Applying ecosystem accounting to develop a risk register for peatlands and inform restoration targets at catchment scale: a case study from the European region

Combining natural capital accounting tools and ecosystem restoration approaches builds on existing frameworks to track changes in ecosystem stocks and flows of services and benefits as a result of restoration. This approach highlights policy‐relevant benefits that arise due to restoration efforts and helps to maximize opportunities for return on investment. Aligning the System of Environmental Economic Accounting–Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) framework with risk assessment tools, we developed a risk register for peatlands in two contrasting catchments in Ireland, based on available information relating to peatland stocks (extent and condition) and flows (services and benefits), as well as knowledge of pressures. This approach allowed for identification of areas to target peatland restoration, by highlighting the potential to reduce and reverse negative trends in relation to provisioning, regulating, and cultural services, flows relating to non‐use values, as well as abiotic flows. We also highlighted ways to reduce and reverse the effects of historical and ongoing pressures through restoration measures, aligning our approach with that outlined in the SER International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration. Building on the synergies between the SEEA EA and the SER Standards is highlighted as a means to develop transdisciplinary collaboration, to assist in setting and achieving targets set out under the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration as well as integrating regional policy targets set under the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, and the related EU Habitats and EU Water Framework Directives.


Introduction
The Role of Ecosystem Restoration Natural ecosystems are essential to sustainable development, poverty alleviation, and improved human well-being, thereby underpinning the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UN 2019). However, long-term trends in degradation of ecosystems and changes in planetary systems, such as climate regulation, present immediate challenges, and threats to achieving these goals (Steffen et al. 2015;Díaz et al. 2019;IPCC 2021). Repeated calls to address these global issues require both transformational behavior and collaborative approaches across social, environmental, and economic disciplines (Dasgupta 2021). Ecosystem restoration plays a central role, with frameworks such as the International Principles and Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration developed by the Society of Ecological Restoration (SER) (hereto referred to as the SER Standards), designed to facilitate a systematic approach to restoration (Gann et al. 2019).
Recognizing the integrated challenges of biodiversity loss and climate change, the UN Decade on Restoration (2021Restoration ( -2030 builds on an array of UN multilateral agreements, with the aim of supporting and scaling up efforts to prevent, halt, and reverse the degradation of ecosystems worldwide, while also aiming to raise awareness of the importance of successful ecosystem restoration in terms of the broader suite of SDGs (UN 2019). The UN Decade on Restoration is reflected in the European Union (EU) Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 (a core delivery mechanism of the European Green Deal) and legally binding nature restoration targets proposed at the end of 2021 (Vysna et al. 2021).
In order to set achievable targets, a number of questions must be answered such as what should be restored and why, what can be restored and where, how can restoration targets be achieved and over what time frame(s), and who will resource and ensure targets are met and/or adjusted over time. In this paper, using peatland ecosystems as an example, we outline an approach to identifying, setting, and monitoring ecosystem restoration targets, by combining the interdisciplinary tools of risk assessment with the UN System of Environmental Economic Accounting-Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) (UNSD 2021), along with an understanding of restoration frameworks (Gann et al. 2019).

