SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 1 of 46

General enquiries on this form should be made to:

Defra, Procurements and Contracts Division (Science R&D Team)

Telephone No. 0207 238 5734 E-mail: research.competitions@defra.gsi.gov.uk

SID 5 Research Project Final Report

Note

In line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Defra aims to place the results of its completed research projects in the public domain wherever possible. The SID 5 (Research Project Final Report) is designed to capture the information on the results and outputs of Defra-funded research in a format that is easily publishable through the Defra website. A SID 5 must be completed for all projects.

This form is in Word format and the boxes may be expanded or reduced, as appropriate.

ACCESS TO INFORMATION

The information collected on this form will be stored electronically and may be sent to any part of Defra, or to individual researchers or organisations outside Defra for the purposes of reviewing the project. Defra may also disclose the information to any outside organisation acting as an agent authorised by Defra to process final research reports on its behalf. Defra intends to publish this form on its website, unless there are strong reasons not to, which fully comply with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Defra may be required to release information, including personal data and commercial information, on request under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, Defra will not permit any unwarranted breach of confidentiality or act in contravention of its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. Defra or its appointed agents may use the name, address or other details on your form to contact you in connection with occasional customer research aimed at improving the processes through which Defra works with its contractors.

Project identification

1. Defra Project code

SP0573

2. Project title

Basis of the UK BAP target for the reduction in use of peat in horticulture

3. Contractor organisation(s)

Roger Meade Associates Maslen Environmental

54. Total Defra project costs £ 29,557

(agreed fixed price)

5. Project: start date ........... 01 December 2008

end date ............ 30 September 2009

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 2 of 46

6. It is Defra‟s intention to publish this form. Please confirm your agreement to do so YES but see note below. NO

(a) When preparing SID 5s contractors should bear in mind that Defra intends that they be made public. They should be written in a clear and concise manner and represent a full account of the research project which someone not closely associated with the project can follow.

Defra recognises that in a small minority of cases there may be information, such as intellectual property or commercially confidential data, used in or generated by the research project, which should not be disclosed. In these cases, such information should be detailed in a separate annex (not to be published) so that the SID 5 can be placed in the public domain. Where it is impossible to complete the Final Report without including references to any sensitive or confidential data, the information should be included and section (b) completed. NB: only in exceptional circumstances will Defra expect contractors to give a "No" answer.

In all cases, reasons for withholding information must be fully in line with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

(b) If you have answered NO, please explain why the Final report should not be released into public domain

See Note (a). Although the answer to (6) is YES, the published contents of the final

report have been edited at Defra‟s request. Any material considered being in

confidence or sensitive to commercial or other interests, site owners or occupiers, or to devolved UK administrations has been excluded. This is because there are no further resources within the project to resolve such extant issues and the public consultation over the future use of peat in the UK is moving on rapidly.

Executive Summary

7. The executive summary must not exceed 2 sides in total of A4 and should be understandable to the intelligent non-scientist. It should cover the main objectives, methods and findings of the research, together with any other significant events and options for new work.

Executive summary The main aim of the project was to identify and appraise any effects of the peat replacement target of 90% of the total market for soil improver and growing media to be peat free in the UK by 2010, as stated in the Lowland Raised Bog (LRB) Habitat Action Plan (Target 4), on the potential achievement of biodiversity gains for lowland raised bog in the UK. Evidence was sought from web sources, case studies, existing reports, statutory nature conservation agency material, and opinions from major participants, such as peat extractors and retailers of peat products. The main elements of the report have been updated further following a prolonged consultation phase that was completed in December 2010. Most of the conclusions in the report are based on information derived from England; commensurate detail was not readily available for the other countries of the UK. Nonetheless, some information on the effects of peat extraction on sites in Northern Ireland and Scotland was provided by the Environment & Heritage Service of the Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland, and by Scottish Natural Heritage. Wales was excluded from the study because, with the exception of that part of Fenn‟s and Whixall Mosses within Wales, it has no significant active or very recently closed down large scale horticultural peat extraction sites. Most of the evidence on which the conclusions are based is case studies of contemporary and recently-ceased peat extraction sites in England, ranging from those that are of international importance to those without any designation. As has proved to be the case, some representatives of the industry thought that progress towards the 90% replacement target is likely to slow down, and the reduced demand for peat would be in excess of the 10% allowed for within the target. The figure currently stands at 42%.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 3 of 46

Reduced demand could be met by imports. The effects on worldwide biodiversity depend on intra-State legislation and guidelines, and on codes of practice adopted by their industry. The indications are that importing from the Republic of Ireland, currently by far the UK‟s most significant supplier, would not cause additional loss of biodiversity because the extraction sites are already developed. There is a transparent set of guidelines and principles for biodiversity gain when extraction ceases, and no new sites will be opened. Codes of practice applied to sources of peat by major retailers in the UK are also likely to engender more biodiversity-friendly practices by foreign suppliers, as generally the same standards are imposed on them by UK-based companies before the peat is purchased. The peat reduction targets act as a powerful stimulus for change in the horticultural industry from a peat-based production system to an alternatives based growing medium. Although not part of this project it should be noted that a reduction in peat use may benefit other Government aims such as improved carbon balance and other ecosystem services provided by in situ peat. It is less clear whether the target itself prevents damage to bogs within designated sites, as most protective measures have been taken in response to SAC and SSSI legislation and there are now very few examples of extraction taking place on such sites. The presumption against the use of SSSI peat by major retailers has occurred alongside an increased use of renewable alternatives, and so the removal of peat from the few designated and rather more undesignated sites may have been slower than without the peat reduction target. Although decreased demand may result in fewer new sites being required, slower working of existing ones can delay the date at which restoration takes place. So far, the available planning instruments for reviewing the working, afteruse and restoration to achieve LRB HAP targets on individual sites have not been used to the full across the designation spectrum and across the UK. Perhaps more restrictive conditions could have been imposed by minerals planning authorities under the ROMP process, but only if they had been willing and able to pay the necessary compensation. Removal of the target for peat replacement would take away a powerful stimulus to provide compensation, and the consequences of doing so are not readily quantifiable.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 4 of 46

Project Report to Defra

8. As a guide this report should be no longer than 20 sides of A4. This report is to provide Defra with details of the outputs of the research project for internal purposes; to meet the terms of the contract; and to allow Defra to publish details of the outputs to meet Environmental Information Regulation or Freedom of Information obligations. This short report to Defra does not preclude contractors from also seeking to publish a full, formal scientific report/paper in an appropriate scientific or other journal/publication. Indeed, Defra actively encourages such publications as part of the contract terms. The report to Defra should include:

the scientific objectives as set out in the contract;

the extent to which the objectives set out in the contract have been met;

details of methods used and the results obtained, including statistical analysis (if appropriate);

a discussion of the results and their reliability;

the main implications of the findings;

possible future work; and

any action resulting from the research (e.g. IP, Knowledge Transfer).

1. Project structure and background The purpose of the research is to provide a better understanding of the UK biodiversity benefits that have resulted, or are expected to result, from a reduction in the use of peat by the UK horticultural industry. It is carried out against the background of the Habitat Action Plan (HAP) for Lowland Raised Bogs (LRBs), first published in 1999 and revised in 2006, in which a target is set for a reduction in the use of peat as a soil improver and growing media.

1.1. Objectives

The main objectives are to:

Document the current impact of peat extraction for horticulture on UK peatland biodiversity;

Assess the effectiveness of existing policies and nature conservation activity in preventing damage to lowland peatlands using the concept of favourable condition;

Use projected trends in peat extraction activity in the UK to predict its future impact on effective restoration of lowland raised bogs;

Assess the implications of changing rates of peat extraction and usage in the UK on UK bog biodiversity and in countries from which peat may be sourced as an alternative.

1.2. The Lowland Raised Bog HAP Targets

The UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) is implemented through habitat and species action plans (HAPs and SAPs), now incorporated together under the direction (in England) of the revised England Biodiversity Framework. HAPs contain a description of the habitat and a series of actions and targets. The targets, with comment on how they relate to this project are provided in Table 1.1.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 5 of 46

Table 1.1 The 2006 Lowland Raised Bog HAP targets with comments relevant to the project

The last of these (T4) is expected (as evidenced by the commissioning of this project) to have had positive outcomes for the other targets (T1, T2 and T3). Target T4 replaces two 1999 targets: a). Review and where necessary amend or develop policies on the consumption of peat by 2002, with the aim of achieving a reduction in peat consumption in all sectors and for all purposes. A minimum of 40% of total market requirements is to be based on non-peat materials by 2005. b). Undertake and promote research and development of sustainable alternatives to peat to speed up reduction of peat used in both amateur and professional markets. Aim for a minimum of 40% of total market requirements to be peat-free by 2005 and 90% by 2010. Monitor and review take-up and if feasible accelerate the programme of reduction. The 40% peat free target for 2005 was exceeded by 7%; the 90% peat free target for 2010 was considered by some horticulturalists to be unattainable within the specified timeframe, and is cited as 58% (DEFRA, 2010a). Failure to meet the 90% target can in part be attributed to an inevitably1 slow initial response of the industry, reducing the response time between commencement and 2010. Another interpretation is that it is taking more time to overcome technical and supply issues with alternatives for use in growing media than soil improvers. Changing well-established patterns of peat supply and usage cannot be achieved instantly. Factories are set up on or close to extraction sites in the UK, and development of production capacity of good quality alternatives at commercial prices takes time.

1 The use of „inevitable‟ reflects to the time it takes any industrial scale process to adapt.

Target Comment

T1. Maintain the extent of the existing UK resource of BAP habitat (i.e. primary and secondary raised bog resource: c 28,330ha in UK) with no loss.

This emphasises the importance of the whole bog resource in the UK and the importance of protecting what remains of the habitat.

T2. Rehabilitate degraded bog habitat still capable of natural regeneration (in targeted areas) to bring most of the primary and secondary resource into or approaching favourable condition by 2020 through appropriate management.

This focuses the restoration to the targeted areas. 9,498 ha are targeted for 2010 and 18,998 for 2015, and the full 28,330ha in 2020 in the UK. For England, areas of LRB have been identified, prioritised (see Headley and Dargie, 2004 and Capita Symonds, 2005b ) and in some cases 'vision' maps have been produced (PAA 2004, 2006). It is also envisaged that 'zones' and current land use will need to be identified for areas that could become 'buffer zones' for all sites. For Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales areas need to be identified, with timescales and targets for rehabilitation of significantly altered raised bog areas.

T3. Restore Lowland Raised Bog immediately or via succession from fen on chosen areas of archaic peat to ensure a sustainable hydrological regime for adjacent extant habitat and to restore LRB to its former geographical range as part of a national series.

588 ha by 2010, 1,151 ha by 2015 and 1760 ha by 2020 with the majority 1,500 ha in England. This aim mainly focuses on restoring peat adjacent to active raised bog sites. However, it also allows for restoration in areas which would recover former geographical distribution. This target provides a focus of emphasis for attempts to restore peat under other land-uses.

T4. 90% of the total market for soil improver and growing media to be peat free in the UK by 2010.

40% target in 2005, 90% in 2010. The target envisages that this will contribute towards achievement of targets 2 and 3. The final target and interim annual reduction targets will be agreed with industry based on the latest data on the extent of peat reduction achieved by the industry quantified by ADAS & Enviros (2008).

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 6 of 46

Work on lowland raised bog biodiversity actions has focused on maintaining existing primary and secondary habitat (Target 1), and achieving favourable condition on degraded bog habitat (Target 2), rather than in restoring areas of peat which are under other land uses (e.g. archaic bog, Target 3). For example, in England, this has been driven by the Government target to place 95% of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in unfavourable recovering2 or favourable condition by 2010; most SSSIs fall within Target 1 and Target 2, and several of them are Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) under the EU Habitats Directive. The UKBAP and its HAPS are unique in providing an opportunity to address examples of the priority habitats not covered by statutory designations, such as the archaic peat specifically mentioned in Target 3. Target 4 implies that its achievement, through reducing the extent and volume of extraction will have benefits for lowland raised bog biodiversity at home. In the move to achieving this Target one possible trend could be for imported peat to be used in preference to UK peat. Under these circumstances UK bogs would benefit to (possibly) the detriment of those overseas. The project considers the other non-UK sources of peat currently used in the UK, and what might happen if peat extraction in the UK was to cease. The 2010 end date for Target T4 has been reached.

1.3. Report structure

The Report has been structured in 4 Parts. Part A examines peat use and HAP Target 4, Part B describes the value and uniqueness of Lowland Raised Bogs, Part C examines the evidence for Target 4 influencing lowland raised bog biodiversity value and finally in Part D future scenarios are considered and conclusions drawn including the need for additional work.

PART A: Peat Use and HAP Target 4. Section 2 Trends in the use of peat and alternatives. Section 3 UK peat demand and potential effects on non-UK peat habitats. PART B: Lowland raised bog biodiversity. Section 4 Biodiversity attributes. PART C: Has Target 4 influenced lowland raised bog biodiversity? Section 5 Peat Extraction and biodiversity. Section 6 Biodiversity drivers and imperatives. Section 7 Non-biodiversity drivers for reducing the use of peat. PART D: Future trends in peat extraction, peat consumption, target setting and biodiversity

gain Section 8 Scenarios for Peat Supply and their Biodiversity Implications. Section 9 Conclusions and suggestions for further work.

2 Natural England recognises the following condition categories: favourable, unfavourable (recovering, no change,

declining) and destroyed.

Section 1 Key Messages The purpose of the research is to provide a better understanding of any UK biodiversity benefits that have resulted, or are expected to result, from a reduction in the use of peat by the UK horticultural industry. HAPs contain a description of the habitat and a series of actions and targets. Target T4 is for

90% of the total market for soil improver and growing media to be peat free in the UK by 2010. Target 4 implies that its achievement, through reducing the extent and volume of extraction will have benefits for lowland raised bog biodiversity in England.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 7 of 46

Annex 1 Peat use and trials of alternatives. Annex 2 Peat extraction and restoration in the Republic of Ireland. Annex 3 Biodiversity attributes. Annex 4 Details of peat extraction and individual site dossiers for English lowland raised bogs on which peat extraction occurs or has recently ceased. Annex 5 Mapped area and site information for England; peat soils, BAP habitats and agricultural land classes in major lowland raised bog zones. Annex 6 Details of peat extraction sites and mapped site information for Scotland. Annex 7 Details of peat extraction sites and mapped site information for Northern Ireland. Annex 8 Developing scenarios – a peat-use model. Annex 9 Living with reduced peat – an inter-site approach.

2. Trends in the use of peat and alternatives. This section looks at peat replacement in the growing media used in horticulture assumed to be a direct consequence of Lowland Raised Bog HAP Target T4. While far more information is provided elsewhere (see references below) it is important to understand the degree to which Lowland Raised Bog HAP Target T4 has arguably influenced the use of peat in UK horticulture. More information is provided in Defra (2010a) and in Annex 1. 2.1. Background – Peat Usage in the UK Peat consumed in UK horticulture Demand for peat increased in the 1990s, with peat use increasing by 46% between 1993 and 1999. Since 1999 the absolute amount of peat used in the UK first stabilised, and then declined between 2005 and 2009 (Table 2.1). However, within these general figures there is considerable variation of peat usage between the various types of horticultural product and in the different markets.

Table 2.1 UK Peat and total (peat + alternatives) usage

Year Total market peat and

alternatives (million m3)

Total peat (million m3) % peat of total market and (% alternatives)

1999 5.33 3.43 64 (36)

2001 5.68 3.40 60 (40)

2005 6.46 3.44 53 (47)

2007 6.61 3.01 46 (54)

2009 6.97 2.96 42 (58) Notes: Source: Adapted from “Monitoring of peat and alternative products for growing media and soil improvers in the UK 2007”, second biennial report by ADAS & Enviros (2008) and Defra (2010a) for the 2009 figures.

