## 1 Introduction
Peat production in Europe is estimated to be twenty million tons annually [47]. If degraded peatlands are not restored in time, peatland ecosystems will be more fragile to carbon loss and could transform into dry forests, for example [48]. Peatlands' restoration aims to restore their natural functions [49]. After the drainage, the peatland decomposes and releases carbon [50]. Peatland restoration promotes carbon sequestration and emissions of N\({}_{2}\)O reduction [34]. Returning hydrologic changes similar to previous conditions before drainage is one of the goals of peatland restoration [50]. Peatland restoration can increase ecosystem resilience against extreme weather conditions, biodiversity, soil health improvement, and climate change mitigation [22]. It is estimated that a thoughtful extraction site restoration might transform peatlands into carbon sinks in approximately twenty years. Peatland rewetting and revegetation are currently some of the most widespread approaches [49]. However, these strategies have disadvantages [51; 52; 53]. Thus, other solutions must also be explored to minimise peatland GHG emissions. Some studies in the literature show that severe uncertainties and underwater rocks exist in connection with restoration using inundation, resulting in nutrient leakage and increased methane emission concentrations [51]. Previous studies show that, when comparing nearly pristine peatlands and peatlands after rewetting, there are some uncertainties regarding the impact of the rewetting and its efficiency over a long period [50]. According to previous studies, the part of climate scientists and decision-makers do not assign a sufficiently influential role to peatland management as an instrument for climate change mitigation in the future. Also, there is a lack of requirements for reporting the removal of GHG emissions from wetlands [51; 53]. Although there are several peatlandconservation policies for implementation in EU member states, there is a lack of mandatory requirements for governments [49]. Both policy documents and the scientific literature outline several strategies and methods to restore peatlands and reduce GHG emissions. However, there are some knowledge gaps and contradictive views on which strategies may be the most effective and appropriate [54; 55]. Particularly, it is true for EU countries where peat is used for energy production [29; 47; 56; 57; 55]. Existing peatland strategies do not always solve issues regarding the restoration and management of peatland in sufficient detail [49]. Choosing proper peatland strategies and their effective realisation is crucial for reducing GHG emissions [54] and restoring peatland functions [48]. The selection of inappropriate peatland policies can have further adverse effects on peatlands, making them more vulnerable [49]. Among alternative approaches is the production of innovative peat-based products and materials if it is economically justified [57; 58; 59]. The potential of peat as a high-value natural resource has so far been undervalued [32; 33]. Unlike other reviews, this review focuses on both the pros and cons of each peatland strategy and the alternative use of peat as a valuable resource for high-added products to reduce GHG emissions from peatlands, focusing on European peatlands. This review paper is structured as follows: first, it is crucial to understand existing restoration strategies and their pros and cons to find innovative solutions. It analyses whether and how peatland emissions change after implementing each strategy. Data on strategies and techniques from the literature are analysed to identify the most effective ones in GHG emission reduction from peatlands. Peat processing methods to obtain high-added-value peat products and materials to sequester emissions in these products are reviewed in the closing section.