Ecosystem Accounting to Support Restoration
Developed in the EU context through the Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystem Services (MAES) and Integrated Natural Capital Accounting (INCA) projects, the SEEA EA framework has been highlighted as one of the tools to support the EU nature restoration plan (Vysna et al. 2021). The traditional-economic focused terms stocks and flows as well as assets are used to allow for integration and alignment of the SEEA EA with established accounting frameworks such as the System of National Accounts or SNA, the internationally agreed standard on how to compile measures of economic activity (Eigenraam & Obst 2018). The SEEA EA presents a geospatial approach, whereby ecosystem stocks (extent and condition) and flows (services and benefits) are recorded and tracked over time, serving to account for nature's contributions to human well-being (Obst 2015;Hein et al. 2020a;Farrell et al. 2021a). Adopted as a statistical standard by the UN in 2021, trials at national (Hein et al. 2020b) and catchment scale (Farrell et al. 2021a(Farrell et al. , 2021b have demonstrated that the SEEA EA framework facilitates an integrated data platform and a means to incorporate natural capital (as per the definition by the Capitals Coalition, which includes additional aspects of the natural systems such as soils and mineral aggregates alongside ecosystems) into existing ways of public and business decision-making at all levels (Bateman & Mace 2020;Hein et al. 2020a;Farrell et al. 2021a). SEEA EA accounts, and broader natural capital accounts, can be used on their own or incorporated into other analyses, such as cost-benefit analysis, economic impact analysis, and other causal modeling techniques, providing the level of context necessary for integrated decision-making (Bateman & Mace 2020). Equally, the accounts can highlight areas that require restoration by identifying ecosystems that are declining, or have declined already, in extent and/or condition (Farrell et al. 2021c), serving as a readymade integrated monitoring tool to track changes in both ecosystem stocks and flows as a result of restoration measures (UNSD 2021;Vysna et al. 2021).
Ecosystem accounts developed for an array of ecosystems at EU level show that the condition of most ecosystems is unfavorable-bad (Maes et al. 2020). Favorable conservation status, as defined under the EU Habitats Directive, infers that habitats must have sufficient area and quality to ensure maintenance into the medium to long term, along with favorable future prospects in the face of pressures and threats (NPWS 2019). Wetlands, in particular, show a continued deteriorating trend across the EU region, their critical state requiring transformative changes at all levels to ensure further losses are averted (Maes et al. 2020). Peatlands are wetlands characterized by complex interactions between water, peat soil, biodiversity, and people. Ecosystem accounts developed at national scale for peatlands by the United Kingdom (ONS 2019) and the Netherlands (Hein et al. 2020b) have focused largely on the potential benefits to be gained from restoration, highlighting that conservation and restoration underpins and strengthens the resilience of peatlands (van der Velde et al. 2021), delivering a range of cobenefits for climate, water, and biodiversity (Maes et al. 2020).

Peatland Ecosystems: Threatened Natural Capital
Covering less than 3% of the global land surface, peatlands represent significant global carbon stores, substantially more than the carbon stock in the entire forest biomass globally , which cover 10 times the area (30%) (Köhl et al. 2015). Apart from being long-term carbon stores, healthy peatlands provide global climate and water regulation services (Bonn et al. 2016). Widely recognized as important areas for biodiversity, peatlands are significant socio-cultural landscapes that underpin the livelihoods of communities across the globe, thereby comprising globally important natural capital (Bonn et al. 2016). Drainage and extraction of peat degrades peatland condition and reverses the flow of ecosystem services Renou-Wilson et al. 2019). For example, degradation switches peatlands from being carbon stores and sinks to carbon sources, and estimates indicate that degraded peatlands will contribute 8% of the global anthropogenic CO 2 emissions by 2050 (Ur ak et al. 2017). In addition, degradation results in reduced water quality, changes in regulation of water flow, and loss of biodiversity , 2021.
Peatland restoration, and wetland restoration in general, is viewed as a cost-effective nature-based solution, assisting in the conservation of wetland habitats, while also serving to reduce negative trends in ecosystem services (Bonn et al. 2016;Maes et al. 2020). Ireland is a global hotspot for peatlands, with over 20% of the national territory covered by peatland or peat soils (Connolly & Holden 2009). Conversion of peatlands to other land uses (agriculture, conifer plantation, and/or peat extraction) ongoing since the eighteenth century has been one of the main pressures resulting in drainage and loss of typical peatland vegetation. Combined with additional pressures, including overgrazing, burning, recreational use, and development for renewable energy infrastructure, these activities have resulted in the overall degradation of more than 80% of Irish peatland ecosystems (Connolly 2019). All peatland types listed under Annex I of the EU Habitats Directive are considered to be of unfavorable-bad conservation status since the start of reporting in 2007 (NPWS 2019).
One of the main goals of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration is to promote the recovery of resilient natural ecosystems, better able to withstand the effects of global climate change (UN 2019). This underlines the urgency to restore peatlands as their ongoing deterioration is likely to be exacerbated by climate change while at the same time, degraded peatlands will likely contribute further to climate warming with further negative impacts on water and biodiversity, and other hazards such as fire and landslides (Renou-Wilson & Wilson 2018).