In 2007, the total volume of peat and alternatives used in growing products (soil improvers and growing media) was 6.61 million m3, up from 6.46 million m3 in 2005. However, the overall proportion of peat in the products fell from 53% to 46%, and the proportion of alternatives rose to 47% in 2005, exceeding the MPG13 / BAP target of 40% (ADAS and Enviros, 2008). This rose to 58% in 2009 (DEFRA, 2010a), and is short of the 90% target for 2010. Who uses most of the peat? In 2009 (Defra, 2010a), amateur gardeners consumed the greatest amount of peat (69%) followed by professional growers (30.3%) and landscape contractors and local authorities (0.3%). Amateur gardening represents the largest user group and trends in peat and alternatives use by this sector will have the most impact on peat use in the UK. Other than by amateur gardeners, peat is used in commercial horticulture (e.g. container grown plants, mushrooms, lettuces) and landscaping, especially for golf courses. Some of the previous reductions in the percentage peat in horticultural products (e.g. 2001 to 2005) have been due to an increase in the overall horticultural market (growing media and soil improvers) rather than an absolute reduction in peat usage (Table 2.1). However, for the first time in 2007 the absolute amount of peat use by amateur gardeners and professional growers – the main users of peat - decreased by 0.43 million m3, and the

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 8 of 46

trend continued with a further reduction of 0.05 million m3 by 2009 (Table 2.1). This was mainly due to greater use of peat-reduced and non-peat growing media.

2.2. Sources of peat used in the UK

For the decade 1999-2009 approximately half the peat used in the UK has come from the Republic of Ireland, Table 2.2, (Defra, 2010a). A small proportion comes from other countries in northern Europe – mostly the Baltic States - and this has started to increase between 2007 and 2009, following an earlier decline. The remainder, around 32% in 2009, is sourced from the UK. It has not been possible to find out how the 32% is divided between individual extraction sites. Table 2.2 Sources of peat supplied to all horticultural markets 1999 - 2009 (1,000m3) Source: Defra, 2010a, with additional calculation of % from each country.

Source Year Soil

improvers Growing

media Total Country total as

% of grand total

UK

1999 50.6 1154.3 1,204.9 35.1

2001 36.0 1,486.0 1,522.0 44.8

2005 40.7 1,254.9 1,295.6 37.7

2007 39.1 1,269.3 1,308.4 43.4

2009 23.6 918.6 942.1 31.8

Republic of Ireland

1999 91.8 1,691.0 1,782.8 51.9

2001 59.0 1,422.0 1,481.0 43.6

2005 103.2 1,835.5 1,938.7 56.4

2007 10.2 1,612.5 1,622.7 53.9

2009 10.1 1,768.3 1778.4 60.0

Northern Europe

1999 2.7 442.9 445.6 13.0

2001 17.1 375.0 392.1 11.5

2005 3.2 198.6 201.8 5.9

2007 0.2 81.1 81.3 2.7

2009 0.0 242.6 242.6 8.2

Total

1999 145.1 3,288.2 3,433.3

2001 112.1 3,283.0 3,395.1

2005 147.1 3,289.0 3,436.1

2007 49.4 2,962.9 3,012.3

2009 33.7 2,929.5 2,963.2

2.3. Use of peat within individual UK countries Defra (2010a) reports that discussions with a major national supplier suggest that the use of growing media materials (and hence the use of peat) is split between the UK countries in the following way: England 80%; Scotland 10%; Wales 5%; and Northern Ireland 5%. This is a reflection of the relative concentrations of population (and hence gardeners) and horticultural enterprises at country level within the UK, especially container grown ornamentals and soft fruit businesses. However, it reveals a disparity between the proportion of peat extracted in each of the UK countries and the amount used in them (Table 2.3).

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 9 of 46

Table 2.3 Comparison of amounts of peat extracted and of peat used in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales

Country Source of information % of UK peat use

2009

Extraction permission

area ha.

Area as a percentage of

UK total

Annual amount extracted (2009)

x 1000m3

England

Table 8.1 1428 22

Defra (2010a) 80

Min. Extr. GB (2009)3 476

N. Ireland Annex 7 1097

1 17

Defra (2010a) 5

Scotland

Brooks (2003) spreadsheet 38311 60

Defra (2010a) 10

Min. Extr. GB (2009) 3

4122

Wales No commercial extraction 0 0

Defra (2010a) 5

TOTAL 63561 1485

1 it is not possible to distinguish between lowland raised bog and blanket bog, but see below.

2 This is split into

390 x 1000m3 for horticultural use and 21 x 1000m

3 for other uses.

3 From „Mineral Extraction in Great Britain‟

(2009).

Table 2.4 Changes in the amount of peat harvested in England and Scotland (Mineral Extraction in Great Britain, 2009).

Year Annual amount extracted (1000m

3)

England Scotland GB

1991 1202 241 1441

1992 1079 332 1411

1994 1375 498 1873

1999 1224 392 1616

2000 1258 336 1594

2003 1227 741 1968

2004 902 338 1240

2006 856 712 1568

2007 654 221 875

2008 455 243 698

2009 476 390 866

Table 2.4 shows a rapid decline in the amount of peat extracted from sites in England from 2003 onwards. This may coincide with the exhaustion of stockpiles from the large SAC sites Thorne, Crowle & Goole Moors, Hatfield Moors and Wedholme Flow. There was no coincident fall in peat consumption in the UK as a whole (Table 2.1).

Table 2.5 Comparative areas of lowland raised bog in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales

Country H7120 Degraded

bog H7110 Active bog H7120 + H7110 % of UK total

England 13684 3727 17411 46.9

N Ireland 4400 4462 8862 23.9

Scotland 5570 3325 8895 23.9

Wales 549 1427 1976 5.3

UK TOTAL 24203 12941 37144 100.0

Note that much of the lowland peatland in Scotland (and to a lesser extent in Northern Ireland, see Annexes 6 and 7) is blanket bog and is excluded from these figures. H7120 and H7110 refer to the EU habitats and Species Directive Annex 1 habitat categories of Degraded bog still capable of natural regeneration and Active raised bog. They exclude the category of archaic peat, referred to in Target T3 (see Annex 3). Source: JNCC, 2007.

The amount of peat used in England relative to N Ireland ,Scotland and Wales is disproportionate to the area of planning consent for extraction and also the volume extracted in 2009 (Table 2.4). Almost half of the UK lowland raised bog (by area) occurs in England (Table 2.5). Both Northern Ireland and

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 10 of 46

Scotland are peat-rich countries but a high proportion of the peat in Scotland occurs within blanket bog, much of which is on the hills, but which also extends to sea level in the wetter north-west. Blanket bog has its own HAP (UK Biodiversity Group, 1999). The Plan estimates that about 2000 ha has been affected by commercial peat extraction and a further 50.000 ha by domestic cutting in Scotland. The distinction between domestic and industrial cutting is difficult to determine in Northern Ireland and the Plan offers no figure for the area of land affected.

2.4. Initiatives to reduce peat use

The HAP target for 90% peat reduction has given rise to initiatives from both the Government and also from environmental groups and from the industry itself. Companies can, and do, format their own environmental policies to help meet this 90% requirement. These campaigns, policies and awareness programs, regarding peat usage are described in Annex 1. Some retailers advise on the bag if the peat they sell is not obtained from environmentally designated sites. Some of their policies also emphasis they only use peat obtained from sites which have a suitable restoration plan for lowland raised bog habitat. This has the potential to provide a more direct biodiversity benefit by reducing damage to designated sites and making sure that restoration is consistent with the requirements of the HAP. Major retailers can exert pressure on extractors to translate the peat reduction target into biodiversity gain by making extraction from designated sites uneconomic though no evidence of it happening has been found. Transferring extraction away from designated sites would still work against the achievement of T2 and T3 on non-designated sites.

2.5. Alternatives to peat

Reliable and cheap alternatives need to be available if consumers are to choose them in preference to peat. Defra (2010a) details the volumes of each main type of alternative material used, as % of total alternatives to peat. The feasibility of reducing peat consumption depends in part upon the development of the composting and alternatives industry to a point where it can provide sufficient volumes of adequate quality material at an acceptable price. Green waste composting is partly driven by the EU Landfill Directive under which Local Authorities must set and meet targets for a reduced volume of waste landfilled and also the proportions of biodegradable materials disposed of in landfill sites. However, the quality of compost from green waste is variable and the development of a composting standard (PAS100; pers. comm. C. Hill, Defra, November 2010) may help with making the product more reliable. The requirements are for compost to be weed-free, transportable, safe to use and to be of consistent quality. Some early non-peat formulations were of poor quality, difficult to use, and resulted in unreliable and inconsistent plant growth (pers. comms. various, representatives of the horticultural industry). The relative cost of peat alternatives, including green waste compost is an important factor in consumer choice.

2.6. Sustainable peat

Following laboratory culture (Gaudig, 2008), attempts are being made to scale up artificial Sphagnum moss growth on damaged peat soils (such as archaic peat, see Annex 3) to grow „sustainable‟ peat. Details are given in Annex 1.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 11 of 46

3. UK peat demand and potential effects on non-UK peat bogs 3.1. Background

An earlier study (Defra, 2008a) documents policies and practices for peat bog conservation in other countries from which peat could be sourced for use within the UK. If UK sources are worked out or their use curtailed then the residual demand for peat will need to be met from elsewhere. Approximately half the peat used in UK horticulture (Table 2.2) comes from the Republic of Ireland and it is important to determine what effect this or an increased demand might have on Irish biodiversity.

3.2. Bog biodiversity and peat extraction for horticulture in the Irish Republic

At the time of this review (March 2009), there were no targets in the Republic of Ireland to reduce the proportion of peat used in horticulture. Peatlands cover an estimated 1.17 million hectares in the Republic of Ireland, about 17.2% of the land area (Douglas, 1998). It is divided into types, depending on the conditions at formation and geographical location: low-level Atlantic blanket bog; montane blanket bog; fen peat; and raised bog (detail in Annex 2).

Most commercial cutting operations have been phased out on designated bogs but domestic cutting for fuel has been allowed to continue for 10 years under Government policy. In 2003 domestic cutting occurred on 117 of the 139 designated bogs. It is estimated that over 20,000 turbary rights exist on

Section2 Key Messages In 2009 the proportion by volume of peat alternatives used in growing products (soil improvers and growing media) was 58%. In 2009 amateur gardeners consumed the greatest amount of peat (69%) followed by professional growers (30.3%) and landscape contractors and local authorities (0.3%). In 2007 the absolute amount of peat use by amateur gardeners and professional growers decreased by 0.43 million m3, and continued with a further reduction of 0.05 million m3 by 2009. This is a reversal of the increasing peat use trend up to this date. For the decade 1999-2009 approximately half the peat used in the UK has come from the Republic of Ireland. The remainder was substantially sourced from the UK, currently around 32%. There has been a rapid and dramatic decline in the amount of peat extracted from sites in England between 1991 and 2009, now at 40% of 1991 levels. Both Northern Ireland and Scotland are peat-rich countries but a high proportion of the peat in Scotland occurs within blanket bog. England accounts for almost half of the UK lowland raised bogs (by area). The use of growing media across the UK countries is split: England 80%; Scotland 10%; Wales 5%; and Northern Ireland 5%. The HAP Target 4, for a 90% peat reduction has given rise to initiatives from the government, industry and environmental groups. These include policies, campaigns and awareness programs, regarding peat usage. The feasibility of reducing peat consumption depends in part upon the development of the composting and alternatives industry to a point where it can provide sufficient volumes of adequate quality material at an acceptable price.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 12 of 46

these bog of which over 2,500 were exercised in 2003 (Fernandez et al. 2006). Efforts to purchase turbary rights through the use of the voluntary NPWS3 Turbary Cessation Schemes have had very limited success with only about 5% of turbary rights purchased since the schemes commenced in 1999. The damage caused by the exercising of turbary rights is not relevant to the UK‟s requirement for peat in horticulture as the product is either used in the home in Ireland or within a small internal market. The potential for peat imported into the UK to impact on Irish bog biodiversity lies in the effects of industrial scale extraction and how they are restored. Industrial peat extraction affects c. 73,500 ha of raised bog (Douglas et al., 2008). At least five SACs have recent industrial peat extraction either on, or next to, them. Extraction has ceased on all five and restoration is known to have commenced on two (Annex 2). Twelve bogs are NHAs4; extraction still occurs on two, and restoration is known to have commenced on two on parts where extraction has ceased; the restoration status of some of the sites is unsure.

Planning controls and licensing in the Irish Republic Discussions with representatives of the NPWS (J. Ryan), the Irish Peatland Conservation Council (IPCC; S. Malone) and Bord na Móna (C. Farrell) were helpful in understanding the degree to which the planning requirements are applied and observed. No specific site details are available for comment, but there is uncertainty as to whether the planning requirements are observed on all extraction sites. The group were unaware of any prosecutions having taken place. It cannot be concluded from the available evidence that all peat extraction is controlled to the satisfaction of conservation groups on, or next to, all designated sites at the present time.

Irish National Biodiversity Action Plan The National BAP for the whole of Ireland includes peatlands under the heading of wetlands. Action 84 requires that a strategy is drawn up for the use of machine cutaway and cutover raised bogs as wetland or woodland habitats. Detailed plans for sites are being drawn up at local level in conjunction with Ireland‟s major peat extractor, Bord na Móna.

The range of habitats capable of creation on worked-out cutover bogs is wide. These compete with other non-habitat uses such as forestry and public amenity. Bord na Móna currently aims for 50% of its sites to be restored for biodiversity, but this may increase in the future (pers. comm. C. Farrell, Bord na Móna, March 2009) as the debate over the value of peatlands as a carbon store develops. The biodiversity priority for habitat creation is seen as peat-forming wetland rather than raised bog per se. This is because the peat layer left after extraction, often breached and revealing the mineral soil beneath, is not always considered suitable for immediate raised bog restoration (see Annex 3). No insistence on this was detected from discussion with a representative of the IPCC (as an independent conservation body) (S. Malone, pers. comm.) and so there is likely to be little incentive to forego the extraction of bottom-layer peat where commercially important in the interests of a conservation (biodiversity) afteruse. This contrasts with the UK approach, in which there is a presumption that everything possible will be done to ensure that the fastest possible active bog restoration is able to take place on cutover sites, and this means leaving an undisturbed peat residue in place.

3.3. Other non-UK sources of horticultural peat

UK horticulture sources 32% of its peat from UK bogs, 60% from the Republic of Ireland and 8% from northern Europe (Defra, 2010a). However, transport costs mean that closer sources of peat are generally more economic, unless the distant peat is significantly cheaper than the nearer. Details of European potential source countries are given in Tables 3.1 and 3.2.

3 National Parks & Wildlife Service

4 Natural Heritage Area

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 13 of 46

Table 3.1 Five-year average (2001-2005) peat production/harvest in the EU per country as ‘000’s m3. Data derived from data provided by Schmilewski, 2008.

Country „000‟s m3 Country „000‟s m3

France 0 Poland 1882

Germany 8155 Sweden 3764

UK 1882 Austria 0

Republic of Ireland 13802 Denmark 627

Netherlands 0 Estonia 3764

Latvia 3136 Spain 0

Lithuania 1882 Finland 23840

Table 3.2 Peat usage in the production of peat-based horticultural products in ‘000’s m3 in 2005. Figures from: Schmilewski, 2008.

