This document discusses the possibility of implementing a research levy on peatland development projects in Scotland. It notes that there are currently levies in place for aggregates and landfill that fund sustainability projects. There is a lack of research on the impacts of developments like wind farms on peatland recovery time, vegetation response, drainage effects, and carbon emissions. The document outlines principles for wind farm development on peatlands around research support. It argues that a levy proportionate to development size could fairly fund further research to address knowledge gaps, as current research has been borne by few. Open questions around a levy include what it would fund, how its value would be calculated, and how it would be administered.

1. Discussion: Should
development of
peatland support a
research levy?

2. What don’t we know:
⇒ Related to wind farm development:
⇒Recovery time (insufficient studies)
⇒ vegetation response
⇒ water table & extent of drainage
⇒ learning about drainage but not about
gas emissions?
⇒What happens to peat in a borrow pit?
⇒How significant is the impact of roads on
carbon storage / loss / hydrology?
⇒What happens on rewetting?
⇒Temporal significance of changes in water
table (4% CH4 = 100 % CO2)

3. Context
 There are current examples of national reinvestment for
anthropogenic use of natural resources:
Aggregates levy: The levy is charged at a fixed
amount per tonne of aggregates. A proportion of this
green levy goes to an aggregates levy sustainability fund
to support projects to encourage green strategies
Landfill tax (charged by weight; LOs receive a credit
for a proportion of the tax they send to the Government.
This can then be donated to organisations.)
 Developing the carbon landscape (independent of the use)
also represents use of natural resources, and where
peatland is concerned, of an important slow-to-accumulate
C reservoir

4. Context
 Windfarm and Peatlands Good Practice
Principles
 “principles are designed to support further
dialogue, not provide the detailed direction that
is more appropriate in formal planning and
other statutory guidance on wind farm
development”

5. Context
 Principle 4: The renewables industry will engage
with stakeholders to provide support for applied
research into key areas of peatland science
relevant to understanding the impacts of
development on the various peatland qualities
including biodiversity, carbon and hydrology.
 Principle 3 The renewables industry will assist in
improving the knowledge base on the impacts of
development on peatland and the effectiveness of
peatland rehabilitation through putting in place
scientific monitoring and sharing of data with other
stakeholders, where appropriate.

6. Context
 CLAD experience: research investment so has
been borne by few … but the results will be
relevant to all.
 A levy (associated with the size of the
development on peatlands) will be a fair
approach to apportion responsibility for
research?

7. Not just wind farms
Peat-cutting in Central Scotland
(image date: 2005)

8. Other developments on/of C
landscapes
 Coal extraction
 Deep heather burning
 Infrastructure roads e.g. M90
 Housing developments? (not so likely)
 We have sufficient maps of carbon density to
identify ‘at-risk’ areas

9. Comments on research
 Provides answers that can save hours
discussing complex question - but time-scale to
generate this may be long
 Moves understanding beyond commissioning a
review
 Output may not be beneficial to interests of all
bodies
 Studies may give conflicting results
 May require monitoring ≠ monitoring

10. Discussion points
 What benefits does such a levy bring?
 Why are the disadvantages of such a levy?
If implemented:
 What should the levy be used for?
 How to quantify the value of the levy and who
should calculate this?
 How to administer such a levy?
Where would the fund sit?
Who to benefit?
What areas of research?

11. Example response
 Where would the fund sit?
With the Scottish Executive
 Who to benefit?
If Scottish levy then Scottish research
institutes?
 What areas of research?
Generic, not site-specific questions?
For wind farm-related research, those
defined by principle 4: biodiversity, carbon and
hydrology
‘Experimental site’ and ‘site-owned
equipment’

12. Discussion points
 What benefits does such a levy bring?
 Why are the disadvantages of such a levy?
If implemented:
 What should the levy be used for?
 How to quantify the value of the levy and who
should calculate this?
 How to administer such a levy?
Where would the fund sit?
Who to benefit?
What areas of research?

13. Where from here?
 Summarise views
 Distribute for network peer review
 How to attribute comments?
 Submit report to Scottish Executive and
stakeholders e.g. SRF for consideration?
Final thought: if not a levy, but a donation to a
registered charity (Universities) can industry claim
tax back?
A cheaper way to support problem-focussed
research?