Developing a Risk Register of Flows for Peatlands
Clearly, decision-making in relation to peatland use and restoration resonates across policy areas relating to climate, water and biodiversity, and sustainable livelihoods (Bonn et al. 2016). Using the SEEA EA framework to build an understanding of past and present extent and condition of peatlands, in combination with knowledge of trends relating to pressures and constraints, can highlight those peatlands, including those outside of nature conservation networks, at risk of not achieving conservation and restoration targets (Farrell et al. 2021b(Farrell et al. , 2021c. Similarly, combining this assessment of stocks with knowledge of peatland flows can inform the potential risk of declines in peatland ecosystem services and benefits, thereby forming the basis for a risk register for peatland flows. The same rationale formed the basis for Mace et al. (2015) to develop a natural capital risk register for eight broad habitat types in the United Kingdom (including moors and heathlands) by highlighting natural assets/stocks whose declining extent and deteriorating condition places continued delivery of flows at risk. Widely used within the business community, a risk register is one of the tools of risk management, serving to inform selection and implementation of measures to minimize or avoid the risk of losses (such as decline or reversal of flows), as well as to maximize the realization of opportunities, such as, in the context of peatland ecosystems, investment in restoration to deliver returns in terms of improved stocks and flows.
In this paper, we outline an approach using the SEEA EA framework to develop a risk register of peatland flows in Ireland. We present this as a useful means to identify and monitor ecosystem restoration targets based on understanding the relationships between peatland ecosystem stocks (extent and condition) and flows (services and benefits), thereby allowing for trade-offs in decision-making to be made more transparent based on available, relevant information. The catchment was selected as it presents a distinct biophysical landscape unit with well-defined boundaries, forming the basis at which reporting is carried out under the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) (Farrell et al. 2021b(Farrell et al. , 2021c. We present our findings as follows: (1) We outline ecosystem services for two contrasting catchments in Ireland, using published ecosystem accounts relating to peatland extent and condition developed under the SEEA EA framework as the basis for our assessment (Farrell et al. 2021b(Farrell et al. , 2021c. (2) Aligning the SEEA EA accounts with knowledge of pressures and combining elements of the approach developed by Mace et al. (2015), we outline a risk register for peatland flows (services and benefits) in each study catchment, highlighting also potential restoration measures. (3) We outline relevant data gaps, offering some conclusions to facilitate and streamline application of the SEEA EA framework, highlighting synergies with restoration frameworks such as the SER Standards, and the potential for their combined use to set and monitor restoration targets.

