The Peat Debate

Gwilym ab Ioan  - May 2012

How on earth did we get there?

I believes that the environmental pressure on reduction of peat use by the horticultural industry is valid in protecting lowland UK peat bogs as few such habitats still exist. The campaign, began in the 1908s by David Bellamy, was successful in protecting many remaining lowland peat habitats. David Bellamy has been asked about the way the peat debate has evolved. He is frankly appalled at the current attempts to ban peat use and completely opposes this.

Somehow, the worthwhile protection of these lowland peat bogs has lead, almost completely without justification, to a national campaign casting peat use as 'sinful' or morally wrong. There are several arguments put forward to justify the enforced reduction in use of peat but most of these are dubious at best and often factually inaccurate.

1. The main claim levelled is that peat is a 'non-renewable' like oil. This is simply not true. If carefully harvested from live peat bogs, peat is a fully renewable resource. Anyone can see this for themselves in countries such as Sweden. Here peat is grown and harvested rather like tree plantations. Scientists have estimated that the annual growth in peat far exceeds the amount that is extracted each year, so it is in essence a completely renewable resource.

2. It is claimed is that the world is somehow running short of peat. The area from Norway to Siberia is, rather simply put, the world's largest peat bog. A fraction of 1% of the reserves have probably been extracted. On a global scale peat-land is not rare nor threatened, the earth is known to generate around 600 million cubic metres per year but only a maximum 200 million cubic metres is extracted each year. So unlike coal or oil, the amount is increasing year on year. Most of the land where the peat is, has little or no alternative use. Compared to farming, fishing, golf courses, or any other major land-use, peat production which is carefully managed, is a sound, sustainable and 'green' activity. Looking at Scotland for example, around 50% of the land is peat covered.

3. The threat to rare ecosystems, such as UK. lowland peat-land habitats. In the UK peat-land is not threatened, peat producers have already agreed not to seek or to extract from areas with a conservation value. Peat Extraction for Horticulture is NOT the main cause of damage to the UK peat lands. In fact, since 1960 only just over 500 hectares have been introduced for peat production whereas 95,000 hectares have been lost to forestry. The peat-lands of Great Britain cover an area of some 17 500 km2, most in north and west. Scotland has c. 68%, England 23% and Wales 9%. There are about 1 700 km2 of peat-land in Northern Ireland, mostly located in the western half of the province.

4. Carbon Sink. Peat bogs soak up carbon dioxide. So does farmland. It is claimed that if we harvest peat this CO2 will be lost. But in fact this is not the case. Peat lands used for extracting peat can be quite easily restored. Draining the peat bogs can be reversed. The Department of the Environment, Peat Producers Association and many other conservation bodies are all working together to restore the peat lands back to nature. The carbon sink impact of peat extraction is negligible if the land is correctly managed. This is simply a matter of legislation. 'Temporal studies of peat-lands reveal that they may act as CO2 sinks in some years and sources in others, depending on climate. Emissions of CH4 and N2O are similarly variable in space and time.'  From 'peat-lands and Climate change'. Every time a farmer ploughs a field CO2 is lost into the atmosphere. But we don't seem to be advocating the banning of ploughing.

The UK's Unilateral Approach

No other European Country has taken the steps that the UK Government are advocating. There is clearly no perceived problem in the rest of Europe using peat for horticulture. I have contacted nursery associations in Holland, France, Germany, Scandinavia and Italy and all are perfectly free to use peat in horticulture. This means that UK producers are going to be unfairly penalised if Dutch and German growers are allowed to carry on using peat in their container production. U.K. Governments dont appear to be proposing the banning of importation of plants grown in peat, which is the only fair way to proceed if they wont allow UK producers to grow in peat.

So how come the UK alone has a fully fledged anti-peat lobby which has chosen to use all sorts of rather underhand propaganda to further its aims. Very few of its arguments stand up to scrutiny. It might come as a surprise to learn that horticulture accounts for only about 2% of peat use. Most peat is burned for fuel. World-wide it may be that as little as 0.1% of the world's peat is being used in horticulture. But UK environmentalists are unfairly pinning everything onto horticulture.

