Peatland Standard Frequently Asked Questions
Why is the Peatland Standard so complicated?
Landscape restoration has multiple benefits, particularly on peatland. If we want to quantify multiple benefits it requires a greater range of measurements – although some of the measurements can be used in quantifying several different ecosystem improvements. It can be simplified by focusing only on e.g. carbon or water or biodiversity.
What is the value of an Ecosystem certificate?
There are two answers here – one option is that the market decides the price. Alternatively, projects could determine the price needed and only proceed when that value has been contracted with an investor. Some certificates will be worth more than others because some projects will create emission reductions only, and some will quantify all the ecosystem improvements listed. We are avoiding price setting or estimation on purpose.
Are all the ecosystem improvements part of an accredited or ISO verified system?
No. Carbon has a developed voluntary market accreditation and relevant verification ISOs. Biodiversity is a nascent market, but an ISO biodiversity is under development for 2025/26 release. Increased retention of water can be linked internationally with the VWB system. The other ecosystem improvements in the Standard do not have accreditation or verification systems but the Standard will use the carbon, and environmental principles and environmental ISO to verify and certify these.
Why are shallow peat projects not permissible for GHG emission reduction credits?
There is debate over the definition of permanence in emission reductions. 100 years is taken as a common approach, so peat exhaustion time is relevant. Shallow peats could be restored, then decline and any reductions could be lost within the 100-year timeframe. The EU CRCF considered temporary emissions reductions projects for shallow peat but has not included this yet (Jan 2025). It includes soil emission reductions (relevant to deep peat) and is considering temporary carbon farming units for other opportunities such as shallow peat.
Why are some ecosystem metrics under development and not yet finished?
This is due to time constraints. We don’t want to delay the progress of pilot projects and the use of the Peatland Standard, and we want to be open and encourage both the widest recording of pilot project baseline information and the research community to consider wider ecosystem metrics.
Do I need a project developer to use the Peatland Standard?
This depends on you and your organisation. Some people and organisations will be their own developer. Others will not have the time or experience and will prefer to bounce ideas off a project developer.
Does a project need an ecologist and hydrologist?
This depends on the complexity of the project. Where there are multiple hydrological units and automatic logging of water table depth and flow rate it is simpler, and the data will be more robust by using a hydrologist. The vegetation assessment can be completed by a non-ecologist, (and this makes monitoring and results-driven activity relevant). However, background experience and initial training and standardisation of percentage assessment is required. It all becomes easier to fund with larger or group projects. It is recommended to have a baseline ecology report.
Will the Peatland Standard and Protocol change and what impact could changes have on a project?
Yes. The protocol will become more efficient, and a guidance document will assist. There are rapidly evolving methods for remote MRV, and these will be embraced as soon as the science community can report on their veracity. A project could have started but we can still assess against its baseline data collection method. If emission reduction values or any ecosystem improvements models change due to new research data, the project will be certified against the new data.
What monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) changes are likely to occur in the future?
Bog breathing using interpretation of Sentinel data can help assess how healthy a peatland is, as the level rises with increasing water content versus sinking with slumping and drought. Automated monitoring (via AI interpretation of images and acoustics, and eDNA) of biodiversity is likely to develop greatly. AI interpretation of imagery may be able to assess ecology and several ecosystem services in the future.
Which ecosystem metrics should a project target?
As many as resources allow to achieve the greatest value from the restoration works. Water table depth and ground survey baseline data will be the minimum for many projects. Adding biodiversity monitoring is another costly step, and adding flow rate and water quality monitoring may be the most expensive. Using the financial models in the additionality tool can assist in making these decisions.
Why is the ACRES scorecard not the only tool to use for assessment?
The scorecards are a great tool for assessing ecosystems. It could be enough for some sub-project owners within a larger catchment or group project where there will be other reference sites to use your scorecard data against. At present we don’t have access to enough data to match against specific ecosystem improvement levels. Ongoing research work within university research and EIP projects will hopefully fill this current gap.
Why are the biodiversity metrics not just about increasing biodiversity on that site, rather than referenced to another site?
Many of the biodiversity metrics have been designed for large landscape projects in very rich habitats such as tropical forest or savannah. Unconnected bog habitats of limited size in Ireland do not present the same opportunity for species rich development, particularly because they are nutrient poor, and a limited range of species have developed to survive in them. A much more valid method is to measure against what it should be, hence the use of reference sites where we can state the target number of breeding pairs per km2 or % cover of key plant species.
What is the risk for the project investor?
Natural variation, climate and people. The response of each site will be slightly different depending upon its hydrological challenges, connectivity and human pressures. Climate change will have a greater impact which is why ongoing reference sites will be useful to prove the additional resilience of restoration projects. Contractors and managers will vary in skill and experience so it will be important to ensure that works are carried out with long term resilience in mind.
What is the risk for the project developer?
Over-predicting and overselling the anticipated outcome. Failure of ground works to achieve the expected outcome through poor construction or factors outside of your control.