Methods
The SEEA EA Accounting Framework The SEEA EA is a geospatial approach whereby existing data on ecosystem stocks and flows, at a range of scales, are collated with four core accounts ( Fig. 1; UNSD 2021). We note that the terms stocks and flows which are traditionally used in an economic perspective are not commonly applied in ecological restoration. However, they are used explicitly to allow for the outputs of the SEEA EA to be integrated into existing economic accounting methods (Obst et al. 2016;Eigenraam & Obst 2018).
Asset Extent. This relates to the type, range, and extent of ecosystems assets within an accounting area. Ecosystem assets are the ecological entities for which information is sought and about which statistics are ultimately compiled, and the use of national ecosystem typologies, that can be aligned with the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology (Keith et al. 2020), is recommended as a common system to allow for comparative analysis across study areas (UNSD 2021). For this account, time series data at an appropriate scale for the accounting area outlining the type, range, and extent of ecosystems assets are required (UNSD 2021). The outputs include geo-referenced maps (the scale depending on the spatial unit selected, such as national or catchment level) and an asset register or account (in the form of a table/balance sheet).
Asset Condition. This relates to the quality of the assets outlined in the extent account. The SEEA EA is specific about the definition of ecosystem condition as "the quality of an ecosystem measured in terms of its abiotic and biotic characteristics." Quality is assessed with respect to ecosystem structure, function, and composition, which combine to underpin the ecological integrity of the ecosystem and, thereby, its capacity to supply ecosystem services (UNSD 2021). The SEEA EA outlines a three-stage approach to developing condition accounts, recommending the use of traceable, dynamic ecosystem condition variables, as well as setting reference levels which allow for development of, and aggregation of, condition indicators within and across ecosystem types (UNSD 2021), though few examples beyond the first stage of condition accounting are reported (Farrell et al. 2021b(Farrell et al. , 2021c. At this stage of the accounting, maps and tables outlining asset condition are developed, often integrating disparate ancillary datasets relating to policy-relevant pressures. These can infer the use of ecosystems and associated service provision (such as locations of and/or intensity of use) for the next stages of accounting (services and benefits).
Services. This requires the identification of the flows of ecosystem services, whether within the system or as a product of the system. Ecosystem services are defined in the SEEA EA as the contributions of ecosystems to the benefits that are used in economic and other human activity (UNSD 2021). Services may rely on a combination and interaction of multiple ecosystem assets. Mapping services can also integrate data relating to pressures and condition mapping in previous steps, as well as using other relevant geospatial data. While data relating to services can be biophysical, there may also be links to economic datasets.
Benefits. These are defined as the goods and services that are ultimately used and enjoyed by people and society (UNSD 2021) and accounts developed outline what the benefits and who the beneficiaries are. For some services, there is a spatial correlation between potential beneficiaries and service availability, while for others, the spatial link may be more difficult to ascertain. This account can be developed using economic valuation techniques, though this aspect of the SEEA EA is still regarded as experimental (UNSD 2021). Each step of the accounting requires the gathering, assessment, and integration of relevant datasets. As a consequence, data review and analysis, combined with iterative engagement with data providers, as well as potential end-users, comprise a major part of the process of developing ecosystem accounts. Following from this iterative, interactive learning process, the accounts provide an integrated data platform that can be used to provide information for decisions, each application depending on the perspective of the end-user(s) and the policy focus, usually outlined at the beginning but which can be refined over the course of the accounting process (Eigenraam & Obst 2018;Farrell et al. 2021b).

Case Study Accounting Areas
We selected two catchment areas, the Dargle and the Figile, as they have a relatively high cover of peatlands (25 and 36%, respectively) and reflect a subsample of peatland types in Ireland. These include peatlands considered of nature conservation value (Annex I habitat types listed under the EU Habitats Directive) and degraded peatland types. Catchment details are summarized in Table 1. We note there are no data available on fen peatlands. Further, given the limited available data, all other peatland types are aggregated for the purposes of this study.
The Dargle peatlands are dominated by a mosaic of upland blanket bog and wet heathland (Fig. 2). The main pressures relate to the effects of historical turf cutting, overgrazing by sheep during the 1980s, present day recreational walking, along with uncontrolled burning. The Figile peatlands, originally dominated by raised bog complexes pre-1930s, were systematically drained and developed for industrial peat extraction to the present day, with small remnant fragments of raised bog remaining (<1% of the catchment) (Fig. 3). While industrial peat extraction ceased in 2020, domestic turf cutting is widespread in the Figile and ongoing, with all peatlands subject to drainage. Peatlands were previously more extensive in both catchments, with approximately 50% converted to other land cover types including agricultural grassland and commercial forestry prior to 2000.
The condition of peatlands in both catchments is considered bad, based on structure and function being negatively impacted by drainage and bare peat exposure. Given past and ongoing pressures, all peatland types are at risk of not achieving reference condition levels unless active restoration measures are taken (Farrell et al. 2021c).

