Understanding barriers to peatland restoration and possible pathways_Shetland_D3_O Connor Glenk.pdf

We summarize research aimed at improving our understanding of perceptions regarding peatland management, barriers to peatland restoration, and options for addressing the barriers. The research focuses on the Shetland Islands, Scotland, where greenhouse gas emissions from Land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) make up more than two thirds of overall net emissions, largely due to emissions from peatlands which are often in degraded condition. Therefore, addressing peatland management is key to meeting local and national climate change targets. Specifically, there is a need to improve the condition of peatlands through rewetting – often termed “peatland restoration”.

Crofting and small farms dominate agricultural activity on the Shetland Islands, offering opportunities and challenges to addressing ongoing peatland degradation, for example in relation to managing common grazing areas. While there are existing examples of successful peatland restoration on land used for grazing, concurrent restoration activity takes place primarily on wind energy project sites that form part of the energy transition of the Islands and Scotland as a whole.

The objectives of our research were (i) to develop an understanding of barriers to peatland restoration on land managed by crofters and small farms; and (ii) to suggest possible pathways to mitigate the barriers and challenges that should be considered. Towards this end, we conducted a mix of informal interviews and semi-structured interviews with a wide range of participants across decision-making on peatlands, including crofters, NGOs, landowners, and community representatives.

We identify four main barriers, related to:

• changes to criteria for public funding for peatland restoration;
• an uncertain policy arena;
• a need to better understand the institutional context for peatland; restoration on the Shetland Islands; and
• a lack of policies that are sufficiently adapted to the local context.

Drawing on the factors contributing to the above barriers, we identify possible pathways forward for Scottish Government when trying to incentivise and encourage increased participation of crofters and small farmers in peatland restoration. These are:

• finding mechanisms to deliver agricultural support payments that may be better aligned social and cultural values of the land management sector;
• linking in restoration efforts as part of the broader approach to ‘Island proofing’; and
• empowering decentralised delivery partners with understanding of different context to allocate funding towards restoration projects.

Overall, while peatland restoration offers huge potential for reducing LULUCF emissions alongside multiple other environmental benefits, encouraging communities to turn towards such activities requires changes to our social, political and economic systems, too. These changes, if taken, can shift towards a more just governance future for rural communities who would benefit materially and culturally from restored healthy peatlands.