What is the risk for the landowner?
Consultations not being carried out as diligently as they should and unintended consequences emerging. Poor long-term response through mismanagement – some habitats will be more fragile at certain times of the year, although most will become more resilient. Good project design, consultation and planning and conservative estimation are key to reducing risk.
What does “results based” mean for the Peatland Standard?
Certificates are based on results achieved, not the actions to produce intended results. Post-restoration management and innovation are key to achieving results. Some of the methods which will be the most successful have not been invented yet!
17. Can an applicant use 100% grant money for capital works and still use the Peatland Standard?
Yes, but the project needs to show additionality i.e. different from the status quo. More than capital is required for landscape restoration projects – we need capital, income and people! Use the financial tool in the additionality calculator to assess whether ecosystem certificates are required to cover the long-term management and MRV costs to maintain the site as a resilient landscape for the project duration.
Who gets the ownership of the certificates for a project – is it the landowner, the developer or the funder?
The ownership of the future certificates is agreed at the outset and can go to any of the parties as agreed on the initial contract. This could range from a landowner retaining ownership of all or a major % where there is only a limited investment from external parties to the investor receiving most or all in return for their capital and MRV inputs. Alternative options could include an investor receiving all the certificates for a specific time period e.g. Years 1 – 15 and then having right of first refusal at market price or 5% below market price for the remaining years of a project. Contracts should consider providing a long-term incentive for land managers to optimise management for the results-based process to reduce risk for the investor and share long term benefit.
Why is the minimum peat depth for the Standard 0.5m? Can a project with shallower peat be included?
Yes, a shallow peat project can be included in the Standard but not for GHG emission reduction due to the voluntary carbon market permanence rules. The other ecosystem services can be assessed particularly biodiversity. The EU CRCF scheme may include non-approved (voluntary market) carbon projects for shallow peat commencing between 2027 – 2030 as temporary carbon farming units which would assist the Standard to then include.
Why is leasing or purchase of land not included in the financial additionality test?
If land purchase or leasing was included in costs, all projects would immediately pass the financial additionality test and there could be unintended consequences. The voluntary market is based upon the protection of the local rural community and not set up to encourage land ownership transfer to large investors. Projects which operate in partnership with the local community ownership are the most likely to achieve the wider goals of social and community benefit and increase the success of all the ecosystem targets.
If a company claims carbon reductions in corporate reporting, do they go on the register?
Yes, the Standard is transparent to instil trust and responsibility. Only one entry in corporate reporting for specific ecosystem achievements (certificate) is permitted and the user of this certificate is publicly listed in the register.
Are certificates fully retired after sale?
Yes, a certificate can only be used once. The register records this use and then it is retired.
How do we assess the water metrics such as time to peak flow, time to return to base flow?
In pilot projects, the installation of one or more flumes and logging equipment is required. This can cost between 5 – 30K depending upon the project site and number of outflows and requires a hydrologist. Current research and pilot project research is likely to provide us with a model where we can use proxies to predict the restoration impact on these metrics in the future.
Why is there such a time delay (year 5) to verification and sale or use of credits?
This is a balance between reducing the cost of third-party verification, allowing time for habitat recovery – vegetation or fauna time lag to recover or species inoculation to work and achieving reportable metrics asap. Mean data of water table data which can provide increased annual water retention and reduced C emission could be available 15 months later, but “certificating” requires an independent 3rd party to verify data. Extreme bare peat sites need to revegetate before emission reduction is achieved. Verifying all metrics at once reduces cost BUT technology development is rapid – a possible use of sentinel & remote imagery AI interpretation could achieve earlier & lower cost opportunity for some services. The Standard will adapt to future remote and lower cost MRV.
Why is Connectivity and Habitat Condition not listed under Biodiversity?
Some projects will be islands and achieve little in connectivity, others particularly catchment scale will be greater than the sum of their parts particularly in connectivity. Habitat islands % uplift results will already be affected by a lack of connectivity. It should not be double counted in the % uplift calculation.
Whilst habitat condition is part of a biodiversity assessment, it also affects other services e.g. bare peat & flow rate.
Why is water quality not immediately certified on restoration completion?
Water quality improvements are fairly slow, and the meta-analysis indicates “restoration in general is unproven for water quality”. However, some site-specific successes have been achieved over 2 – 20 years timespans. (See notes on the ecosystem calculator water quality page.)
Why is flood alleviation not promptly credited on restoration completion?
Time to peak flow and time to return to base flow could show up early but because of annual precipitation variation, a hydrologist would prefer a minimum of 2 years data and if the vegetation needs time to adapt then gradually greater impact is seen over several years.
Flood alleviation is not yet reported in corporate metrics and is not clear cut in the science. Light & medium precipitation can create slower release from upland catchments which have been restored but in prolonged heavy storm events where, overland flow overtops the restored 3D vegetation matrix, alleviation is not proven, particularly where site management keeps the water level high before the event. Further research and site-specific data from Irish pilot restoration sites is needed to create a wider evidence base.