlands are sustained with rainwater, river water, lake water, snowmelt and hold a variety of nutrients, microbes and acidity levels. These peaty pockets of earth can range from just a few square metres to millions of hectares, and as they form through time, and are shaped and reshaped by the fluctuations of climates and living systems.
On top of all these biophysical differences, what makes a lot of peatlands distinct is their social and political relationships. For some, like those buried underneath cities like London, these relationships have not just degraded them but totally demolished them. For others, who have experienced generations of drainage and extraction their identity is still heavily shaped by human culture.
Basically, my point is peatlands are not just one thing, they are hard to define and this means that peatland restoration is also hard to define.
Nonetheless, if we are serious about meeting the goals set out in the Paris Agreement and reduce our rapidly warming climate, around 50 million hectares of peatlands need to be restored over the next few years. This is a massive undertaking. This will require hydrologists, biogeochemists, farmers, land managers, community groups and everyone in between to pull up their socks and start getting to know their local peatlands.
But the question is…how to get all these people to pull up their socks? How to create millions of hectares of commitment between people and peatlands.
This is where I think RE-PEAT comes in. If we imagine this whole situation like a giant puzzle - our role is to first tell people that there is a puzzle going on, then get them excited enough about this puzzle that they start turning over the pieces, and when they inevitably start to feel overwhelmed by how difficult the puzzle is, we then connect them with someone else who is also working on another part, so that they can swap pieces and work together. In other words, I feel like we exist as a group to help people to pull up their socks and get sucked into the peatland puzzle.
What does restoration mean to you personally, and how has that meaning evolved through your work with RE-PEAT?
To me, restoration means believing in a better future. It is an active process of working on an area to leave it better than you found it. “Better” is always subjective and political, but I understand it as creating a stronger, more resilient and beautiful system.
Restoration can be on an ecosystem level, but it can also be on a social or personal level. Over the past five years we have been specially encouraging young people to get involved with this peatland challenge. We have found that the process of exploring and co-creating peatland stories and histories not only supports the ecosystem itself, but also offers young people a sense of perspective, and purpose in a world that is becoming increasingly destabilising.
What are some non-traditional approaches to restoration or alternative ways of understanding what restoration can be?
For the last two years I have been working on the Restoration Academy project, which is all about creating youth-led ecosystem restoration camps. These camps are spaces where young people can come together and learn in a hands-on way how the ecosystem functions. At some point I started worrying, wow… this is a lot of organising for just a few days, but then when the camp happened I saw how much impact that it can have.
At the last camp in The Netherlands there was a 17-year-old Slovakian boy, who was studying to be a police officer. After the camp, he told one of the organisers that he was thinking about how to become a police officer for nature rather than humans. Which just goes to show that a camp of just a few days can have a massive influence on our sense of self and our role in society.