Data Inventory and Assessment
Using relevant datasets available, we applied the process steps as outlined in the SEEA EA (UNSD 2021) to develop extent, Figure 1. The SEEA EA framework. Four accounts within the SEEA EA framework form the basis of the approach, broken into stocks (natural asset extent and condition) and flows (services and benefits that flow from the natural assets). Source: IDEEA Group. condition, services, and benefits accounts. A desktop review of available national and catchment level datasets (with particular focus on peatlands data) was combined with stakeholder engagement through focused workshops with relevant data providers and stakeholders, as outlined in Farrell et al. (2021b). Datasets for peatland stock assessment, namely their extent and condition, were based on published data outlined in Farrell et al. (2021c). The key datasets used for developing SEEA EA peatland flow accounts, namely services and benefits, in the catchment accounting areas, included national scale datasets including Land Parcel Identification System or LPIS (2019 dataset), commonage assessment data, national soil data (peat texture), livestock numbers (CSO data), National Inventory Reporting for greenhouse gas emissions (peatland emission factors), Water Framework Directive datasets (ecological status and pressures data), Landslide vulnerability datasets, EU Habitats Directive data (Article 17 data, designations), datasets developed under the national MAES pilot project, Strava recreational use datasets, peat energy use data (CSO data), and focused catchment data used (relating to industrial peat extraction and education providers) where available and relevant. Use of the data is summarized in Table 2 and described in detail (source, description, and relevance) in Table S1 and Supplement S1.
Building SEEA EA Flow Accounts Services. Geospatial datasets relating to indicators of service supply and use were reviewed and assessed (Tables 2 & S1). We described in qualitative terms the main ecosystem services provided by peatlands in each catchment, with quantitative estimates based on available data and supporting literature. The services assessed include provisioning (grazing biomass), regulating (climate regulation, water purification, river flood mitigation, landslide mitigation services, and habitat maintenance), and cultural services (recreation and educational) as well as flows relating to non-use values (ecosystem appreciation). Under the SEEA EA framework, inputs of mineral and energy resources and soil resources (excavated), and energy inputs from renewable sources (e.g. solar, wind) are excluded from the scope of ecosystem services but may be recorded as abiotic flows (UNSD 2021). We included peat for energy and wind energy as abiotic flows.
Benefits. Combining available datasets with stakeholder engagement informed the identification of benefits and beneficiaries in each catchment.

Developing a Risk Register for Peatland Flows
We assessed the likelihood of and level of impacts on future flows based on the matrix outlined in Figure 4. Combining information gathered under the SEEA EA framework with elements of the work by Mace et al. (2015), we used the status and trends in peatland stocks as a basis to outline the relationships between peatland stocks and likely flows in each catchment. For example, where a peatland is in bad condition, the flows of services such as carbon sequestration and water retention are reduced.
Ongoing pressures may result into continued, and potentially, further reductions. On this basis, incorporating knowledge of historical and ongoing pressures and threats, we developed a risk register of peatland flows in each catchment. The risk register is color coded (Fig. 4) and based on the RAG (red/amber/ green) scoring/risk levels used by Mace et al. (2015). We further aligned each color code with an indicative restorative action to avoid, reduce, and/or mitigate risk, based on based on expert ecological opinion and a review of relevant restorative measures and outcomes on peatlands (Thom et al. 2019). Where peatland flows are coded green, the recommended action is ongoing monitoring to track any likely changes due to trends in other flows; for those coded amber, restorative actions are required to avoid/mitigate levels of and/or likelihood of impacts due to ongoing or increasing pressures. For those coded red, immediate action is deemed necessary to assess and address causes and levels of degradation and inform selection and implementation of appropriate restorative measures.

Peatland Stocks
Extent and Condition. Data supporting the extent and condition accounts for peatlands in both catchments are outlined in Table 1, Figures 2 and 3. All peatlands are considered in bad condition (with a declining trend). The basis for the assessment is outlined in Farrell et al. (2021c).

Peatland Flows
An overview of ecosystem services assessed is summarized in Table 2 with supporting information in Supplement S1 and relevant datasets referenced in Table S1.   The main indicator of this flow is the area of peatlands designated, highest in the Dargle (all peatlands designated, approximately 20% catchment area) and significantly lower (approximately 1% peatlands) in the Figile.
Abiotic Flows. Peat for energy. Peat use in domestic households is low in the Dargle (<1% of households) with a higher level of use in the Figile (over 50% of the total households using peat for domestic purposes). Potential industrial peat extraction volumes (based on area of bare peat in 2018), were estimated at 750,000 t of dry peat, with 648,745 t reported as combusted in 2018 in the 124 MW peat and biomass fired electricity generating station in the catchment.
Wind energy. One wind farm is operational in the Figile, developed on an industrial cutaway peatland (Mountlucas wind farm) with an installed generating capacity of 80 MW; a second wind farm is in construction with planned generating capacity of 75 MW.