Country Growing media

(professional & hobby) Soil Improvers

(professional & hobby) Energy &

other uses Total

Producer countries

Denmark 542 0 0 542

Finland 944 850 22150 23944

France 2541 11 20 2572

Germany 8390 1270 865 10525

Ireland 972 25 10028 11025

Latvia 870 0 0 870

Lithuania 1366 0 266 1632

Sweden 1030 70 2170 3270

UK 2548 147 24 2719

Consumer countries

Austria 155 20 0 175

Belgium 1153 180 0 1333

Itlay 3600 300 0 3900

Netherlands 3953 280 0 4233

Spain 1240 0 2 1242

TOTAL 29304 3153 36911 69368

Defra (2008a) recorded published and unpublished evidence of how other countries conserve and/or extract and sell their peat, and the policy frameworks within which it occurs. Approaches were extremely variable and the otherwise unifying influence of the EU is as yet unable to provide a consistent approach amongst its member states. For example, Scandinavian countries are keen to see peat classed as a long term renewable resource, so as to establish peat as a sustainable energy source. Latvia, in common with North America, openly seeks new markets for their peat on the Internet. A CO-OP LIFE project field visit to Latvia in 2005 revealed that peat extraction still occurs alongside the Cena Mire SAC (pers. comm. Mara Pakalne, Latvia Nature Fund, 2005). While peat is widely available from countries such as Latvia and Estonia, there is some evidence (pers. comm., confidential industry source) that UK horticultural growing medium manufacturers will not import from them unless there are assurances from environmental impacts assessments that no designated peatland site will be damaged as a consequence. Such assurances are not necessarily forthcoming and it is common knowledge that Growing Media Association (GMA) members (80% of UK peat producers) will not purchase such peat. It provides an important indication that the codes of practice developed in the UK and expressed through membership of such organisations as the Growing Media Initiative (http://www.the-hta.org.uk/page.php?pageid=169 ) and the major peat retailers have positive benefit for bog biodiversity beyond the UK. However, there is the risk that increased demand for imported peat will result in peatlands coming under more pressure. The European Peat and Growing Media Association (EPAGMA) was set up in 2004 with the express aim of contributing to the socio-economic development of regions and communities where peat is sourced and used by ensuring that peat is an acceptable means for growing media and energy within

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 14 of 46

the EU (Fitzgerald, 2008). Fitzgerald supports the view that peat use is sustainable because more carbon is sequestered globally per unit time than is consumed. Little is said about biodiversity as a legitimate concern in the debate over peat use, and the paper does not offer any codes of practice for working and restoring sites. Biodiversity and sustainability are also of concern to the Canadian Peat Moss Association. While Canada is an unlikely exporter of peat to the UK due to high transport costs, it is important to identify countries where biodiversity is of concern to groups representing peat extractors. The Canadian peat industry to date has focused primarily on the environmental portion of the sustainable peatland management equation (Short, 2008). They quote and support the recommendations (as do members of the GMA in the UK) set out by Joosten & Clarke (2002) in “Wise Use of Mires and Peatlands – Background and Principles including a framework for decision-making”. No evidence was found to show how much emphasis is placed on biodiversity by the associations described above for Europe and Canada, or what degree of membership they have amongst potential exporters of peat, and this might be included in a further study. The EU has no peat or peatlands use policy and there are tensions between member states with large peat deposits wanting the EU to view it as a renewable resource, and others seeing it primarily from a biodiversity and ecosystem services perspective (Defra, 2008a). There are parts of Europe from which imports may well have a greater impact on biodiversity than extracting peat from the UK. For example, Defra (2008a) provides peat consumption figures for a number of member states. In Germany 90% of the material used in growing media is peat from indigenous/nearby peat reserves; in Holland growing media use about 75% peat (mainly imported by sea as there is no longer any indigenous peat); in Denmark about 65% peat (imported); and France about 40% (greater proportion of retail growing media, little indigenous peat). The expectation that Germany‟s reliance on peat results in worse than average lowland raised bog conservation is unfounded. The State of Lower Saxony is exemplary in having integrated peat extraction, agriculture and bog (and peat-forming fen) in a way that has delivered high biodiversity gain, and is expected to do even more in the future (Defra, 2008a). The arrangements within Germany show that biodiversity gain on lowland raised bogs does not have to be inversely proportional to the amount of peat used in horticulture.

3.4. Conclusions for using imported peat and the effects on biodiversity in overseas

peatlands, particularly in the Republic of Ireland

The bogs of Ireland are protected through the Habitats Directive and through domestic legislation. While there is a residue of SACs and NHAs where horticultural extraction still occurs on or next to the bog, there are positive moves to stop it and to commence restoration. The biggest impediment to achieving this is small-scale extraction for domestic fuel, an issue which is unaffected by the UK demand for peat. The UK retailers‟ codes of practice ensure that peat from designated bogs will not enter the UK growing media production chain for amateur use in large quantity5. There is allegedly a short-term hiatus in the implementation of bog protection measures through the planning system in Ireland, though there is reason to speculate (pers. comm. J. Ryan, NPWS, March 2009) that these may be resolved in due course under the aegis of the European Union. There is a strong movement in Ireland to make the most of biodiversity opportunities on cutover bogs, and this is likely to develop further in favour of long-term or shorter-term restoration to raised bog, with gains for other peat-forming habitats such as fen. The consensus behind continued extraction on existing non-designated sites followed by restoration to bog, other wetland or non-wetland habitats includes policy makers, research organisations, regulators and peat extractors. Given the above factors, importing commercially-extracted peat into the UK from the Republic of Ireland is unlikely to have disproportionate deleterious consequences for bog biodiversity in Ireland.

5 This caveat is inserted because 20% of UK peat extractors are not GMA members.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 15 of 46

There is insufficient information without further detailed research to compare the consequences of importing from Ireland with other presently minor suppliers such as the Baltic States. Recent papers given at the 2008 IPS Symposium in Tullamore suggest that the umbrella association for peat producers in Europe (EPAGMA) endorses generic „wise use‟ principles (e.g. Fitzgerald, 2008), though the degree to which its members implement them is unknown. However, no evidence has been found that it promotes biodiversity as being of the highest concern in choice of site and in restoration. No additional information on the importance of biodiversity was available on their website. It is concluded from this that the ethos is one of peat use, rather than peat replacement. There appears, at present, to be better protection and afteruse provision for bogs with a potential for peat extraction in the Republic of Ireland than in most other peat-producing European countries with the possible exception of Germany (Defra, 2008a).

PART B Lowland raised bog biodiversity

4. Biodiversity attributes

4.1. The distribution of Lowland Raised Bogs

In the UK, lowland raised bog once extended east and south into Cambridgeshire and West Sussex. Sites such as Holme Fen (Cambridgeshire) and Amberley Wild Brooks (West Sussex) (FenBase 6) once marked the south-eastern extremes in the historic range. They are now affected by land drainage and conversion to agriculture to the extent that restoration to raised bog would involve a very large input of resources and may have a higher risk of failure6 than degraded examples towards the centre of its historical range. Target T3 aims to restore this original range within the UK where possible. Peat deposits occur widely in the world, and include, for example, peat-forming forests in Indonesia. Deposits analogous to UK lowland raised bogs occur in temperate regions and were previously widespread, such as on the plains of northern Germany and France, and in the Republic of Ireland. As in the UK, their extent has been diminished with only a small fraction surviving as extant peatland.

6 This refers to the difficulty of regenerating raised bog directly on peat under agricultural land or dense woodland.

The risk would be less for creating types of fen or wet woodland.

Section 3 Key Messages Approximately half the peat used in UK horticulture comes from the Republic of Ireland. There are no targets in the Republic of Ireland to reduce the proportion of peat used in horticulture. The evidence indicates that peat extraction in the Republic of Ireland is not controlled to the satisfaction of conservation groups on, or next to, all designated sites at the present time. There are parts of Europe from which imports may well have a greater impact on biodiversity than

extracting peat from the UK. While peat is widely available from countries such as Latvia and Estonia, there is evidence that UK

horticultural growing medium manufacturers will not import from them unless there are assurances that no designated peatland site will be damaged as a consequence. Growing Media Association (GMA) members (80% of UK peat producers) will not purchase such peat.

The EU is as yet unable to provide a consistent policy approach on extraction and use of peat amongst its member states. In Germany 90% of the material used in growing media is peat from indigenous/nearby peat

reserves. The arrangements within Germany show that biodiversity gain on lowland raised bogs does not have to be inversely proportional to the amount of peat used in horticulture.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 16 of 46

Some of the best remaining examples of natural lowland bog occur in the Baltic States, and many are protected, such as the Endla National Nature Reserve in Estonia. While the overall structure and hydrology is common to all lowland raised bogs, the flora and surface patterning varies geographically. In Europe they are divided into oceanic and continental types, and examples of both can be seen in the UK. Bogs in the north and west tend to have more Sphagnum moss and enhanced surface patterning as compared to those in the south and east, such as Thorne Moors, where the proportion of cotton sedge is greater and surface patterning as pools, hummocks (see 4.3 and Annex 3) is less pronounced. The plants making up the surface vegetation also vary across the world, with species such as Chamaedaphne calyculata and Ledum palustre being conspicuous on Scandinavian and Baltic mires, but almost absent in the UK. Peat formation in New Zealand raised bogs is mostly by the large Restiad rush Sporadanthus ferrugineus and the smaller Restiad rush Empodisma minus. Although Sphagnum can be a major peat-former in New Zealand, it is almost absent in many of the rush-dominated peat strata. According to evidence gathered for Defra on current peat restoration projects around the world, biodiversity was the single most important reason given for spending money on raised bog restoration (Defra, 2008a).

4.2. How designations define biodiversity

The UK BAP follows the habitat divisions already set up for the selection and designation of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in the UK, and for the EU Habitats Directive. They are described here because the way they define raised bogs and their attributes need to be seen alongside the description provided by the HAP. The designations are discussed in more detail in Section 6. The European Union‟s Habitats Directive‟s list of features includes two categories for lowland raised bog (EU, 1996). They are Natura 2000 reference number 7110 Active Bog and 7120 Degraded raised bogs (still capable of natural regeneration). An active bog is one on which peat formation is still judged to take place. The test for a 7120 candidate site is that it should be able to „re-establish vegetation with peat-forming capability within 30 years‟. This aim is modest in comparison with restoring all the attributes of a raised bog described in Annex 3, but is linked to the way peat has been worked and its post-extraction condition. Lowland peat bogs have been classified as either damaged or (by implication) undamaged in the guidelines for SSSI selection (JNCC, 1994). In the Guidelines they are judged to have developed either on floodplains, on the edges of estuaries, or over infilled basins. Quality is judged on structural features, such as the original peat dome and vegetation attributes such as the presence and cover of raised bog Sphagnum moss species. The ability to function hydrologically as a raised bog and the presence of at least some characteristic flora are important in selecting damaged examples in „Areas of Search‟ where no or few intact examples remain. Selection of individual peat bogs as SSSI or Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) provides for their protection and explicit restrictions on their use, some of which may involve the need for compensation. Details of lowland raised bogs in the UK designated as either SSSIs or SACs for lowland raised bog habitat can be found at: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-3568. Many lowland raised bogs are not designated, although some may attract less restrictive designations through local plans, such as the „Biological Heritage Sites‟ defined by Lancashire County Council (http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/environment/ecology/bhs.asp ). It is for these non-designated sites that the lowland raised bog HAP actions and targets are particularly important. In particular, the 90% peat reduction target does not discriminate between where the peat originates, or whether the site is capable of being restored to raised bog. The currently accepted way of describing bog types and quality (JNCC, 1994) could change over the course of time if the science case is sufficiently strong. For example, recent work (Wheeler & Shaw., 2007; Wheeler et al., 2009) reclassifies lowland raised bogs on their water supply mechanisms (WETMECs) and landscape situation types. In water supply terms bog surfaces are divided by

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 17 of 46

Wheeler et al. (2009) into ombrogenous, buoyant ombrotrophic and drained ombrotrophic7. This is a very different type of initial division of lowland bogs than the three options (estuarine, floodplain, basin) described by JNCC (1994). This hydro-topographical approach is an example of how accepted benchmarks are sometimes challenged and may change; works such as Wheeler et al. (2009) may have implications for how we classify bogs in the future and select examples for protection.

4.3. Defining the biodiversity quality of Lowland Raised Bogs

The characteristics on which biodiversity description is based are given in detail in Annex 3. In summary, they are:

Geographical distribution, linked to differences in climate in the contrasting regions of the UK.

Intra-site topographic variation. Specific niches provided by hummock, lawn and pool (surface patterning) on the bog surface support different plant and animal communities.

Gross structure. This forms over millennia as the bog grows and is characteristically a dome of peat that remains saturated with water from rainfall. It grows because the plants making up surface skin do not decay completely as they die, but accumulate as yet more peat (Annex 3, Figure A3.1).

Hydrology. The domed bog structure is linked to very specific hydrological conditions that include its supply of atmospheric water (rain, snow, hail, etc.) being greater than can easily drain away or evaporate.

The ways in which gross structure and hydrology have been changed by drainage and cutting is captured within a set of cross-sectional profiles used to describe the remaining resource (Lindsay & Immirzi, 1996; Annex 3, Figure A3.3).

The flora and fauna. There are differences between the plants and animals found on undamaged bogs and on those following various types of degradation (Lindsay & Immirzi, 1996); they can be used as positive and negative indicators of quality.

4.4. Biodiversity attributes - evaluating quality and condition

Assessment for favourable condition Assessment is based on the presence and quality of attributes. These can be individual species, vegetation8 and structural features. They have been formalised in the UK into a series of protocols for each habitat type, varying between constituent countries, but with common elements provided by the JNCC (2004a). Favourable condition tests for lowland raised bogs are based on the above attributes. Although there may be some discretion based on specific sites, a site is deemed to be in unfavourable condition if it fails on any of the tests. This approach is described in Annex 3. Lowland raised bog attributes as expressed in the HAP As set out in Section 1, the Lowland Raised Bog HAP is the benchmark for this project, providing the context in which the peat reduction targets are evaluated. This section sets out the attributes as expressed in the HAP against the background of the detailed accounts of the preceding sections.

Peat forms on primary, near natural bogs, and parts of secondary revegetating bogs.

There should be a range of appropriate vegetation NVC community types (see Annex 3, Table A3.2) especially M1, M2, M3 and M18, which form the basis of Common Monitoring Standards (CMS) guidance for condition monitoring (JNCC, 2004). This includes a number of Sphagnum moss species. These are found in a mosaic of hummocks and pools – however, this feature is regionally determined and more pronounced in the northwest than further south and east (Annex 3).

Peat forms an irreplaceable record of past climatic and depositional conditions which are recorded within the peat itself: this is particularly important on primary bogs. Restoration works

7 Ombrogenous describes dependency on atmospheric water for wetness and nutrition; vegetation of an

undrained bog is naturally buoyant, or (in part) floating on the accumulated atmospheric water, contrasting with those bogs that have been drained, and are no longer buoyant. 8 Vegetation is a group of individual plants that normally occur together to form recurring communities, as

described, for example, in the National Vegetation Classification (Rodwell (Ed) 1991-2000).

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 18 of 46

can involve disturbance of the peat, e.g. in re-profiling, and this can impact on the peat profile record (Coles, 1995; also see Annex 3).

Much of the peat resource has already been lost: hence it is important to maintain the current geographical distribution – which is representative of a much wider previous bog extent, arguably inclusive of areas such as the south-east of England, where no raised bogs are currently recognised (Annex 3).

The HAP gives rather less steer on the definition of the biodiversity building-blocks (attributes) than do other site selection rationales such as for SSSI and SACs. The latter provide clearer guidance over the importance of geographical representation (selection within areas of search; ecological networks), the importance of size as a measure of biodiversity, and indices of quality. Effects of peat extraction on biodiversity attributes The characteristics and attributes described above and in Annex 3 provide reference criteria for assessing the effects of peat extraction on biodiversity. These include:

Reduction of the regional and national extents of lowland raised bog;

Reduction of the representation of types – based on ontogeny9, landscape types, micro-topography (JNCC,1994; Wheeler et al., 2009).

Size (as an index of intra-site biodiversity) of the site and the extraction area; loss of a smaller site may have less impact on the total area of the resource, but may render an uncommon variant extinct;

Impact on statutorily protected sites – as defined by designations (e.g. SSSI, SAC);

Effects on the component vegetation – HAP/CSM condition baseline – is the vegetation in good condition (or not);

Effects on populations of particularly rare and scarce species of plant, bird and invertebrate;

Impact on functional hydrology of the bog – both within and adjacent to the extraction site.

4.5. Restoring biodiversity on damaged lowland raised bogs

Restoration of degraded bog (HAP Target T2) is an important part of improving lowland raised bog biodiversity, and this may include the restoration of some peat extraction sites. HAP Target T3 concentrates on the need to restore raised bog on archaic peat. Land uses on archaic peat do not normally involve peat extraction. The following sets out how restoration of the lowland raised bog habitat can be carried out on degraded bog sites other than those within the archaic category. The ways in which peat extraction assists or hinders is set out in Mineral Planning Guidance and reproduced below in Table 4.1 and described further in Section 5.