Is the Proposed Peat ban legal Under EC law?

To find out a letter was sent to Ian Hudghton MEP  (the MEP with responsibility for EC Trade). He contacted the European Commission. A reply was received from Antoni Tajani, President of the European Commission.

In the letter Mr Tajani states: ‘In general, the Commission supports national measures aiming at environmental protection. . . .  However national measures restricting the use of a given product could constitute an obstacle to intra-EU trade. In order to avoid such obstacles, directive 98/34/EC2 establishes a control mechanism by which member states planning to adopt  technical regulations are obliged to notify them at the draft stage to the Commission, which informs other member states and stakeholders. This allows the Commission, the other member states and economic operators to analyse the planned legislation and its compatibility with EC law. So far the Commission has not received formal notification of any such proposal from the UK authorities.’

So for the time being, it seems that the UK Government maybe in contravention of EC trade legislation.

5 Deliberate or Ignorant Misinformation.

The anti peat use lobby seems happy to publish information which is simply not accurate it is then copied, or miscopied by garden writers perpetuating the false information. For example Joe Hashman's otherwise useful book Pocket Guide to the Edible Garden states:

'During the latter part of the 20th century 94% of British peat lands were destroyed by the horticulture industry.'  His source for this is a Friends of the Earth claim that ‘less than six per cent of Britain's original lowland raised peat bog habitat remains in a near natural condition’.

The Friends of the Earth statistics refer to lowland peat bogs only. Most peat in the UK is in highland peat bogs. And most of the lowland peat bogs were destroyed by draining them for farmland and forestry and not for horticulture. Joe Hashman has apologised for this error. But it won't stop this information being spread around.

The Best way Forward for peat use in horticulture

Despite some rather foolish targets for the reduction of peat use in horticulture, only about 4% of UK retail sales are for peat alternatives. Peat-based multi-purpose compost sales have remained pretty static.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has changed the classification of peat from a 'fossil fuel' to a 'renewable biomass resource' in recognition that peat can indeed by harvested and cultivated sustainably.

I personally believe that sustainable peat production for horticulture is fully justifiable and the anti-peat lobby are guilty of exaggeration and misinformation. Particularly in propagation, there is no substitute for  peat. And many of the alternatives, such as coir, are have very unsound environmental credentials: this is 3rd world organic matter which should be used by local farmers, not shipped expensively round the world, in order to assuage middle class guilt. Dont fall for it, it really is not sound 'green' sense.

Are peat free composts any good? 

The dilemma for the gardener is that peat based composts are significantly better than peat free composts for sowing seeds and potting on young plants. Time after time trials reveal this to be true.

Which reported that composts with at least 50% peat were far better than peat free composts in 2010. Which compost trials

Beechgrove Garden trials in 2010 growing potatoes in containers found poor results with peat free composts compared to composts containing at least 50% peat. (Search the fact-sheets on their website for the results) Beechgrove Garden

The RHS trials published in January 2011 showed the poor results germinating seedlings and potting on young plants most peat alternatives, including loam, wood fibre and coir particularly for plants with very small seeds.

Peat free composts tend to be inconsistent, unstable and often require the addition of extra food and trace elements and many gardeners have complained to me of the poor results with peat free composts. Coir, often used as a replacement for peat is shipped from Sri Lanka which cannot be good for the environment!

Jumping on the bandwagon

The RHS, National Trust and other influential organisations, as well as TV presenters such as Monty Don should have a little more courage than simply to jump on this spurious bandwagon: instead they should appraise themselves of the facts and have the courage to portray both sides of the argument. Rather than condemn peat they should explain the facts and defend the sustainable and sensible use of peat. At the moment the only reduction in peat seems to be in sales of bags marked 'peat'. If the bag says 'multipurpose compost' or 'ericaceous compost' it sells as well as ever. What do such bags contain? At least 90% peat of course. Many well informed gardeners and writers such as Peter Seabrook and the best selling author Dr Hessayon (author of the 'Expert' series) take a pragmatic view. Dr Hessayon writes: 'don't use peat as for overall soil improvement- it is not efficient and garden compost and manure will do a much better job. However moss peat has a role to play in planting and seed composts where there are no substitutes of equal merit' (The Bedside Book of the Garden)