Benefits and Beneficiaries
The main benefits and beneficiaries of ecosystem services are highlighted in Table 3. Production of food and fiber (sheep production) and energy from peat (an abiotic flow) were the main benefits of focus in the Dargle and the Figile, respectively. Other benefits relate to climate, water, and biodiversity as well as Figure 4. Risk register scoring matrix following from Mace et al. (2015). The color coding is outlined as follows: green: no/minimal discernible change in flows; amber: reduced flows; red: significant decline in flows.
health and well-being. Emerging benefits in recent decades relate to recreational and educational use, as well as energy generation from wind (Figile only).

Informing Restoration Needs Through a Risk Register of Peatland Flows
Based on the assessment of stocks as being in bad condition (Farrell et al. 2021c), and an assessment of ecosystem services, we allocated a RAG scoring to peatland flows in each catchment (Table 3). We also outlined potential restorative actions to reduce the impacts on and reduce negative and declining trends in flow, highlighting synergies between the SEEA EA and the SER Standards in Table 4. The detailed relationships between stocks, flows, and pressures and threats in each catchment are outlined in Table S2.
Overall, for both study catchments, because of the underlying condition and effects of either historical and/or ongoing pressures, flows relating to regulatory services in particular show risk of reductions or significant declines/losses with some differences relating to the peatland type and geographical context. Dargle Flows. In the Dargle, overgrazing by sheep and drainage and cutting for fuel are two of the main pressures that have reduced in intensity; however, the peatlands still show effects Table 3. Risk register for study catchments: ecosystem services are linked to likely benefits and beneficiaries in each catchment. A RAG scoring is allocated to each service/benefit with proposed restorative actions required (green: no/minimal discernible change in flows; amber: reduced flows; red: significant decline in flows). of these pressures in terms of drainage and exposure of bare peat. Uncontrolled burning and an increase in recreational use are ongoing pressures. The combined effects of past and present pressures have led to a reduction in available grazing, with significant declines in and reversal of flows relating to climate, water, and biodiversity, and negative effects on soil stability and ecosystem appreciation. While the Dargle upland peatlands are used for recreation, exposure of bare peat and erosion may lead to these areas being less appealing for recreational use where degradation increases, and/or access may be required to be restricted to allow for peatland restoration measures. Education is likely to remain a benefit despite condition of the peatlands.

Service/Flows
Dargle Restoration. Upland peatlands are slow to recover from degradation, requiring active measures to stabilize bare peat and restore eco-hydrological characteristics of active (peat-forming) peatlands which underpin delivery of peatland ecosystem services and benefits. Restorative measures required include elimination/reduction of grazing to allow full recovery of vegetation, targeted drain blocking, and in recreational areas, installation of boardwalks to restrict and reduce trampling (Thom et al. 2019). Given that all the peatlands in the Dargle are listed in Annex I habitats, restoration of active blanket bog/wet heath mosaics is a legal requirement under the EU Habitats Directive. However, localized areas, having crossed a threshold in terms of restoration, will require restorative measures to revegetate exposed subsoils and stabilize bare eroding peat to reduce and reverse losses of carbon and sediment.
Figile Flows. In the Figile, peat extraction (an abiotic flow) is an ongoing pressure with significant declines in and reversal of flows relating to climate, water, and biodiversity. Because of the lowintensity use of peatlands for grazing, and the low elevation and gradients there were no discernible effects on benefits relating to food/fiber productions and/or landslides. Similarly, for education and recreation related flows, these activities have been carried out at a low intensity historically across the peatlands but are likely to increase as the rehabilitation of large-scale industrial cutaway peatlands progresses. There were no data for domestic cutting areas though the activity is widespread in the catchment.
Figile Restoration. Apart from fragments of Annex I habitats (where restoration of raised bog is legally required under the EU Habitats Directive), most of the peatlands in the Figile have crossed a threshold in terms of their potential to be restored to the historical reference (raised bog) and are likely to revert to fen and wet woodland mosaics (Rowlands & Feehan 2000). Rehabilitation of the industrial cutaway peatland will require restorative activities (drain blocking and revegetation) to stabilize the peatlands and reduce negative flows relating to climate, water, and biodiversity (Andersen et al. 2018). The time frame for reductions and potential reversal of negative flows will vary across the peatland areas depending on peat depth and type, hydrological recovery, and the rate of recovery of ecosystem processes.