9 Its pattern of development through various habitats, such as from open water, via fen and wet woodland to

raised bog.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 19 of 46

Table 4.1 Restoration principles in MPG 13 (DoE, 1995)

The aim of restoration (on SSSIs and SACs) is to re-establish peat-forming vegetation typical of lowland raised mire plant communities and the process of active peat accumulation. However, alternative peat-forming restoration objectives can be considered and are described in Annex 3.

MPG 13 guideline Comment on how the guideline provides biodiversity gain

i) Critical refugia areas should be identified and steps taken to preserve or enhance their existing conservation interest. Such areas should not be subject to further peat extraction, unless as part of an agreed rolling programme of peat extraction and restoration.

Safeguard the floral and faunal resource throughout the extraction phase ready for restoration.

ii) If feasible and necessary, a buffer zone of undisturbed peat should be designated around the core part of any refugia, which should also remain uncut.

iii) Work should start on the restoration of abandoned areas and the maintenance of refugia as soon as possible so that dehydration is minimised.

iv) Peat should be extracted in such a way as to leave upstanding baulks at agreed intervals. These may be supplemented by constructed baulks after operations have ceased.

Enable shallow flooded cells to be created for bog regeneration to commence.

v) If feasible, operations should be phased such that: a) areas closest to refugia should be abandoned first, leaving sufficient depths of peat. b) contiguous areas should be finished in sequence.

Safeguard the floral and faunal resource throughout the extraction phase ready for restoration. The loss of species is minimised by commencing part restoration as soon as possible.

vi) A suitable depth of ombrotrophic peat should be left in situ, where this will assist in site rehabilitation. Sufficient peat should also be left to allow for constructs to impound water. This depth may vary according to the nature of the peat and the underlying substratum and its topography.

Provide conditions suitable for raised bog growth immediately rather than e.g. by succession from fen.

vii) Drains should not be dug into mineral subsoil (unless it is impermeable).

viii) Where possible, `nursery' pools for the `farming' of Sphagnum should be initiated, to provide an inoculums for abandoned areas.

To accelerate bog regeneration.

ix) Drainage operations should be assessed, and where possible redesigned to minimise impacts on remnants and areas undergoing restoration. In low rainfall areas it may be desirable to pump drainage water into abandoned peat workings, subject to the quality of the pumped water.

Provide conditions suitable for raised bog growth immediately.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 20 of 46

PART C Identifying possible influences of Target 4 on lowland raised bog biodiversity

5. Peat Extraction and biodiversity 5.1. Background

Sources of peat and horticultural requirements Site preparation for peat extraction includes reduction of the moisture content to a level at which it is suitable for harvesting and then for incorporation into horticultural growing media. The peat must be free from gross contamination, such as plant fragments (examples include dead rhizomes of Eriophorum vaginatum), and also of „weed‟ seeds that may lead to compensation claims from users, such as Sheep‟s sorrel Rumex acetosella (pers. comm. Fisons Moors Manager, circa 1991). A horticultural formulation may require a particular consistency of peat, or a blend of several. Some operators have indicated (pers. comms. Fisons staff, Thorne and Hatfield Moors, early 1990s) that the ability to access a range of peat textures from a site means that large areas of a site need to be kept open for production at any one time. This means that instead of phased working of small areas followed by restoration as is common in aggregate production, large peat extraction sites are drained and worked slowly over large areas; these areas will remain unrestored for however long the cutting phase lasts. It is also important for producers to be able to harvest in excess of demand in dry years, so stockpiles can be used in wet years when harvesting is difficult. The differences between peat strata, described as important for bog hydrology in Annex 3, also provide the variety of peat types required for the range of formulations. Ways in which peat extraction damages biodiversity The way a site is prepared for extraction depends on the intended cutting method (e.g. block cutting; milling; Blankenburg & Tonnis, (Eds) 2004). In all cases the vegetation needs to be stripped of what makes up the floral and faunal biodiversity. Site preparation involves the cutting of deep arterial drains to take away the water collected in the shallower drains around the aggregated cutting areas. Undulating peat base contours may mean that drains have to be cut into underlying mineral soil when

Section 4 Key Messages The European Union‟s Habitats Directive includes two categories for lowland raised bog, „Active Bog‟ and „Degraded Raised Bogs‟. An active bog is one on which peat formation is still judged to take place and degraded raised bogs are bogs still capable of natural regeneration The test for a degraded raised bog is that it should be able to „re-establish vegetation with peat-forming capability within 30 years‟. Lowland peat bogs have been classified as either damaged or (by implication) undamaged in the guidelines for SSSI selection. Many lowland raised bogs are not designated, although some may attract less restrictive designations through local plans, such as „Biological Heritage Sites‟. It is for these non-designated sites that the lowland raised bog HAP targets and actions are particularly important.‟ Selection of individual peat bogs as SSSI or Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) provides for their protection and explicit restrictions on their use, some of which may involve the need for compensation. The HAP gives rather less steer on the definition of the biodiversity building-blocks or attributes of Lowland Raised Bogs requiring restoration than do other site selection rationales such as for SSSI and SACs. Biodiversity is the single most important reason given for investing in raised bog restoration.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 21 of 46

encountering mounds such as drumlins10 that occur under so many sites in the north west of England (e.g. Wedholme Flow, Cumbria). This means that the floral and faunal refugia, necessary for the re-establishment of raised bog after extraction, may be at risk from changes from wet, waterlogged and mineral-poor, to dry and/or mineral-enriched conditions unless the site is managed to mitigate these consequences during the production phase. Further details of these effects and how they influence restoration choices are given in Annex 3. To summarise, damage caused to biodiversity by peat extraction is through:

Draining, stripping and cutting primary near-natural or secondary revegetating bogs;

Reducing the restoration (biodiversity gain) prospects of primary degraded or secondary degraded bogs by flattening out large areas for milling, and so removing the older cutting baulk-structures that could be more easily rewetted than the flat milled areas;

Poor restoration design compounds the biodiversity damage: ideally flat cuttings over an adequate depth of peat should be left surrounded by in situ peat baulks, with a full range of species in surrounding refugia;

Taking away or disturbing most of the „irreplaceable peat record‟.

How peat extraction might assist biodiversity As part of restoration of extracted or degraded sites, a re-profiling of the site, involving some potentially limited extraction, may be beneficial to develop a site topography and hydrology which is sustainable and suitable for restoration of a bog hydrological unit (Blankenburg & Tonnis, (Eds) 2004). While there are no circumstances in which peat extraction can avoid damage to or assist biodiversity on intact bogs, in the opinion of the authors there are circumstances in which further peat removal can improve the restoration prospects for bogs that have already been damaged by drainage, peat extraction and conversion to other uses such as agriculture. These are likely to be where the damaged bog profile is too deformed by peat shrinkage for the usual practices of ditch blocking and baulk construction to provide sufficiently wet conditions; where left to natural processes it may take a very long time for the bog profile to flatten by water loss and oxidation. There are mutual benefits where peat extraction requires prior removal of an agricultural overburden of uncertain benefit to wetland creation in favour of a poor fen or raised bog restoration (Annex 3).

5.2. Extraction sites and biodiversity

Peat extracted from sites across the UK is regulated by planning legislation as advised by Government guidelines (e.g. DoE, 1995). This section compares the requirements of the legislation and guidelines with events on individual sites, and speculates on the benefits to biodiversity if peat extraction were to cease. Details for English sites are given in Annex 4, Scottish sites in Annex 6 and Northern Ireland sites in Annex 7. There is an imbalance in this report between the individual countries of the UK because more information is available for some than for others. England has an advantage in that much information has already been collated by following up actions within the lowland raised bog HAP within the past five years (Headley & Dargie, 2004; Capita Symonds, 2005b). Time-span over which peat extraction has occurred Extraction has been practised on some sites for centuries. Thorne Moors (borders of South Yorkshire, East Riding of Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire) is a well-documented example (Limbert, 1986), on which industrial-scale cutting took place at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries to provide peat as stable litter as far away as London. This demand peaked and waned as cars replaced horses. Production accelerated again on Thorne Moors in the early 1970s in response to horticultural demand, and it remained a production site up to and throughout the time that such places were recognised as a biodiversity resource. Other cut-over sites, such as at Danes Moss SSSI, Cheshire (Meade, 1992), have remained untouched in recent decades and have a substantially thicker peat residue from an earlier extraction phase. Hence restoration techniques need to be adapted for a contrasting range of starting conditions.

10

Mounds of sand, gravel, clay and rock fragments left behind by melting glaciers.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 22 of 46

Range of conditions left by peat extraction The starting point ranges from sites on which just drainage, or drainage and peat cutting has occurred at some time in the recent past but then ceased, to others on which extraction is ongoing, whether its origins are ancient or recent. Peat extraction has a long history with impacts accumulating over many decades or even centuries. There are differences in outcome between small-scale domestic cutting, where peat sods are hand-cut in (usually) narrow land-holdings and industrial techniques involving the cutting of peat sods over very large areas, or the sequential removal of the top few tens of centimetres of dry peat by milling. The UK Working Group on Peat Extraction and Related Matters and its products The degree to which peat extraction has affected different condition classes of bog (Annex 3, Figure A3.3) up to 1994 is described in „The Report of the Working Group on Peat Extraction and Related Matters‟ (DoE, 1994), and in its follow-up report prefixed Peatland Issues (DETR, 1999). In these, the Lindsay & Immirzi (1996) condition classes (Annex 3, Figure A3.3) are used to provide a framework for describing the industry‟s impact on biodiversity. MPG13 was published in 1995, building on the report of the Working Group. It contained the first peat replacement target (40%) subsequently included in the lowland raised bog HAP. The MPG recognised the need to maintain a supply of peat, and advised that some new permissions may need to be granted in order to sustain the industry. However, the Growing Media Association‟s policy is that no new permissions will be sought except on archaic or significantly degraded land. This constitutes an important statement in determining how future demand would be sourced by UK or imported material, and how the existing biodiversity resource might be affected. The 1999 DETR Peatland Issues report was written at the time the lowland raised bog HAP was being drafted, and after MPG13 had been in the public domain for four years. Consequently, the Working Group had not been able to take account of the new requirements of the HAP, and instead concentrated on the needs of designated sites - the SSSIs and SACs (now included in HAP Targets 1 & 2). It is still important to assess the effects of peat extraction on designated sites, but also on the achievement of the HAP targets reaching beyond to the undesignated sites (most likely to fall within Targets T2 and T3). Peat extraction in the UK is now mostly on undesignated sites (Annexes 4, 6 & 7).

5.3. Evidence from individual sites

5.3.1. Accounts for each UK country Details for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland are given in Annexes 4, 6 and 7 respectively. There is currently no significant commercial peat extraction for horticulture in Wales.

5.4. Generic points arising from the site-based evidence

5.4.1. Types of peat resources and extraction permissions There is relatively little peat extraction for horticulture from lowland raised bogs with statutory nature conservation designations. Extraction is mostly from non-statutory sites, but this is another important part of the HAP resource. The Growing Media Association (GMA) have given assurances that no further permissions will be sought except on archaic or significantly degraded land, and this accounts for 80% of producers; there is no such undertaking for the other 20% of producers, and planning controls remain important. The important questions for biodiversity gain are: which sites to continue; which to draw to a close: either by exhaustion of the resource, or to deliver a better restoration to bog and; at which, if any, sites (degraded bog or archaic peat) should peat extraction take place on in the future. Given the principles set out in DoE (1994), DETR (1999) and MPG 13 and the commitment given by members of the GMA, it is extremely unlikely that any new permissions will be sought or granted on the small surviving resource of primary natural bog in the UK. Most, if not all, are protected by SSSI or even SAC designation. The areas which could attract future planning applications for peat extraction (though contrary to the GMA‟s policy) may be sites falling within the Natura 2000 Annex 1 category 7120 „Degraded bogs still capable of natural regeneration‟. Some of these degraded bogs are SSSI and/or SAC and planning applications are very unlikely to be successful. Some such bogs are without statutory protection, although still important for meeting HAPs targets (specifically target 2) and for

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 23 of 46

achieving local BAPs. These still could be the focus of future planning applications. From the point of view of biodiversity alone, the most suitable sites for future applications are within archaic peat, capable of contributing to HAP target T3. Archaic bog (sensu Lindsay & Immirzi, 1996), such as the peat under agricultural land and forestry, was previously thought to be incapable of natural regeneration. Extracting this peat would impact on the archaeological and palaeo-environmental resource, although these may already be compromised by the current land-uses. Additionally, there may also be impacts on designations, BAP habitat or species interests, other than raised bog and potential loss of high quality agricultural land11. However, the possibility of sourcing peat from these sites was mentioned in the recommendations of the 1999 report of the Working Group on Peat Extraction and Related Matters (DETR, 1999). So far there has been little demand for new peat extraction sites in recent years and this possibility has not been pursued12; there is little understanding13 of what the biodiversity potential for raised bog might be, but see Blankenburg & Tonnis, 2004 for the habitat creation potential on different types of peat.

5.4.2. Effectiveness of planning controls

Using the review procedures (ROMP) MPG13 enables minerals planning authorities to insist on raised bog restoration as the required afteruse, either at the time the consent is granted (permissions granted after 1995) or as a result of a review (ROMP) of old permissions every 15 years. This provides a mechanism whereby the damage caused to raised bogs by peat extraction can be mitigated by restoration techniques, thus facilitating the achievement of HAP Targets T1, T2 and T3. In exercising these controls, minerals planners must take account of the requirements of the Habitats Directive, SSSI/ASSI14 statutes, and the legislation requiring reviews of planning consents (see paragraphs 4.2 and 6.2). However, in practice, the evidence given in this report (Annexes 4, 6 & 7) suggests that the use of these requirements by MPAs has been variable across the UK. Most permissions for peat extraction on designated lowland bogs have been reviewed in England, a few in Scotland (see Annex 6), but none in Northern Ireland at the time this report was written. Information collected by Capita Symonds (2005b) for English Nature concerning sites covered by the HAP Targets T1, T2 and T3, as updated by more recent information, is given in Table A4.1 (Annex 4). They were only able to obtain information on five out of the sixteen sites they listed. Their survey was conducted by telephone, posing the following questions:

Permission name and type;

Expiry date;

Review dates;

National Grid Reference and area covered by the consent;

Any knowledge of abuse of the consent;

Proposed restoration plan and after-use. Failure to provide Capita Symonds with information for a site does not necessarily mean a review has not occurred. It emphasises the need to persevere when hard-pressed local government officers may not be able to find the time. Peat extraction no longer takes place on two sites for which ROMP information was not available to Capita Symonds (Bickerstaffe Moss East Remnant and Cadishead Moss, though a 1997 planning application, see below, was made that included Cadishead Moss) and there are currently no plans (as far as is known) to restore these sites to raised bog. These two sites provide examples of where simply stopping extraction does not necessarily benefit biodiversity because the measures (such as wetness,

11

There is a tension between the use of high grade agricultural land over deep peat and its use for habitat creation. The authors recognise that balances have to be struck within the wider public interest but have chosen to concentrate on setting out the opportunities for biodiversity gain in this report. 12

The opinion is based on one of the author‟s participation in the DETR‟s Working Group, the JNCC‟s Lead Coordination Network for Lowland Mires and the Wetland HAP Steering Group between 1999 and 2006. 13

A point made strongly by some project steering group members on early drafts of this report. 14

