What will be the major gaps in knowledge after PEF+?

​

• What is needed to add value to other work taking place over the next 3-5 years- especially the new EU projects running to 2029 - PALUS-DEMOS (MMU, LansWT+), PaluWise (Great Fen, UKCEH+), Paludi4All (SRUC)

• What about the fit and opportunities to deliver government policy e.g. Land Use Framework ?

• If we were designing a) a paludiculture research programme and b) a new Paludiculture Roll-out Fund, what are the key areas where work would be needed.

​​

What kind of funding will be needed?

​

• There will need to be continuing work for crops where the proof-of-concept has been established e.g. Typha, Willow, sphagnum, reed. This might focus on development steps for growing or the supply chain and would ideally integrate both.

• There will need to be research to explore new crops (or new uses of existing plants) for the first time to establish the proof-of-concept. These might be given funding for 3-5 years.

• Hence funding may need to be specifically allocated to projects of these different types. Any call may need to be clear about the portfolio it is looking for – what is in scope and what isn’t (and hence how else that might be funded)

• Important to align with the Paludiculture Roadmap. This might inform the topics for the call; but also projects might address some of the Roadmap actions so that the pathways need to be kept under review.

• PEF2 might provide the stepping stone for work on these crops / systems to then become more integrated with the models used for other agricultural R&D in the future e.g. within UKRI Innovate.

• How can the link between landscape-scale decision making (such as highlighted in the Land Use Framework) fit with the research/development needs that a new PEF might tackle. How can these work together most effectively?

• Is there a benefit in bringing different funding pots together or more clearly showing the fit between different funding streams. Do the funders want co-delivery of Landscape recovery with research or should they be entirely different things?

​

What should happen in a PEF2 or other paludiculture research programme?

​

What should be studied?

• Each completing PEF project (and ideally other ongoing projects including paludiculture) should complete a quick survey to identify learning and key gaps that will remain.

• Would be good to work with on-going projects and draw out information to complete a PESTLE () to show the steps forward needed and also to identify commercial readiness level by crop/system

• Important to build from what has been learned, not to start from scratch.

• A focus on building a clear evidence base

• A key focus should be demonstration of practicality and also the opportunity for real economic value (even if not quite there yet)

• The development of the cropping systems is important because of their role in allowing protection of the peat mass; the crops may be able to be grown in other soil types/systems but that shouldn’t be a PEF2 focus. Hence peat ‘protection’ must be a continued focus.

• Resilience not just of this system but in the wider landscape should be a focus for at least some projects – e.g. projects that develop the info. that supports development of a new landscape-scale monoculture for energy/pyrolysis don’t seem desirable

• Landscape-scale work not just in small plots

• Needs to look at key aspects especially technical practicality, productivity and options to feed into profitable systems but also including water availability, water management and impacts of climate change

• The off-site impacts beyond the peat are also important e.g. integration into flood risk management, or nutrient removal from surface waters.

• Needs to make a better link and provide clear evidence of nature-based solutions deliverables – these are what might enable permitting barriers to be addressed in practice

• Needs to look at the interactions that within the spatial and temporal mosaic

• Also important to recognise the importance and link to cultural landscapes

• Increase proportion of work on markets and supply chain development

• Supply chain work will include research as well as development steps – but this should be carefully aligned with the Roadmap to add value and build different strand together most effectively.

​

How should it be done?

• PEF2 should have a facilitation role

• Ideally duplication of work should be minimised by co-ordination

• Having a focussed delivery period was helpful to focus minds towards an output from the outset.But the seasonality of the systems needs to be taken into account and the funding should explicitly allow for set-up and close-down times.

• Need to build links to the supply chain – for products and for services (flood management, C etc) and create links / integration between different supply chains

• Should it be the next step – perhaps a Paludiculture Development Fund

• Industry should be partners and perhaps contribute to the projects as well as receive funding – using the Innovate model. For example, the construction sector should be engaged in developing the programme in relation to Typha / reed.

• Projects should be delivered in partnership with land managers not just done to them or on bits of their land

• How do we enable long-term sites, essential where crops are a long-duration e.g. willow/ sphagnum, and if setting up sites how do we design them so they are valuable for the long-term not just a curiosity for the project duration

• The funding should be focussed and targeting projects that create pump-priming by farmers / industry, not research for research’s sake.

• How can the funders help to ensure continuity not cliff edge?

​

Who?

• Need to engage more with Environment Agency teams

• Should each project be linked explicitly with local and national levels… whether Catchment Sensitive Farming, Natural England or Environment Agency

• Need to engage with insurance and other sectors

• Develop training – perhaps each project should be required to provide outputs into a co-ordinated set of training packages developed at programme level

• Where a system is showing good promise then develop clear information to derisk the change for land managers e.g. how to manage high capital start-up costs for infrastructure, how to navigate regulatory barriers

• Also develop and link to advisory routes – more info is need for Natural England and other on-farm advisors working in lowland agricultural peat.

Gaps that might be not be picked up

• Who is looking at solar on rewetted peat? It seems like a potentially good option as part of the mosaic. But where does funding for guidance for implementation and measurement of impacts fit?

​

The Lowland Peat Taskforce created and then enabled regional groups often with strong farmer engagement across the                    lowland agriculture peat landscapes of the UK.

In some cases, this fitted well with existing structures, but it also meant that new groups and structures came into being. Some of these are still active (and growing), others have lapsed.

What would be the role of regional groups going forward?

Who should be there?

Who / how should they be convened?

How could /should regional groups play a role in exploring land use, land management and mosaic options with a local focus?

How could they be supported short- and long-term?

• Regionality is clearly important given difference in climate, peat types, farming systems and admin structures.

• Up to 6 distinct lowland peat landscapes can be identified; there are also some commonalities so discussions between regions are also valuable.

• Agricultural systems on lowland peat are dealing with key challenges and looking to make changes but these are distinct from those of restoration. The balance is also different by region. In many cases, action for lowland agricultural peat is not helped by integration into conversations about restoration for biodiversity/ nature value.

• Issues relating to products and the development of markets/ supply chains are best dealt with on a crop group basis. These are most likely to be national in scope, but could also have specific regional infrastructure .

• Regional boards (or just groups) might operate in a range of different ways to fit with existing structures. They should ideally be mainly comprised of land-owners / managers but are likely to be facilitated by others e.g. organisations like FWAG, Fenland Soil.

• The aim of the groups is to bring practitionners together to identify questions and challenges and search for solutions. They could form a useful route for consultation / discussion with researchers and with local restoration-focussed work.

• Could the facilitation costs of such groups be met through the Natural England Facilitation Fund or similar mechanism

• Regional groups might also manage demonstration sites, deliver regional evets and develop local case studies.

• It may not be necessary to have regional groups for restoration (this might work at national scale e.g. through IUCN) but it is important for agriculture.

• A national co-ordinating body is important to help share information between regions.

• Each regional group should be asked to identify a champion/lead (and co-lead) and these people would be actively brought together into a national board that would feed into the policy structures. This national board would also include restoration champions and crop group representatives.

​​

​​​

In the Paludiculture Roadmap, the Advocacy and Facilitation pathway set out the actions to create partnerships and a 

paludiculture community as well as a wider awareness of paludiculture.

The end-goal was perceived to be strong collaboration and co-ordination across paludiculture projects and activities taking place across the breath of the supply chain.

The Advocacy and Facilitation pathway was put together before PEF and the group worked with Judith Stuart to review it together. 

This work will be taken forward with Defra’s Paludiculture Steering Group.

​

​