Peatlands: Natural Capital Poised for Restoration
Peatland ecosystems are globally important natural capital (Bonn et al. 2016), and degraded peatlands are at risk of not delivering and sustaining ecosystem flows (services and benefits). Our findings reflect that of Mace et al. (2015) where This re-enforces the role of iterative engagement outlined by both SER and SEEA EA frameworks. mountain, moors, and heathland habitats were assessed to be at high risk of losing their ability to sustain flows relating to clean water, habitat, and climate regulation. Peatland restoration can reduce these risks, but in order to develop strategic restoration plans and allocate resources, clear targets must be set in relation to what peatlands are to be restored, where, and why. Given the scale of peatland degradation globally, and the range of starting conditions, targeting investment is essential both to reduce the likelihood of negative impacts arising from degraded peatlands (e.g. increased carbon emissions, risk of fire, and/or peat slides), and to maximize returns for recognized policy-relevant benefits, particularly in relation to responding to climate and biodiversity targets, and sustainable livelihoods (Bonn et al. 2016). These issues can be addressed based on an understanding of peatland stocks (extent and condition), given that different levels of investment will be required depending on the degree of degradation and will yield varying levels of return either through improved condition of stocks or changes in flow (Mace et al. 2015). Trade-offs must be guided by legal obligations in relation to restoration of stocks such as those set out for peatland habitats under the EU Habitats Directive, as well as national targets relating to flows relating to climate, water, and human well-being, as outlined, e.g. under National Recovery and Resilience Plans developed in 2021 (DEPR 2021).
As shown in this study, despite limited data, use of a risk register to identify opportunities to restore peatland ecosystem flows, can help identify restoration targets, particularly those relating to land-use change to deliver carbon emission reductions set under EU and global targets and legal requirements relating to EU Water Framework Directive obligations (Farrell et al. 2021b(Farrell et al. , 2021c. Combining the risk register approach with information gathered under the SEEA EA framework thereby serves to identify ecosystem stocks requiring restoration (Farrell et al. 2021c) and highlight opportunities to invest in reducing risks relating to, and restoration of, flows, including for peatlands that have crossed the threshold of restoration and cannot be restored to their former type and/or condition. In these instances, restoration measures to conserve carbon stores and reduce carbon emissions from degraded peatlands have significant potential to deliver high returns (in terms of carbon) on investment .
The intensities of use of provisioning services (grazing) and abiotic flows (peat energy) across peatlands globally have changed over time as reflected in our study catchments. These changes reflect a switch from previously sustainable flows (low level grazing) and low-level pressures (hand-cut turf extraction), to present unsustainable flows (overgrazing) and high-level pressures (mechanized, industrial scale peat extraction). Other pressures highlighted by Farrell et al. (2021bFarrell et al. ( , 2021c were the conversion of peatlands to other ecosystem types such as grasslands and commercial forests (by up to 50%), while increased focus on cultural services (such as recreation in the Dargle) and a shift in focus to renewable energy (such as in the Figile) are relatively new land uses and potential pressures. These will require trade-offs in terms of future peatland flows (for example drain blocking of degraded peatlands versus drainage for infrastructure) as shown across Ireland and the United Kingdom (Renou- Wilson & Farrell 2009;Smith et al. 2014). The changes in benefits and beneficiaries reflect European and national policies relating to agriculture, forestry, and energy, and more recently climate change, highlighting the integrated effects of land-use policy on ecosystem stocks and flows, reflected in the EU Green Deal policy framework (Vysna et al. 2021).
Aligning an array of available datasets under the SEEA EA framework supported development of rudimentary peatland ecosystem accounts for this study. Additional data relating to peat depth and type (essential to assess carbon stocks, beyond 1 m depth where relevant, and carbon flows more accurately), drainage intensity (an indicator both of peatland use and condition), and biodiversity (indicator bird species of peatlands as used in U.K. peatland ecosystem accounts) would support the extension of this work. We note that there are limited data available relating to the contribution of peatlands for water provision in Ireland (Flynn et al. 2021), although this is highlighted as a priority service in the U.K. peatland accounts (ONS 2019). Similarly, there are limited data on regulation of water flows. Both of these aspects require detailed hydrological modeling and analysis. From the cultural services perspective, despite public perceptions changing to reflect a deeper appreciation of the full range of ecosystem services that peatlands provide (Flood et al. 2021), data to quantify the broader suite of cultural services (outside of recreational use) are lacking. In relation to abiotic flows, while data were available for regulated industrial sites there were no data relating to unregulated industrial and/or domestic cut sites which are extensive in Ireland (Connolly 2019;Farrell et al. 2021c). Mapping and assessment of the scale of this activity are required both to design and implement regulatory mechanisms, and develop restorative guidance, to inform potential measures to reduce associated negative flows particularly those related to climate and water.