ASSI, or Area of Special Scientific Interest is the Northern Ireland equivalent of the SSSI in other UK countries.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 24 of 46

damming, baulk creation and minimum peat thickness) necessary to provide the narrow range of restoration conditions are not put in place. Once abandoned there is no associated income generation, such as the selling of peat and its products, to pay for restoration works. The Environment Act of 1995 places the burden of compensation following the imposition of new conditions on the minerals planning authority. The compensation required to forego the extraction of otherwise useable volumes of peat to facilitate restoration may (see below) run into many millions of pounds. While no evidence of cause and effect is available, this may act as a disincentive for minerals planning authorities to review existing consents for peat extraction. A thorough review of this aspect would assist in understanding how effective the current provisions for review are likely to be. In practice, the achievement of improved site restoration and hence improved prospects for biodiversity arising from the reviews (ROMPs) in England has been mixed, possibly because of the need for large amounts of compensation. Peat extraction has ceased on the SACs excepting Bolton Fell Moss on which discussions are still taking place: http://uk.ibtimes.com/articles/20100201/william-sinclair-welcomes-ec-decision-on-bolton-fell.htm . The compensation for the cessation of peat extraction and subsequent restoration measures on Hatfield Moors, Thorne and Goole Moors and on Wedholme Flow (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/4315838.stm) of £17.3m came from central Government rather than from local sources. In these cases the ROMP has incorporated the restoration plans put forward by the conservation organisations now owning or managing the sites, such as Natural England, after land-use change had been achieved through mechanisms other than the ROMP. Planning measures and nature conservation designations as drivers for change are described and discussed in Section 6. In reviewing consents for peat extraction on some undesignated HAP sites, such as Little Woolden Moss and Cadishead Moss (Greater Manchester), attempts to replace the requirement for an agricultural afteruse with one of wetland creation have been unsuccessful. Levington Horticulture submitted Planning application Ref 97/36217 to Salford City Council in January 1997, and sought “Modernization of planning conditions for existing peat working at Little Woolden Moss in compliance with Section 96 of the 1995 Environment Act” (pers. comm. Marion Raines, Planning Officer, Salford City Council, January 2009). The lack of success in this case lies not with the peat extractor, but to a MAFF requirement that Grade 1 agricultural land must be protected (pers. comm. Marion Raines, Planning Officer, Salford City Council, January 2009). Use of strategic planning Minerals planning authorities show where the projected need for minerals will be met by producing regularly updated Minerals Plans. They provide an opportunity to define zones in which searches for and the extraction of minerals will be allowed or disallowed, and what constraints might apply. Some MPAs have underpinned the ROMPs and future planning decisions with policies for their mossland zones. Salford City Council has produced a mosslands policy (EN 11) for that part of Chat Moss within its area ( http://services.salford.gov.uk/saved-udp/section_d228681e116.html ). It protects the prospects for raised bog restoration if permission is granted for other uses. The Chat Moss scenario is explored further in Annex 9. The use of these policies, the ROMPs and the guidance provided by MPG 13 has resulted in considerable potential biodiversity gain via restoration after peat extraction on Astley Moss East and Twelve Yards Road. Negotiations to extend the expired planning consent on the former have also provided potential gains on a previously cutover but derelict peatland remnant in Botany Bay Wood (pers. comm. Marion Raines, Planning Officer, Salford City Council, January 2009). These three sites are contigous (Annex 3, Figure A3.2) . Some sections of the public do not support this longer term approach to lowland raised bog HAP gain and are protesting against the extraction of peat on Chat Moss, including Little Woolden Moss and Astley Moss East (http://www.salfordonline.com/localnews_page/21389-chat_moss_green_belt_protestors_not_guilty.html ). Other uses for which peat is extracted

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 25 of 46

Information from Scotland and Northern Ireland shows that peat extraction is not solely undertaken for the horticultural industry. Peat is used as domestic fuel and as an important raw material in whisky production. Clearly, damage to biodiversity arising from these extractions would not be affected by a horticultural peat reduction target.

Section 5 Key Messages A horticultural formulation may require a particular consistency of peat, or a blend of several. The differences between peat strata, important for bog hydrology, also provide the variety of peat types required for the range of formulations. The way a site is prepared for extraction depends on the intended cutting method. In all cases the vegetation needs to be stripped of what makes up the floral and faunal biodiversity. Some of the plants that made up the bog surface when in its natural state may survive in small wet niches around the peat extraction site. However, the overall effect of peat cutting on the bog flora is to eliminate many important species, such as the full range of peat-forming Sphagnum mosses, and to drive others into small corners from which it may take years to spread back onto an extensive restoration surface. The „irreplaceable record‟ in the undisturbed peat layers, of considerable importance to archaeology and an understanding of past climatic change, is at risk from peat extraction. As part of restoration of extracted or degraded sites, a re-profiling of the site, involving some potentially limited extraction, may be beneficial to develop a site topography and hydrology which is sustainable and suitable for restoration of a bog hydrological unit. Extraction has been practised on some sites for centuries. There is relatively little peat extraction for horticulture from lowland raised bogs with statutory nature conservation designations. Extraction is mostly from non-statutory sites, but this is another important part of the HAP resource. The Growing Media Association (GMA) have given assurances that no further permissions will be sought except on archaic or significantly degraded land, and this accounts for 80% of producers; there is no such undertaking for the other 20% of producers, and planning controls remain important. Given the principles set out in MPG 13 and the commitment given by members of the GMA, it is extremely unlikely that any new permissions will be sought or granted on the small surviving resource of primary natural bog in the UK. MPG13 enables minerals planning authorities to insist on raised bog restoration as the required afteruse, either at the time the consent is granted or as a result of a review (ROMP) of old permissions every 15 years. This provides a mechanism to achieve HAP Targets T1, T2 and T3. In practice, the evidence suggests that the use of these requirements by MPAs has been variable across the UK.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 26 of 46

6. Biodiversity drivers and imperatives 6.1. Introduction

This section describes these drivers and assesses their relative contribution to conserving and enhancing bog biodiversity, other than those associated with minerals planning already explored in the previous section. See also sub-section 4.2 where designations are described as indices of importance to nature conservation. They are important in the assessment of what mechanisms, including a reduced consumption of peat, have delivered most for the HAP targets. The UK BAP and the resulting 1999 HAP targets followed the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and post-date other mechanisms for protecting lowland raised bogs such as SSSIs (from 1949, much strengthened in 1981) and the Habitats Directive of 1992. Many of the permissions valid today were first established in the early 1950s without detailed working and restoration conditions.

6.2. Statutory drivers for preventing damage to nature conservation sites

A synopsis of statutory drivers is given below (Table 6.1) with a summary of their effectiveness, based mostly on examples in England, for which most information is available.

Table 6.1 Summary of the success of drivers in preventing damage to lowland bog SSSIs from peat extraction

Driver

Land categories Provisions Effectiveness in respect of minerals permissions

1

National

National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949.

National Nature Reserves

The NCR listed sites worthy of NNR status; local planning authorities were obliged to take account of SSSI status in their decisions.

Ineffective against permissions already granted. Ineffective as a safeguard (e.g. Meade, 2007, permission for gravel extraction next to Hatfield Moors SSSI in 1981 on appeal)

The Nature Conservation Review

Sites of Special Scientific Interest

Wildlife & Countryside Act, 1981.

National Nature Reserves

Owners & occupiers of SSSI must give notice of „damaging operations‟.

As above, no change in the duties of minerals planning authorities.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest

Environment Act, 1995.

Old minerals planning consents

Review, apply modern conditions; SSSIs a priority.

Successful in matters that did not attract compensation. Section 5 (this report) suggests its application is less complete in Scotland and N. Ireland.

Countryside & Rights of Way Act, 2000.

National Nature Reserve

Section 28G bodies to further attributes of SSSI for which they were notified, in pursuit of their duties.

Other than the voluntary surrender of an extraction permission on Crowle Moors (Annex 4), it is difficult to find evidence that gains are attributable to this rather than EU legislation. The current project may be evidence that the second provision is effective.

Sites of Special Scientific Interest

Biodiversity Ministers given a duty of conserving biological diversity

UKBAP Habitats & species Targets and actions Little evidence of impact on prevention of damage over and above the statutory drivers. Workshops have resulted in wider sharing of restoration expertise.

PSA target Sites of Special Scientific Interest

90% SSSI in favourable condition by 2010 (England)

An incentive to repair the damage left by extraction.

International

Ramsar Convention, 1971

Ramsar sites Sites already SSSI, and protected only through SSSI.

No additional protection

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 27 of 46

EU Habitats Directive 1992

Special Areas of Conservation

No significant adverse effects allowed; all plans and projects to be reviewed; requires restoration of degraded sites.

Highly effective in that it was the trigger to undertake new impact assessments and give compensation where significant adverse effects on integrity from peat extraction were suspected.

Notes: 1The author‟s opinion.

6.3. Effectiveness of statutory drivers

Special Areas of Conservation – the EU Habitat Directive Until recently peat extraction prevented recovery of the raised bog over a large area of SSSI and was deemed by conservation bodies to cause a significant adverse effect on some of the UK‟s biggest active and degraded bog SACs (e.g. Thorne, Crowle & Goole Moors, 1919 ha). The Government provided funding to the statutory nature conservation bodies and minerals planning authorities to buy out peat extractors on the majority of SAC extraction sites, e.g. Flanders Moss (Scotland), Ballynahone Bog (Northern Ireland), Thorne, Crowle & Goole Moors, Hatfield Moors, Wedholme Flow, Bolton Fell Moss (England) and Fenn‟s, Whixall & Bettisfield Mosses (England & Wales), and to undertake immediate surface engineering for bog restoration on some of these sites, e.g. Thorne, Crowle & Goole Moors, Fenn‟s, Whixall & Bettisifield Mosses, Hatfield Moors, Wedholme Flow. These examples show that the European Union and its powers, as exercised through the Habitats Directive, has been a very powerful driver in the improvement of biodiversity prospects on lowland raised bogs. Another benefit of SAC status is eligibility for funding under LIFE Nature projects (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ ), though the future funding cannot be taken for granted and obtaining funds is highly competitive. Sites of Special Scientific Interest (Wales, Scotland England) Areas of Special Scientific Interest (Northern Ireland) There is Government funding for improving SSSI condition in England, such as through the Water Level Management Plan process ( http://www.wlma.org.uk/uploads/WMA_WLMP_Info.pdf ) and through Environmental Stewardship. Each country of the UK has its own scheme: England: http://ww2.defra.gov.uk/food-farm/land-manage/stewardship/ Wales, Tir Gofal: http://adlib.everysite.co.uk/adlib/defra/content_bl.aspx?doc=1802&id=1816 Scotland, Rural Development Programme: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmingrural/SRDP Northern Ireland Countryside Management Scheme: http://www.dardni.gov.uk/ruralni/index/environment/countrysidemanagement/schemes/nicms.htm These schemes, which replace earlier types of management agreement, are available to farmers and other landowners. Using England as the example, the money is now targeted to chosen objectives within a geographical area. For example, in the northwest, where inter alia lowland raised bogs are a stated priority for action, there are zones, such as the Manchester Mosslands. Here, applications must perform ONE or more land management activities; only one is reproduced below: “Maintain/Restore/Create important areas of the following wetland habitats: lowland raised bog, fens, wet woodlands and reedbeds. HLS management of these lowland wetland habitats may include water level management and establishing appropriate grazing regimes. Creation of the habitats listed above will be considered where there are significant opportunities to extend, link or buffer important areas of existing habitat to reduce the impacts of fragmentation.” Figures were not available at the time information was gathered for this project to indicate the extent to which this option had been claimed in England, or the degree to which it has prevented or repaired damage from peat extraction to lowland raised bog biodiversity. It has the potential to be used to manage areas around or on raised bogs that have been damaged by peat extraction (commercial and/or domestic) in the past by, for example, removing scrub and blocking ditches. It is not known to have been used as a mechanism to stop commercial peat extraction operating with a valid planning consent.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 28 of 46

There is insufficient evidence to judge whether the SSSI designation alone is such a powerful driver of change as the Habitats Directive where peat extraction is concerned. Evidence from Bolton Moss Fell (where proposed SAC designation of the longstanding SSSI, first designated 1954, reviewed in 1968, 1994 and 2001, initiated discussions about early cessation of peat extraction) suggests that SAC designation is a much stronger driver than SSSI designation for sites with existing extraction. Of the English SSSIs, other than on Bolton Fell Moss (now SAC) and the Westhay Moor remnant Somerset site (not SAC), peat extraction is only carried out next to Holburn Moss, though there are indications that it might be close to cessation and restoration. The PSA target has been a powerful driver in England to bring other lowland bog SSSIs many of which were affected by peat extraction in the past into what is defined as „unfavourable recovering condition‟ such as through the Peatlands for People project15 (e.g. Symonds Group, 2004). Given the importance of SAC and SSSI designation as drivers to improve the condition of bogs it is difficult to judge what additional influence the HAP peat replacement target may have had on events surrounding the cessation of peat extraction on designated sites. Only one example in which extraction rights were relinquished voluntarily has come to light, on one small strip of Crowle Moors .

6.4. Effectiveness of non-statutory drivers

Undesignated areas of extracted lowland raised bog, requiring restoration under the HAP targets T2 and T3, have received least attention. Examples in England include Little Woolden Moss, still destined for agricultural use, and others on which there is insufficient information to judge whether leaving 0.5m of peat will still enable restoration to raised bog to take place. These sites are still subject to the ROMP process and the Government‟s advice in MPG13, but this does not appear from the examples cited (5.4.2) to provide the necessary trigger for action and commensurate compensation. A number of environmental codes of peat retailers and suppliers (outlined in Annex 1) say they will not procure peat from designated sites. This means that the demand for peat from designated sites is likely to be limited to those on which permission already exists, from suppliers that do not have such codes16. It could be argued that the achievement of Target T4 will delay the restoration of extraction sites by making the extractable resource last longer unless there is a „long-stop‟ date beyond which peat cannot be used in horticulture (Defra, 2010b). Conversely, decreased demand for peat means less demand for new peat extraction sites. Currently we can offer no evidence to show that the partial achievement of Target T4 has directly influenced production volumes (Section 2), or that changes in extraction rates have benefited bog restoration other than by total cessation following the paying of compensation (this Section). The potential for change via the review of planning consents and the use of modern working practices and restoration to raised bog still has to be implemented to the full (5.4.2).

6.5. The importance of public opinion

Public opinion was mobilised in the 1960s at Thorne Moors when the Nature Conservancy was persuaded, as a result of much local pressure led by William Bunting (Caulfield, 1991), to designate the whole as an SSSI. By the time designation had taken place much of the damage from peat cutting (new drains, a more extensive operation) had been done and the SSSI designation provided no legal requirement to review or to change the planning consents from the early 1950s.

15

Peatlands for People was a Government-funded project which funded management works on SSSI bogs in Cumbria such as the Duddon Mosses in the early 2000s. There is currently no informative website to use as a reference. Details are in files at Natural England‟s Kendal Office (pers. comm.. M. Robinson. Freshwater Adviser, Natural England, 14 March 2011). 16

It has not been possible to acquire figures from peat producers about peat volumes from specific categories of site and so these comments are speculative. However, GMA members account for over 80% of all GM production and their policy is no usage of peat from designated areas. They also undertake to seek no new permissions on LRB

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 29 of 46

Campaigns in the early and mid-1990s via the Peatlands Campaign Consortium were aimed at ending peat extraction on these moors as efficient management increased the drainage to ensure that even the lowest layers of peat could be extracted (Alexander et al., 2008). In the early 2000s the bulk of extraction ceased on Thorne and Hatfield Moors and the South Solway Mosses following compensation payments to the peat extractors for the mineral rights they relinquished. These examples illustrate how changes in public attitudes occurred before or around the time of the launch of the LRB HAP resulting in immediate gains for bog biodiversity, and highlighting peat extraction as the major threat. It was against this background, where peat extraction was perceived as damaging to even the restoration prospects of already damaged bogs that the precursors of Target T4 were written into the 1999 HAP.

7. Non-biodiversity drivers for reducing the use of peat Lowland raised bog HAP Target T4 is, by implication, designed to improve bog biodiversity. However, biodiversity is not the only gain from maintaining peat deposits in a condition where it continues to take up atmospheric carbon and where to drain and extract peat would be to release carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. This section does provide detail but is included to illustrate that, if T4 does influence the amount of peat extracted, it also contributes to sustainability objectives beyond those of biodiversity.

