Peatlands

Also included in this year’s agricultural census was a module on peatlands. These questions covered attitudes towards peatland restoration, degraded peat and reasons for not restoring areas of degraded peat. Of the 16,645 agricultural holdings that responded to the June Agricultural Census 2026, 13,507 (81%) responded to at least one question in the peatlands module section.

8,898 (53%) responded to the question on attitudes towards peatland restoration (excluding those that responded ‘not applicable’). This question on attitudes towards peatland restoration was to be completed once for all agricultural holdings sampled in the agricultural business.

Answering of subsequent peatlands questions depended on whether peat (of any depth and surface cover) was known to be present on the agricultural holding or whether any areas of peat were thought to be degraded (drained and has lower water table; may or may not have areas of bare peat).

As with the module questions on cattle housing, technology and feed supplements, the peatland module section would not have been applicable to all holdings.

Overall attitudes towards peatland restoration were generally neutral, although 35% overall 'agree' it provides "clear environmental benefits"

The question on attitudes towards peatland restoration included six statements with the respondent asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed. The following results on attitudes towards peatland restoration are presented irrespective of whether respondents knew of any peat on their agricultural holding.

For all six statements (excluding ‘not applicable’ responses) the most popular response was “neutral” from 51% ‘neutral’ response to the statement “peatland restoration provides clear environmental benefits” to 67% ‘neutral’ response to the statement “Peatland Code carbon credits are a reliable way to fund maintenance of restored peatland”.

Looking at overall ‘agree’ (‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’) sentiment shows that 35% agreed with the statement “peatland restoration provides clear environmental benefits”, while 14% disagreed. For the statement “Peatland restoration schemes are too complicated to take part in”, 30% agreed and 8% disagreed.

The peatland restoration statement on improving conditions for livestock or livestock management showed broadly similar sentiment (25% agreed compared with 20% disagreed). The statement on peatland restoration being good value for money for agricultural businesses was also similar (14% agreed compared with 19% disagreed).

For overall ‘disagree’ (‘disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’), 21% disagreed with the statement “Peatland Code carbon credits are a reliable way to fund maintenance of restored peatland” while 12% agreed.

Figure 26: Attitudes toward peatland restoration, 2026 (percentage of holdings, each statement sums to 100%). 

Close to two-thirds (65%) of agricultural holdings responded ‘no’ to whether they knew of any peat on the holding. Around a fifth (21%) of holdings responded ‘yes’ and 14% responded ‘don’t know’.

14% of holdings have restored area of degraded peat to a more natural state

The vast majority of holdings (86%) responded ‘no’ to whether areas of degraded peat on the holding had been restored to a more natural state. Of the 2,724 holdings that responded to this question, 371 (14%) reported some level of peatland restoration. Restoration of ‘less than 10 hectares’ was most commonly reported (7.0%), followed by ‘10 to 100 hectares’ (4.0%) and ‘more than 100 hectares’ (2.6%).

20% of holdings thought to have areas of degraded peat, of which around one third plan to restore within 5 years

Around half of holdings (49%) responded ‘no’ to having areas of peat thought to be degraded. While 20% of holdings responded ‘yes’ to having areas of peat thought to be degraded (539 holdings), close to a third (31%) responded ‘don’t know’.

Holdings that responded ‘yes’ to having areas of peat thought to be degraded were asked a subsequent question on future plans to restore areas of degraded peat. Close to a half of holdings (48%) responded ‘no’ to whether they had future plans to restore degraded peat on the holding. For those that responded ‘yes’ to having future plans to restore degraded peat, 34% of holdings planned to restore within 5 years and 18% in more than 5 years.

'Lack of information' the most common reason for not planning to restore degraded peat

The most commonly cited reason for not planning to restore areas of degraded peat was ‘lack of information’ (64% of holdings where more than one reason could be selected). This was followed by ‘physical constraints’ (47%) and ‘administrative burden’ (45%). Looking at only holdings that responded ‘yes’ to having areas of degraded peat and no plans for restoration, the same reasons were most cited but with ‘administrative burden’ as the most commonly cited.

Figure 27: Reasons for not planning to restore areas of degraded peat, 2026. Note: percentage of holdings, more than one reason could be selected.