Combining Tools for Restoration to Build Capacity across Sectors
Building technical capacity across disciplines is recognized as essential to implement and achieve targets under the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (UN 2020;Farrell et al. 2021a), as well as to facilitate integration of regional policy targets set under the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, the EU Habitats and the EU Water Framework Directives (Farrell et al. 2021b(Farrell et al. , 2021c. Sharing common drivers, such as the need to navigate trade-offs associated with land management priorities (Gann et al. 2019;UNSD 2021), there is considerable scope for synergy between the frameworks of the SEEA EA and SER Standards to develop integrated, cross sectoral approaches.
Under the SER Standards, ecological restoration is outlined as one of several approaches that address damage to ecosystems, with Principle 8 outlining the allied approaches or family of restorative activities that can be conceived of as a "Restorative Continuum" (Gann et al. 2019). Restorative measures range from reducing societal impacts (such as aligning policy measures to reduce pressures) to taking active physical interventions (Gann et al. 2019). Common steps to guide the restorative pathway/continuum in the study catchments, which link with the core SEEA EA accounting framework, can be transferred to any peatland area, and these include: • Understanding the past, present, and future extent, type, and reference condition levels of peatland stocks: this requires an assessment of peatland characteristics including peat type and depth, vegetation, and eco-hydrology. • Understanding trends in flows of services and likely benefits and beneficiaries, incorporating an assessment of pressures and threats. • Identification of short-and long-term restorative measures such as changes in management and/or hydrological repair and revegetation, to effect restoration of stocks and/or flows. • Stakeholder engagement from local to national policy level.
Identified as Principle 1 of the SER Standards (Gann et al. 2019), this aspect is integral to the SEEA EA approach (Farrell et al. 2021a).
Once realistic peatland restoration targets are established, planning and implementation of restoration activities using frameworks such as the SER Standards, as well as the monitoring of changes over time, are essential. Tracking changes over time (either from a stock or flow perspective) using the SEEA EA framework can support a risk register approach as demonstrated here and/or provide a readymade monitoring dashboard to ensure targets are realized, supporting adjustments over time, but also serving to track changes and therefore avoid unintentional losses across other ecosystem types (UNSD 2021).

Next Steps to Align Policy and Peatland Restoration
Despite limited data, applying the SEEA EA alongside expert knowledge of peatland ecology highlighted an effective means to develop a risk register to identify opportunities for peatland restoration. Along with their role in climate regulation, restoring peatland ecosystem processes can deliver benefits across an array of policy areas including agriculture, water, nature, and health and well-being. While a number of plans and strategies, including the EU restoration plan highlight the need for cross-sectoral collaboration (Maes et al. 2020;Vysna et al. 2021), efforts to date to deliver on peatland restoration across Europe have been relatively small scale (Anderson et al. 2018). Building on progress to develop payments for ecosystem services schemes for landowners ), a well-informed and resourced global/European peatland restoration strategy aligned with ecosystem accounting frameworks such as the SEEA EA, would support better decisions for optimal returns across an integrated range of flows relating to climate, water, biodiversity, and sustainable development (Maes et al. 2020). Future research in economic and social assessments of peatland restoration, building on existing economic impact assessment approaches  as well as extending this approach to other ecosystem types, at a range of scales, would further illustrate explicit links between peatlands and society. For each ecosystem type, the ecological nonlinearities and thresholds of each ecosystem type must be recognized (Mace et al. 2015) requiring ongoing collaborative and interdisciplinary work by ecologists, social scientists, and economists (Farrell et al. 2021a).