7.1. Peat as a carbon store and its relationship with climate change

Peat forms a large „fossil‟ carbon store. Although the upper layers of the bog were formed recently, deeper layers were formed up to several thousand years before present. In terms of carbon cycling, peat bogs represent a much longer-term storage than, say, forests, that grow, die and decompose within a few hundred years. When bogs are degraded the drained peat is lost to the atmosphere through oxidation to carbon dioxide. This contributes to the „greenhouse gas:‟ carbon dioxide. Peat extraction involves drying out of peat and some oxidation occurs in the process of extraction; further oxidation occurs as the peat is used (for example) in horticulture. Active bog has a near-surface water table and the whole bog is saturated. Dying vegetation is preserved with very low rates of decomposition in the saturated, low oxygen, environment beneath the surface and forms a peat deposit (Annex 3). A very small amount of anaerobic decomposition continues a few tens of centimetres below the bog‟s surface and the gas methane is produced. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas (GHG) than carbon dioxide. There is still uncertainty about the overall GHG balance of peat-forming bogs, and

Section 6 Key Messages The European Union and its powers, as exercised through the Habitats Directive, has been a very powerful driver in the improvement of biodiversity prospects on lowland raised bogs. There is insufficient evidence to judge whether the SSSI designation alone is such a powerful driver of change as the Habitats Directive where peat extraction is concerned. The PSA target has been a powerful driver in England to bring lowland bog SSSIs many of which were affected by peat extraction in the past into what is defined as „unfavourable recovering condition‟. Undesignated areas of extracted lowland raised bog, requiring restoration under the HAP targets T2 and T3, have received least attention. These sites are still subject to the ROMP process and the Government‟s advice in MPG13, but this does not appear to provide the necessary trigger for action. Currently we can offer no evidence to show that the partial achievement of Target T4 has directly influenced peat production volumes, or that changes in extraction rates have benefited bog restoration other than by total cessation following the paying of compensation.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 30 of 46

there is much scientific activity currently focused upon this (e.g. Yavitt et al., 2000). However, the peat acts as a carbon store unless it is drained. Total soil carbon in the U.K. at circa 10,000 Mt exceeds carbon in vegetation by two orders of magnitude. Circa 50% of UK soil carbon is stored as peat, mostly in Scotland. Peatland carbon balance is highly dynamic so that UK peatlands have potential to be a significant source or sink of carbon (Martin Evans & Fred Worrall, University of Manchester, Durham University; Moors for the Future Workshop, 20 February 2006). Most of the UK peat is in blanket mire and the lowland bog resource is small by comparison. However, the principle of conserving in situ peat is important in combating climate change and the growing media industry is responding to it (these issues are further considered in the Defra, 2008b). The amount of carbon dioxide loss due to extracted peat in the UK for horticulture is 0.43 Mt CO2 per annum (Source: Jackson et al., 2009).

7.2. Sustainable use of resources

Defra‟s website provides a suitable summary of the Government‟s commitment to the principles of sustainability in all its activities: (http://www.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/what/index.htm). Claims have been made that the amount of peat being formed in the world at any one time is greater than what is being extracted (e.g. Temple-Heald & Shaw, 1997). It is questionable whether such claims are relevant to the issue of whether peat extraction and use is sustainable within a particular geographical region, e.g. the UK. Losses on a local scale still represent a loss to biodiversity in that area, even if there is no net carbon loss globally from peat reserves. It is evident that for a given site, at a peat growth rate of about 1mm per annum, an extraction rate of around 20 cm per year is greater; and net loss would occur. Even if peat formation is re-instated after extraction, none occurs during the extraction phase, and much carbon is released from the carbon store. It would be difficult to escape the conclusion that peat extraction is only sustainable on a very long term semi-geological time scale, or when averaged over the surface of the globe.

7.3. Ecosystem services

The concept looks at peat bogs in terms of the services they can provide to society. Their contribution to the carbon economy, which is an ecosystem service (ESS), has already been described. They also have hydrological functions in respect of, for example, river catchment management (upland bogs, beyond the scope of the Lowland Raised Bog HAP) and others in respect of flora and fauna, and in recreation and cultural services. There is no single way of categorising ecosystem services, and they can be described in simple terms including provisioning services, regulating services and cultural services. Such wider ecosystem services would need to be considered in any future discussions about the role of the peat reduction target. Some of the services peat provides are as a fuel, raw material and horticultural media when extracted. However, these uses compete with its services in situ as a record of past climate and archaeological resource, current carbon store and current water management functions. The ESS approach is useful in enabling the different functions of peat to be seen in context for prioritisation and subsequent developments. Broad biodiversity attributes are included in the indicators of success. However, the issues around sustainability and carbon retention provide powerful drivers for moving from a peat-based horticulture (and any other industry using peat) to one based on renewable resources.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 31 of 46

PART D Future trends in peat extraction, peat consumption, target setting and biodiversity gain

8. Scenarios for Peat Supply and their Biodiversity Implications

This section examines a range of scenarios for extraction and restoration and their relative implications

for biodiversity losses and gains and for habitat restoration.

8.1. Background

It is important to recognise that peat has uses other than horticulture. Some are reviewed by Vasander (Ed, 1996), and more can be found on websites such as http://www.tourbehorticole.com/en/peat/uses.php . Apart from being a longstanding domestic fuel in peat-rich parts of the UK, use in commercial energy production would require consents and a rigorous examination of the proposal would take place. Although small in comparison with horticulture at present, a possible rise in the use of peat for other purposes cannot be ruled out. Peat consumption may remain close to what it currently is (see Section 2 for 2009 consumption figures and recent annual rate of change), be further reduced as a result of acceptable alternatives being available, or be phased out completely within an agreed time frame. The project brief requires the following scenarios to be explored. No information on extraction volumes from individual sites or their future potential is available, so it is not possible to quantify them:

Changing the extraction rate on the complete suite of existing sites;

Be selective about which sites continue (see model in Annex 8);

Opening new extraction sites;

Switching to imported peat (and closing down all UK sites, see Annex 8).

As described in earlier sections, provided satisfactory working and afteruse conditions are in place, the early completion of extraction from a site is of benefit to biodiversity because the restoration can commence earlier than the permission end-date and more peat may be left in situ to aid restoration infrastructure. No evidence is available without seeking information from extractors to show if the reduction target has had a part in the early completion of activity at any sites, or caused them to be worked for longer. The ideal is for an immediate cessation of extraction on all sites where working methods have left a surface capable of restoration and where the afteruse is for raised bog restoration.

8.2. Changing extraction rate on existing sites

The expiry of the planning consent remains the date up to which an operator can extract peat. Beyond this, restoration must take place, unless an extension to the planning permission is granted, which it

Section 7 Key Messages Biodiversity is not the only gain from maintaining peat deposits in a condition where it continues to take up atmospheric carbon and where to drain and extract peat would be to release carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Most of the UK peat is in blanket mire and the lowland bog resource is small by comparison. However, the principle of conserving in situ peat is important in combating climate change and the growing media industry is responding to it. The Ecosystem Services approach is useful in enabling the different functions of peat to be seen in context for prioritisation and developing policy.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 32 of 46

may be if workable reserves of peat are left (e.g. Astley Moss East, ). Up to this date rates of extraction can vary. Extracting peat more slowly from a site Slower extraction does not give rise to biodiversity benefits. Parts of the site may be moth-balled, in which case inappropriate vegetation may become established, such as birch scrub/trees and purple moor-grass. This is of no benefit to lowland raised bog biodiversity (as they would hinder eventual wetland restoration) or to the peat extractor. In practice (pers. comm. peat industry representative, in confidence, 12 May 2009), extraction is likely to continue over the same area, but taking a lesser depth of peat annually. One possible benefit of a slower extraction rate is the provision of more time to seek a better restoration plan for biodiversity where it is currently poor. Slower extraction up to an end date for peat use (such as a HAP target) could result in more peat being left in the bog. Having a greater peat depth upon which to commence restoration is likely to assist the establishment of desirable bog vegetation and prevent water leaking to porous strata beneath the peat. Slower extraction may also slow the rate of CO2 release from the bog, though this becomes less likely if it means the bog drainage is maintained for longer. Slower extraction would also limit the requirement for new extraction sites, the development of which might have an additional biodiversity loss, depending on their condition and eventual restoration requirements. Closing existing sites This would have benefits for biodiversity provided the afteruse conditions were for restoration to raised bog. There may be benefits for other habitats or species where the afteruse is loosely-prescribed for nature conservation, but they would be very limited or absent where it is to agriculture or forestry, such as at Little Woolden Moss.

8.3. Be selective about sites where peat extraction continues

Exercising a selection pre-supposes there are or will be incentives for extraction companies to close down sites or transfer some of their operations. This has been done in the past when the Government has provided ring-fenced funding to buy out extraction consents and for fundamental restoration infrastructure like bunding and ditch blocking (Annex 3). It has been associated with the EU Habitats Directive in giving protection to Natura 2000 sites.

8.4. Opening a new extraction site

A continued demand for peat (including for non-horticultural use) alongside the closure of existing sites means there would either need to be new sites opened up in the UK, or more peat would need to be imported from abroad. MPG13, published in 1995 and based on a 40% use of peat-free materials, anticipated that 1000 ha of new extraction area could be required in the next 10-20 years (up to 2015), and this did not anticipate the subsequent closure of large sites such as Thorne and Hatfield Moors and Wedholme Flow. If this is adjusted to 58% use of peat-free materials (DEFRA, 2010a), this is reduced to 700ha. New extraction from peat bogs in a pristine state is clearly detrimental to biodiversity, whether this occurs in the UK (which it would not) or elsewhere. The relatively degraded nature of the peat resource in the UK, particularly in England, compared to some other countries, means that often peat sourced from abroad17 may come from more pristine bogs than peat sourced in the UK. However, the peat resource in some other countries may be much more extensive than in the UK, and so individual examples may not be given the same domestic biodiversity value as in countries (or regions) where they are scarce. As the EU has no policy for peat use it is unclear how such comparative evaluations would be undertaken in Europe or the wider world. However, there are countries, such as Germany, where peat extraction occurs from a degraded (even archaic) source with concomitant gains for biodiversity (Defra, 2008a).

17

There is a commitment from major extractors in Ireland not to open any new sites (Annex 2).

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 33 of 46

New extraction from currently degraded bogs would delay any planned restoration, and would be detrimental to any biodiversity currently occurring on them. The ultimate restoration may have positive outcomes for biodiversity, but their success is uncertain and the benefits may take a long time to develop. There are degraded bogs that have no prospects of restoration (e.g. Holland Moss, Annex 5, Figure A5.8) and each needs to be assessed separately as to whether peat extraction could assist in developing a surface topography suitable for raised bog restoration. The extent of archaic peat is vastly greater than the sum of degraded and active bogs, but is currently used for other purposes. It has the advantage that to extract it would have no impact on the biodiversity of existing bog sites, unless it occurs around their edge and could damage their hydrology. It is also possible that particular tracts of archaic peat bear other BAP priority habitats and that extraction would not be permitted. Such a loss may only be temporary, as the restoration could include suitable mitigation, and the works would contribute towards HAP target 3. It is also possible that areas of archaic peat could, under the right circumstances, simply be restored to lowland raised bog without extraction, and that to use it for peat production would not provide better biodiversity gain. A source of money other than what might arise from the selling of some peat would need to be found to bring it into biodiversity management. Arguments are raised in the UK against the use of archaic peat to supply horticulture and to contribute to biodiversity on the grounds that there are too many unknown factors, such as the removal of nutrient-enriched surface layers arising from agricultural use, and the relationship between carbon released during drainage and extraction balanced against that captured when a peat-forming wetland is restored (e.g. steering group for this project, 31 March 2009). Experience in Lower Saxony has been that the peat extraction industry, agriculture and those aiming to restore wetland biodiversity, including lowland raised bog, have been able to work together to mutual benefit. What occurs there is described as a casework example in Defra (2008a). In such instances, peat extraction provides a suitable economic driver to facilitate the restoration of some areas of archaic peat. In addition, Drösler et al. (2011) compare „greenhouse‟ gas emissions from a range of organic agricultural soils in Germany observe that significant greenhouse gas mitigation effect can only be achieved if the watertable is adjusted to near-natural conditions, such as would occur after the initially dry grassland surface had been lowered closer to the regional watertable and made permanently wet. The „new site‟ option spans a wide range of possibilities within which the use of sites of existing nature conservation value would be ruled out. Beyond this, there are situations to be explored where a limited amount of peat extraction could yield mutual benefits. 8.5. Switching to imported peat

Switching to imported peat means that the product from all UK extraction sites would no longer have a market in UK horticulture. It is not clear how this situation would arise without massive compensation where permissions currently exists, as there would be no financial incentive for companies to abandon relatively cheap peat from their own sites in favour of more expensive material from abroad. The price differentials may change in the other direction, in which case the home sites would be mothballed until the economics reversed once more. It is also unclear how the restoration work would be paid for without compensation from public sources. Importing peat raises questions about its potentially detrimental effects on biodiversity abroad. This report has looked mainly at consequences in the Republic of Ireland because it currently supplies almost all the UK‟s imports. This may change, and it would be necessary to also look more closely at other potential suppliers before committing to a policy of stopping all peat extraction in the UK in favour of importing any peat required by horticulture. The EU Habitats Directive would provide some protection for the best sites in member states, and retailer environmental policies would also provide some safeguard for peat imported for horticultural use. However, the nature of internal controls on peat extraction in other countries may still leave scope for significant damage to biodiversity. Where this was the case, it would be the moral responsibility on UK to be as self sufficient as realistically as possible, thus switching focus to the least damaging exploitable peat deposits in the UK. Such a switch would require the same degree of compliance by industry as described for the selective option described in 8.3, and is a variant of the same principle. In this case, the site selection may not

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 34 of 46

be made on relative biodiversity gain so much as the willingness of individual operators to give up their assets. Sites with extractable peat remain assets for as long as there are potential uses for the peat.

8.6. Stop using peat in horticulture altogether

Section 2 and Annex 1 describe how although current peat-free trials are highly successful for most plants, some plants (e.g. ericaceous, carnivorous) still grow best on peat. Assumptions cannot be made about the future necessity for some peat use in horticulture (both commercial and non-commercial) without further consultation with suppliers and users. Further exploration is needed with industry over extent to which full substitution has been made. Even if a mechanism for „banning peat use‟ could be found that was acceptable to producers and conservation bodies it would still leave the issues of compensation for profits foregone and the value of assets lost; also, the cost of restoration to raised bog. These have already been referred to in 8.3 – 8.5. The cessation of peat use in horticulture would have a high impact on the ability of bog owners to sell their product because horticulture is currently the biggest user. This could change, and peat could become an important raw material in for example, an industrial process, mopping up oil spills, bio-filtration or wastewater treatment. The „ban‟ would have to be on the extraction of peat per se rather than „banning‟ a particular use of peat.

8.7. Conceptual models

Summary diagrams of the factors described above are provided in Annex 8 as Figures A8.1 and A8.2. The summary of interactions (Figure A8.1) considers the proportion of growing media supplied by peat or alternatives, the various conditions of peatland the peat could be taken from, and how importing peat or using UK peat relates to the available source. It suggests it would be better for biodiversity to import peat if UK peat comes from (in part) active raised bogs or degraded ones on which secondary active bog is, or can be established. The attraction of imported peat, in terms of risk to biodiversity, falls off as there is an increase in the degree to which using the UK indigenous supply would hasten the restoration of an extraction site to raised bog or provide a prospect of raised bog biodiversity via restoration where there is currently none. The figure also indicates a higher risk in using imported peat other than peat from the Republic of Ireland; the provisions for biodiversity gain on post-extraction sites are more explicit in the Republic of Ireland than has been identified elsewhere. The ten-point column representing the proportion of growing media satisfied by peat is labelled as „impossible‟ at the top end, though future formulations may show „difficult‟ to be a more accurate description. A further diagram (Figure A8.2) explains the relationships between the conservation of biodiversity on bogs and the use of peat in horticulture as a series of motors driving the peat resource towards economic use and to conservation, as fuelled, for example, by economics, social responsibility and Government policies. Constraints on the use of peat include the placing of economic and social costs on the ecosystem services provided by peatlands, and funding to underpin the existing planning consent review facilities is essential. There is also a strong incentive to replace peat in horticulture with materials arising from the application of the Landfill Directive, from which large quantities of composted organic waste become available.

8.8. Conclusions about scenarios

The only benefits of working a site more slowly arise from providing more time in which to improve the options for eventual restoration where they are currently to agriculture for example. There are greater biodiversity gains if a site is taken out of production with sufficient residual peat to initiate restoration to bog. Delaying restoration might mean that the indigenous resource of bog species diminishes further and the base peat is drained and begins to oxidise, so the earlier sites can be released the better it is for biodiversity. Closing down existing sites in favour of opening up new ones only gives biodiversity gain if the new site is one with no or limited existing biodiversity value, and where a carefully controlled extraction phase

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 35 of 46

can be followed by restoration to raised bog, or to a close successional type of habitat, such as poor fen. Given a supportive local planning policy background this might occur on an inter-site scale, one of which is described for the Chat Moss area of Greater Manchester in Annex 9. Working out the biodiversity benefits of stopping peat extraction on some sites while initiating it on others depends on a knowledge of, for example, the extent of the peat deposit around the raised bog sites and the potential for other uses, particularly for agriculture. Maps of peat deposits, other BAP habitats, peat extraction sites and agricultural land grade are given for each of the Lowland Raised Bog Major Groupings in England in Annex 5 and for Northern Ireland in Annex 7. The tabulated commentary in Annex 9 (Table A9.1) sets out the integrated chain of national and local policies for agriculture and biodiversity, woven into a single vision for the Chat Moss area. The integrated approach to land use management developed in the vision, which considered the wide range of interests and consideration of how these might be balanced to create the best multiple benefits, encouraged ideas of potentially intensifying the agricultural use in some parts as an offset for new targeted habitat related works elsewhere. It could be speculated that this approach might apply to the opening of new tightly-conditioned peat extraction sites currently in intensive agricultural use to develop the Biodiversity Zone, subject to available evidence for the likely success of appropriate types of wetland and for carbon balance. Subject to an objective analysis of the approach, it could be a model for other parts of the UK with large expanses of archaic peat, such as the Lancashire Plain, Somerset Levels and parts of East Anglia, and has parallels with the landscape-scale engagement with peat extraction and habitat creation in Lower Saxony (Defra, 2008a). Importing peat may enable UK sites to be closed and for restoration to take place earlier. While imports from the Republic of Ireland may not currently cause additional impediment to its biodiversity aims, it is not clear how this might change as the existing sites are exhausted and the search may begin for new ones. The Republic of Ireland remains the source of choice because its approach to extraction and biodiversity gain is transparent and explicit. This may be true of other sources, and more research needs to be done. Stopping peat use in horticulture would be a useful driver to make extraction in the UK superfluous unless there is a prospect for other large-scale uses of peat. It may diminish asset value, but authorities need to be clear how industrial companies owning the bogs would respond. It is difficult to imagine what legal form such an intention would take, but it would require the cooperation of most of the peat producers for it to be affordable and effective. Most of the above scenarios might be refined with informed input from the growing media industry, such as the remaining extractable volumes in each of their sites, and what flexibility they are prepared to exercise in speed of working or abandoning extractable reserves. The corollary is the need for greater clarity from Government on the circumstances under which public money would be made available to drive the use of the peatlands towards an early conclusion and to insist on restoration to raised bog rather than to a general nature conservation or habitat use, or to agriculture.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 36 of 46

9. Conclusions and suggestions for further work The study conclusions are arranged in response to a series of questions which were posed in the project specification, and later modified by the steering group members.

9.1. How does peat extraction affect the biodiversity of active and degraded lowland raised

bog?

Peat extraction strips the flora and fauna from the surface of the bog, destroys its hydrology, and sets constraints on what sort of habitat can be restored when extraction has ceased. The degree of damage follows from the condition of the bog at the preparation stage. With certain caveats, such as geographical representation, the more natural the bog condition, the more important it is for biodiversity at the time. It follows that maximum damage occurs when extraction moves into a pristine site. These are now more likely to be found abroad than in the UK. The resource is generally so degraded that even damaged bogs are important as degraded bog SSSIs and SACs, particularly in areas where there are no natural examples. Damage occurs when semi-

Section 8 Key Messages Peat consumption may remain close to what it currently is, be further reduced as a result of acceptable alternatives being available, or be phased out completely within an agreed time frame. Slower extraction does not per se give rise to biodiversity benefits. However, slower extraction up to an end date for peat use as above could result in more peat being left in the bog. This is likely to assist the establishment of desirable bog vegetation and prevent water leaking to porous strata beneath the peat. Closing existing sites would have benefits for biodiversity provided the afteruse conditions were for restoration to raised bog. The closing down of extraction sites in an agreed order and to a pre-determined timetable enables the producers to plan their operations and for conservation bodies to look ahead when allotting resources. If a mechanism for „banning peat use‟ could be found that was acceptable to producers and conservation bodies its success is likely to be dependent on compensation for profits foregone and the value of the assets; it is also likely to require funds for the restoration to raised bog.

A continued demand for peat alongside the closure of existing sites means there would either need to be new sites opened up in the UK, or more peat would need to be imported from abroad. New extraction from currently degraded bogs would delay any planned restoration, and would be detrimental to any biodiversity currently occurring on them. The extent of archaic peat is vastly greater than the sum of degraded and active bogs, but is currently used for other purposes. It has the advantage that to extract some of it could have limited impact on the biodiversity of existing bog sites. Importing peat raises questions about its potentially detrimental effects on biodiversity abroad. There is a potential benefit to UK bog biodiversity from ceasing extraction at home and then importing peat, but there could be a corresponding negative impact within the exporting country. Stopping peat use in horticulture would be a useful driver to make extraction in the UK superfluous unless there is a prospect for other large-scale uses of peat. It is unclear how industrial companies owning the bogs would respond.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 37 of 46

natural vegetation is removed, drainage is increased, and the thickness of the peat residue is decreased. There is little doubt that peat extraction (inter alia) has had a profound effect on bog biodiversity in the past. The statutes and guidelines arising from the Government‟s Peat Working Group took account of past damage and provided a framework to make a sufficient resource available to the UK horticultural industry while safeguarding biodiversity. This work pre-dated the LRB HAP, but was the source of the first peat replacement target now included in the HAP. Damage can still occur where mineral planning authorities fail to impose, and peat extraction companies fail to implement modern working and afteruse conditions, consistent with Government guidelines and the LRB HAP. The English case examples suggest this now applies only to undesignated sites in England. It is important to recognise that not all the peat extraction damaging to biodiversity is for horticultural use. It may be for domestic use (energy production), particularly in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and the horticulture-centric target fails to address this. It is also important to recognise that peat extraction for horticulture is not necessarily seen as such a major threat to lowland bogs as is forestry by nature conservation agencies in Scotland (pers. comm. S Brooks of the Scottish Wildlife Trust, February 2009).

9.2. How do restrictions on peat extraction in the UK impact on the biodiversity of active

and degraded lowland raised bog worldwide?

It would be hard to demonstrate that the activities associated with extraction could not be responsible for a significant adverse effect on an active raised bog. It may be the stringency of this test that has closed down a large area of UK peat production through buy-outs (approximately 5000ha on SACs in England). Cessation of peat extraction on designated sites in the UK has prevented further damage and enabled immediate restoration to raised bog. The European Union and its powers, as exercised through the Habitats Directive, has been a very powerful driver in the improvement of biodiversity prospects on lowland raised bogs. There is insufficient evidence to judge whether the SSSI designation alone is such a powerful driver of change as the Habitats Directive where peat extraction is concerned. The PSA target has been a powerful driver in England to bring lowland bog SSSIs many of which were affected by peat extraction in the past into what is defined as „unfavourable recovering condition‟. Undesignated areas of extracted lowland raised bog, requiring restoration under the HAP targets T2 and T3, have received least attention. These sites are still subject to the ROMP process and the Government‟s advice in MPG13, but this does not appear to provide the necessary trigger for action. An overall fall in total UK peat consumption occurred between 2005 and 2009. There is no direct evidence that it has been the reason for or caused by any sites coming out of production and being restored, or that is has been associated with a commitment to raised bog restoration to be applied to more sites through the review of planning consents (ROMP). Currently we can offer no evidence to show that the partial achievement of Target T4 has directly influenced peat production volumes, or that changes in extraction rates have benefited bog restoration other than by total cessation following the paying of compensation.

Much of the peat imported by the UK is currently from the Republic of Ireland. Bord na Móna have pledged not to move into any additional peatlands. Environmental codes developed by institutional buyers and large retailers in the UK protect biodiversity beyond the UK by giving a commitment not to buy peat from designated sites and to require particular conditions of peat extraction. There is at least one analogue country in Europe (Germany) that achieves significant areas of wetland restoration in cooperation with peat extraction without reducing peat consumption.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 38 of 46

9.3. Do the peat replacement actions act as drivers to prevent damage, or are they simply a

barometer of the effectiveness of other factors?

The intended consequence of the past and future targets is to reduce the demand for peat and, in turn, the damage caused to biodiversity by peat extraction. Sites on which money has been spent to stop peat extraction earlier than if the permission was exercised to its end-date are all SACs, even though some may not have been confirmed as such at the time. Retailers‟ environmental codes (Annex 1) pledge not to sell products containing peat from such sites. In that the environmental codes are predicated in part on the peat replacement HAP targets, it could be argued that the targets have acted as drivers to protect designated raised bogs. However, not all retailers have stringent specific environmental codes and it is still possible for those responsible for less than 20% of sales to sell peat from designated bogs, as is evident from the fact that peat is still extracted from a small number. No information is available on how producers manage segregation of peat taken from SSSI and non-SSSI areas within the same sites (such as Bolton Fell Moss) in order to satisfy the retailers‟ codes.

9.4. If no peat reduction target existed, would the prospects for biodiversity gain be

reduced?

There are provisions under planning legislation to review old minerals permissions and there are clear Government guidelines on principles to be observed for permissions on lowland bogs. To date, the existence of a peat reduction target has not ensured a speedy application of planning processes (ROMP) that could (given a source of adequate compensation) lead to an expansion of raised bog restoration on existing extraction sites. Failure to replace the targets from the HAP may well enable the need for effective action to conserve lowland bogs, as perceived in the late 1990s when the targets were drafted, to fade from the public consciousness. The presence of the target has been very important in forming the basis of environmental policies of other non-governmental organisations involved in the supply, sale and usage of peat. The continued presence of a reduction target may help to raise and maintain awareness of the uneven application of post-extraction restoration requirements across retailers, producers and consumers until the planning provisions are implemented effectively, and a road-map drawn up for the achievement of the HAP targets (especially T2 and T3) for designated and undesignated raised bogs. However, there is a risk that the unqualified peat reduction target implies that peat extraction is always damaging to biodiversity. In situations where the current biodiversity interest is minimal, restoration to lowland raised bog following some carefully-conditioned extraction may have biodiversity benefits, as in Lower Saxony (Defra, 2008a). The T4 targets would have no impact on peat extraction for uses other than horticulture. Damage from continued extraction for other end-uses, and under turbary rights need to be assessed, particularly in Northern Ireland and Scotland, but this cannot be considered further in this project.

9.5. Can a non-legally binding measure be effective as a driver of change, and what

measures would be needed to make it so, if it is not?

The peat replacement target has become a rallying point for setting industry principles for a reduction in the use of peat, and a greater use of renewable resources. The impressions gained from very limited discussions is that the targets are widely quoted by retailers and providers of renewables, but queried by other providers, including those of peat, who may see such a high percentage replacement as unachievable or potentially damaging to horticulture. This particular focus on the target, coming from both sides of the argument, shows it is seen as of significance to both the peat extraction and replacements industries.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 39 of 46

There are issues in the way peat use is monitored and may obscure the way such measures are observed. For example, domestic use of peat for growing plants is monitored, but its use for plants

bought in from abroad is not. The role of assessment of effectiveness of retailers‟ policies in the use of

overseas peat needs further evaluation. The 90% reduction target relates to volumes of peat used relative to other materials. It is not related to restoration of lowland raised bog sites and so has limited direct impact on achieving the other HAP targets of restoration of degraded bog and archaic bog and maintenance of existing bog habitat. In so much that biodiversity is only one reason for having a peat replacement target, it may be more appropriately expressed in some other arena than the Lowland Raised Bog HAP,

9.6. How could future targets be framed to maximize the potential biodiversity impact?

Not withstanding the difficulty in linking the reduction target with specific biodiversity gain, the presence of a peat replacement target has acted as a catalyst for changing from peat to alternative materials in horticulture. The change has also been driven by a desire for reduction in landfill volumes, making horticulture more dependent on renewable resources, so helping to meet sustainability targets. There is no doubt of the value of such a target for the foreseeable future. The evidence in this report, based on a review of the success of the current target, suggests that future targets should:

1. Have a clear statement of why it exists, and what it is designed to achieve.

2. Form part of a wider initiative to retain in situ carbon stores, develop sustainable practices, promote carbon capture in lowland raised bogs, and deliver essential ecosystem services, with biodiversity being only one of the ecosystem services.

3. The target should be challenging yet feasible.

4. Consider their impacts on the competitiveness of the UK horticulture-based industries.

5. Clarify the relationship between peat extraction and the effectiveness of the planning provisions

to manage extraction and restoration in key locations.

6. Take account of the consequences of non-horticultural uses of peat, where these are significant.

7. Recognise the potential for some particular, limited opportunities for peat extraction as part of

habitat restoration that may eventually result in a positive impact on biodiversity, such as on archaic peat, which could contribute towards meeting inter alia lowland raised bog HAP target 3.

8. Recognise that not all peat extraction is from lowland raised bog.

9. The targets should be accompanied by prioritised lists in the three relevant UK countries of sites

on which maximum biodiversity gain would arise if extraction ceased.

9.7. Suggestions for future work and actions

9.7.1. The peat replacement targets as drivers for biodiversity gain

Any proposed changes in the target should be discussed fully with a wide range of industry representatives. The public attitude to the targets should to be assessed, possibly as part of an ecosystem services approach of valuing all the services which LRB (and other peat habitats) can provide to society. Whatever mechanism is used to increase biodiversity outcomes, public support will be important.

9.7.2. Government guidance

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 40 of 46

Peat extraction from the late 1990s to the present day has been shaped by the guidance from the Peat Working Group presented in MPG13. The guidance should be appraised for its adequacy in the post-HAP era, as MPG13 was published prior to the HAP. In particular, there should be an up-to-date analysis of peat needs and projections for future needs, in terms of where extraction could continue, where it could cease (perhaps because of thin residual peat), and where new sites might be developed on sites with no current LRB interest to provide, inter alia, biodiversity gain. Such an approach has to be integrated with Government policy and guidance for other types of important national activity, such as agriculture. It is important to look again at guidance for the implementation of ROMPs to enable minerals planning authorities to insist on raised bog restoration as the required afteruse where appropriate. Requirements and provisions for compensation need to be thought through, including research into the possibilities of compensatory granting of planning consent on archaic peat, such as is currently under agriculture. The publication „The restoration of damaged peatlands‟ (Wheeler & Shaw, 1995), another product of the DoE Working Group, needs to be updated in the light of more recent experience, and could, for example, include guidelines for judging the strengths and weaknesses of peat extraction from archaic sources as judged against, for example, soil sustainability and „greenhouse‟ gas emissions. The introduction of a levy on peat sales may be a way of raising money for compensation to close down extraction sites. The Fen HAP does not currently acknowledge the importance of peat formation by fen communities, or how it might be integrated with raised bog restoration to increase the area capable of storing carbon. In the authors‟ opinion, this synergy should be developed.

9.7.3. Other uses of peat

Horticulture is not the only use of peat, though it may be the most important for its effects on biodiversity in England. Elsewhere, domestic and commercial energy production can be important, as can extraction for the whisky industry in Scotland, and forestry. The impact of these on LRB biodiversity (and on that of other types of peatland) needs to be assessed. The review should also explore whether new instruments are needed to control them where they are beyond the scope of the Town and Country Planning legislation.

9.7.4. Creation of raised bog on enriched peat

Most research on bog restoration has taken place on acid, rain-fed raised bog peat deposits. There is a lack of knowledge and in some quarters a lack of incentive18 to determine what sort of peat-forming wetland can be formed on minerotrophic and/or eutrophic peat deposits, and the time-relationships of these with raised bog at a later stage, although a wide range of possibilities is described by Blankenburg & Tonnis (2004). This is of particular relevance to Somerset, where even the originally raised bog peat has become perfused with mineral enriched groundwater, and in East Anglia. It is of wider importance in parts of the UK where drained and cutover peatland has been converted to agricultural use and is now Grades 1 or 2 agricultural land. It may be important to know if the enriched surface layers can be stripped to leave sufficient peat thickness for peat extraction, followed by raised bog creation; peat thickness thresholds and other relevant variables need to be quantified. The modus operandi of the Lower Saxony regulatory authorities and the peat extraction industry should be studied so its strengths and weaknesses can be compared with the UK with a view to possible transferability (Defra, 2008a). It may have potential as a way in which peat might be supplied to the horticultural industry with a rolling programme of biodiversity gain.

18

The authors include this to acknowledge views expressed by some members of the project steering group.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 41 of 46

References to published material

9. This section should be used to record links (hypertext links where possible) or references to other published material generated by, or relating to this project.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 42 of 46

References found in the main report and annexes Aalen, F.H.A., Whelan, K. & Stout, M. 1997. The Atlas of the Irish Rural Landscape. Cork University Press. ADAS & Enviros, 2008. Monitoring of peat and alternative products for growing media and soil improvers in the UK 2007, second biennial report by ADAS UK Ltd and Enviros Consulting Ltd. Alexander, P.D., Bragg, N.C., Meade, R., Padelopoulos, G. & Watts, O. 2008. Peat in horticulture and conservation: the UK response to a changing world. Mires and Peat, Volume 3 (2008), Article 08, http://www.mires-and-peat.net/ , ISSN 1819-754X. Anderson, R. 2001. Deforesting and restoring peat bogs. A review. Forestry Commission Technical Paper 32. Edinburgh. ISBN 0 85538 417 4. Blankenburg, J. & Tonnis, W. (Eds) 2004. Guidelines for wetland restoration of peat cutting areas. Results of the BRIDGE-PROJECT. Bremen. Bragg, O. M. 1989. The importance of water in mire ecosystems. Cut-over Lowland Raised Mires (eds W Fojt & R Meade). Research & Survey in Nature Conservation No. 24. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough (now Natural England). Brooks, S. 2003. Commercial Peat Extraction in Scotland, February, 2003. Draft report for Scottish Natural Heritage. Capita Symonds, 2005a. Characterisation of Hydrological protection zones at the margins of designated lowland raised peat bog sites. Report to English Nature and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. Capita Symonds, 2005b. UK Biodiversity Action Plan: Lowland Raised Bogs. Identification of sites for remediation in England and options for their remediation. Report to English Nature. Natural England, Peterborough. Caulfield, C. 1991. Thorne Moors. UK. Caulfield tells the history of Thorne Moors (situated between Lincoln and York) and examines the role of William Bunting who has dedicated his life to saving the area from destruction. The Sumach Press. 1991, First Edition. (ISBN: 0 7126 5166 7). Coles, B. 1995. Wetland management. A survey for English Heritage. WARP Occasional Paper 9, Department of History and Archaeology, University of Exeter. Cruickshank M., Tomlinson R., Bond D., Devine P., Cooper A., Murray R. 1991. Survey of the Scale, Extent and Rate of Peat Extraction from Blanket Bogs in Northern Ireland. Report to the EHS of the Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland. Part 1 (summary and full report) Survey of the Scale, Extent and Rate of Peat Extraction from Blanket Bogs in Northern Ireland. Part 3 (summary) Socio-economic Factors Affecting Peat Extraction practices in Northern Ireland and an Assessment of likely Future Trends. Dargie, T.C.D. 2001. The effect of peat depth and quality on primary colonist plants on the Humberhead Peatlands. Report to English Nature. Defra, 2008a. Review of international policies and experience on peat (extraction, management and restoration) - SP0565. http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=15553&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=SP0565&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description Defra, 2008b. Project IF0154 A preliminary assessment of the greenhouse gases associated with growing media materials. Report by Warwick HRI. Defra, 2010a. Monitoring the horticultural use of peat and progress towards the UK Biodiversity Action Plan target. (SP08020). http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=2&ProjectID=17045 DETR (Department of Environment, Transport & the Regions), 1999. Peat Issues - Report of the Working Group on Peat Extraction and Related Matters. Now Department for Communities and Local

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 43 of 46

Government, 1999. Peatland Issues: Report of the Working Group on Peat Extraction and Related Matters. DoE (Department of the Environment), 1994. Report of the Working Group on Peat Extraction and Related Matters. DoE, 1995. Minerals Planning Guidance 13: Guidance for peat provision in England. ISBN 0 11 753128 6. Department for Communities and Local Government. Douglas, C. 1998. Blanket bog conservation. In: O‟Leary, G. and Gormley, F. (Eds) 1998. Towards a conservation strategy for the bogs of Ireland, pp 205-222. Irish Peatland Conservation Council, Dublin. Douglas, C., Valverde, F.F. & Ryan, J. 2008. Peatland habitat conservation in Ireland. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Peat Congress - After Wise Use – The Future of Peatlands. Volume 1 Oral Presentations, pp 681-684.Edited by Catherine Farrell (Bord na Móna)and John Feehan (University College Dublin). Drösler, M., Freibauer, A., Adelmann, W., Augustin, J., Bergman, L., Beyer, C., Chojnicki, B., Förster, C., Giebels, M., Görlitz, S., Höper, H., Kantelhardt, J., Liebersbach, H., Hahn-Schöfl, M., Minke, M., Petschow, U., Pfadenhauer, J., Schaller, L., Schägner, P., Sommer, M., Thuille, A. & Marc Wehrhan, M. 2011. Klimaschutz durch Moorschutz in der Praxis. Ergebnisse aus dem BMBF-Verbundprojekt “Klimaschutz – Moornutzungsstrategien” 2006-2010. Arbeitsberichte aus dem vTI-Institut für Agrarrelevante Klimaforschung 04/2011. Braunschweig, Berlin, Freising, Jena, Müncheberg, Wien im April 2011. Eigner & Schmatzler, 1980. Bedeutung, , Schutz und Regeneration von Hochmooren. Naturschutz Aktuell. Booklet 4. Eigner & Schmatzler, 1991. Handbuch des Hochmoorschutzes – Bedeutung, Pflege, Entwicklung. Kilda-Verlag. EAU, 1992. Distribution and status of lowland peat in the Mersey Basin area.. Report to English Nature. EU (European Union), 1996. Interpretation Manual of European Union Habitats, version EUR-15. Faber Maunsell, 2006. Lowland Raised Bog Major Groupings in England. Part of Lowland Raised Bog Targets Review for the Wetland HAP Steering Group. Fernandez, F., Mac Gowan F., Crowley, W., Farrell, M., Croal, Y., Fanning, M. and McKee, A. (2006). Assessment of Impacts of Turf-cutting on Designated Raised Bogs 2003-06. Unpublished report. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage Local Government, Dublin. Farrell, C. 2008. The biodiversity value and future management of degraded peatland habitats in Ireland. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Peat Congress - After Wise Use – The Future of Peatlands. Volume 1 Oral Presentations.Edited by Catherine Farrell (Bord na Móna)and John Feehan (University College Dublin). FenBase 6. A non-GIS-based inventory of lowland wetlands in England compiled for English Nature by Dr B Wheeler with data from various sources. The Microsoft Access database in which FenBase 6 runs is owned by Dr Wheeler. The manual produced by Dr Wheeler is referenced as: Wheeler, B.D. (2003). FenBASE 6. User's Guide. Department of Animal & Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield. Fitzgerald, P. 2008. The role of the European Peat And Growing Media Association (EPAGMA) in representing the peat and growing media industry‟s viewpoint within the EU‟s political, legislative and administrative institutions. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Peat Congress - After Wise Use – The Future of Peatlands. Volume 1 Oral Presentations. Edited by Catherine Farrell (Bord na Móna)and John Feehan (University College Dublin). Gaudig, G. 2008. Sphagnum farming in progress – experiences and perspectives. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Peat Congress - After Wise Use – The Future of Peatlands. Volume 1 Oral Presentations. Edited by Catherine Farrell (Bord na Móna)and John Feehan (University College Dublin). Headley, A.D. & Dargie, T. 2004. UK Biodiversity Action Plan – lowland raised bogs: identification of sites for remediation in England. Final report to English Nature. Contract no: EIT 34-01-015.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 44 of 46

Hammond, R.F. 1981. The peatlands of Ireland. Soil Survey Bulletin No. 35, Teagasc, Dublin. Ingram, H A P, 1978. Soil layers in mires: function and terminology. The Jourrnal of Soil Science, Vol 29 No 2. Jackson J, Choudrie S, Thistlethwaite G, Passant N, Murrells T, Watterson J, Mobbs D, Cardenas L, Thomson A, Leech A. 2009. UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990 to 2007: Annual Report for Submission under the Framework Convention on Climate Change. ISBN 0-9554823-8-0. Part of the Climate and Energy: Science and Analysis Research Programme of the Department of Energy and Climate Change. JNCC (Joint Nature Conservation Committee), 1994. Guidelines for selection of biological SSSIs: bogs. JNCC, Peterborough. JNCC, 2004. Common Standards Monitoring Guidance for Lowland Wetland http://www.jncc.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=2235 JNCC. 2007. Second Report by the UK under Article 17 on the implementation of the Habitats Directive from January 2001 to December 2006. Peterborough: JNCC. Available from: www.jncc.gov.uk/article17 Joosten, H. & Clarke, D. 2002. Wise Use of Mires and Peatlands – Background and Principles including a framework for decision-making. International Mires Conservation Group and International Peat Society. ISBN 951-97744-8-3. Krebs, M. 2008. Perspectives of Sphagnum farming in the Kolheti lowland (Georgia): first results. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Peat Congress - After Wise Use – The Future of Peatlands. Volume 1 Oral Presentations. Edited by Catherine Farrell (Bord na Móna)and John Feehan (University College Dublin). Limbert, M. 1986. The exploitation of peat at Thorne. Old West Riding 6, 9-16. Lindsay, R.A. & Immirzi, C.P. 1996. An inventory of lowland raised bogs in Great Britain. Scottish Natural Heritage Research, Survey and Monitoring report. No 78. Maslen Environmental, 2007. The Mosslands Project – The Vision. Report for a partnership of Natural England, Northwest Regional Development Agency, Wigan Council, Warrington Borough Council and Salford City Council. Meade, R. 1992. Some early changes following the rewetting of a vegetated cutover peatland surface at Danes Moss, Cheshire, UK, and their relevance to conservation management. Biological Conservation, 61, pp31-40. Meade, R. 2007. Raised bogs from gravel pits? Experiences at Hatfield Moors, South Yorkshire. In: Minerals extraction and wetland creation. Proceedings of a workshop held in Doncaster 26-27 September, 2005. Natural England. Minerals Extraction in Great Britain. 2009. Business monitor PA1007. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=606 Natural England 2009. Conservation Objectives for Bowness Common SSSI, SAC. Held at Kendal. Nick, K-J. 1985. Wiedervernaßung von industriell abgebauten Schwartztorffläschen. Natur und Landschaft 61, 48-50. NPWS (2007). Active Raised Bog Habitat (7110) Conservation Status Assessment. Habitats and Species Conservation Status Assessment Project. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department of Environment, Heritage Local Government, Dublin. www.npws.ie . . O’Hare T. & Woodrow W. 2004. Data Collection to Support the Review of the 1993 Peatland Policy. Organik Matters and Associates. reproduced for EHS, In Confidence Report. PAA, 2004. Developing a strategic approach to wetland conservation in the lowlands of the northwest of England: a pilot study in three natural areas. Contract no: EIT 34-01-014. Penny Anderson Associates Limited for English Nature.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 45 of 46

PAA, 2006. Developing a strategic approach to wetland conservation in the lowlands of the northwest of England: a vision for Cumbria. Contract No. EIT 36-05-023. Penny Anderson Associates Limited for English Nature. Rodwell, J. (Ed.), et al. 1991-2000. British Plant Communities. Volumes 1-5. Volume 2 Mires and Heaths; Volume 4 Aquatic communities, swamps and tall herb fens. Cambridge University Press. RSPB & English Nature, 2001. Peatering Out. Towards a sustainable UK growing media industry. Schouten, M.G.C. 2002 (Ed). Conservation and restoration of raised bogs: geological, hydrological and ecological studies. Report of the Dutch:Irish raised bog LIFE project. Duchas, Ireland. ISBN 0-7557-1559-4. Schouten, M.G.C. 2008. Peatland research and peatland conservation in Ireland: review and prospects. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Peat Congress - After Wise Use – The Future of Peatlands. Volume 1 Oral Presentations, pp 657-664.Edited by Catherine Farrell (Bord na Móna)and John Feehan (University College Dublin). Schouwenaars, J. M. & Vink, J. P. M. 1992. Hydrophysical properties of peat relicts in former bog and perspectives for Sphagnum regrowth. International Peat Journal, 4, 15-28. Schmilewski, M. 2008. Socio-economic impact of the peat and growing media industry on horticulture in the EU. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Peat Congress - After Wise Use – The Future of Peatlands. Volume 1 Oral Presentations. Edited by Catherine Farrell (Bord na Móna)and John Feehan (University College Dublin). Short, P. 2008. Sustainable peatland management. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Peat Congress - After Wise Use – The Future of Peatlands. Volume 1 Oral Presentations, pp 165-167. Edited by Catherine Farrell (Bord na Móna)and John Feehan (University College Dublin). Skidmore, P., Limbert, M. & Eversham, B.C. 1985. The insects of Thorne Moors. In: The Sorby Record, a Journal of Natural History for the Sheffield Area, 23 (Supplement). Symonds Group, 2004. Peatlands For People: The Restoration of the Duddon and South Solway Mosses. Report to English Nature, May 2004. Tansley, 1939. The British Islands and their vegetation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Temple-Heald, N. & Shaw, A. 1997. Peat production and conservation. In: Conserving Peatlands, Parkyn, L., Stoneman, R.E. & Ingram, H.A.P. (Eds). CAB International. ISBN 0 85198 998 5. Tomlinson R., Grant M., and Harvey J. 1998. Report from the Peatland Survey and Profiling Project 1997/98 Vol. 16. Tonnagh Beg Bog. Report to the EHS of the Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland. Yavitt, J.B., Williams, C.J. & Kelman-Wieder, R. 2000. Controls on Microbial Production of Methane and Carbon Dioxide in Three Sphagnum-Dominated Peatland Ecosystems as Revealed by a Reciprocal Field

Peat Transplant Experiment. Geomicrobiology Journal, Volume 17, Issue 1, pages 61 – 88.

UK Biodiversity Group, 1999. Habitat Action Plan for Blanket Bog. In: Tranche 2 Action Plans, Volume VI – terrestrial and freshwater species and habitats. English Nature. Vasander, H. (Ed) 1996. Peatlands in Finland. Finnish Peatland Society. ISBN 952-90-7971-0. Wheeler, B.D. & Money, R.P. 1999. Some critical questions concerning the restorability of damaged raised bogs. Applied Vegetation Science Volume 2 Issue 1, pages 107-116. Wheeler, B.D. & Shaw, S. 1995. The restoration of damaged peatlands. HMSO. Wheeler, B.D. & Shaw, S.C. 2004. Investigation of substratum enrichment at Crowle Moors. Draft report to North Lincolnshire Council. Wheeler, B.D. & Shaw, S. 2007. Some Proposals for the Development of a Raised Bog Typology for England. SECTION 4: A working classification of lowland ombrogenous bogs. A draft report not in the public domain.

SID 5 (Rev. 07/10) Page 46 of 46

Wheeler, B.D., Shaw, S.C. & Cook, R.E.D. (1992). Phytometric assessment of the fertility of undrained rich-fen soils. Journal of Applied Ecology, 29, 466–475. Wheeler, B.D., Shaw, S.C. & Tanner, K. 2009. A wetland framework for impact assessment at statutory sites in England and Wales. Science Report: SC030232/SR1. Environment Agency. ISBN: 978-1-84911-003-7.