Peat and the Environment in Scandinavia

Swedish peat-lands and Swedish peat constitute a natural resource that renews itself through steady and relentless plant growth. The peat industry's extraction of peat, 4-5 million cubic meters per year, is barely a quarter of a year's growth. Between one and two thousandth of the peat-covered ground is made use of for the present. Additionally, thanks to the fact that new drainage has practically stopped in agriculture and forestry operations, it is now highly likely that the total area of peat grounds is also increasing in size.

Supervision

From the CHA website:

Peter Seabrook has attacked the RHS for its latest edict, a ban on the use of peat at its shows. He writes 'Who is it wandering the corridors at Vincent Square that sees fit to act as our universal conscience'. He discusses the poverty in Lithuania where peat is one of the few natural resources, and a renewable resource. Seabrook also attacked Kew and the National Trust 'whose money-wasting exercise marketing peat-free compost was a scandal' (Hort Week 6th Jan). Commenting on the sale of peat-free plants, Follyfield Nurseries’ joint owner Fred Chapman said ‘Not just bodies like the National Trust but sheds and supermarkets are pushing these plants as a sales gimmick’ (Hort Week 20th Jan). Alan Shaw, of the Growing Media Association, said that he welcomed initiatives from large organisations like the National Trust and RSPB that help to expand the UK gardening market. He wrote: ‘The fact that they are peat free is in reality of lesser importance. Most manufacturers of growing media have offered peat free options for some time now and peat free plants can fill a valid niche market’. ‘The trend in the mass market, however, is towards gradual peat reduction’ (Grower 20th Jan). An increasing number of growers are disputing the criticalness of the peat shortage (Hort Week 27th Jan).

Are peat reduction targets of 90% achievable or desireable?

The Government’s Peat Working Group initiated the search for suitable materials and this was recognised by re-naming the group in 2005 as the Horticultural Growing Media Forum (HGMF), whose focus was on delivering the peat reduction targets. Some parts of the industry have made significant progress, with the three large national retailers all achieving 50% peat replacement in their bagged product ranges. Partial dilution is becoming the norm for previously all-peat products and several manufacturers have now invested in wood fibre production plants and/or green composting facilities. Unfortunately in the UK, even with the HGMF in place, conflicts of interests, technical problems, increasing costs, reluctance and apathy have all contributed to slow progress towards achieving the 90% target for 2010.

Mires and Peat, Volume 3 (2008), Article 08, http://www.mires-and-peat.net/, ISSN 1819-754X

Experts pour scorn on Defra peat research for failing to reach meaningful conclusion   by Matthew Appleby   Horticulture Week   30 July 2010

Growing-media experts have questioned Defra's latest peat research on the carbon footprint of growing media. The report, from University of Warwick HRI scientist Dr Rob Lillywhite, dismisses greenhouse gas emissions as a reason for reducing peat use, preferring the existing drivers of non-renewability and potential as a carbon sink.  It states: "In terms of total greenhouse gas emissions, the life cycle assessment approach supports the use of UK and Irish peat, and coir as growing media material. "However, if the carbon neutrality of short-term materials and potential sequestration is taken into account, then the opposite is true and compost, timber products and coir are the preferred materials. These opposing conclusions suggest that further policy work is required." It concludes: "The major driver for reduced peat use should remain its 'non-renewability' and potential for long-term carbon storage rather than its emissions of greenhouse gases." The report highlights difficulties in assessing greenhouse gas emissions of organic materials because of a lack of data and confusion over whether to use weight or volume reporting units. It uses weight, which gives peat a poorer rating. The industry uses volume.  Growing Media Association (GMA) manager Tim Briercliffe said: "The GMA was included in the steering group for this project but expressed its concerns about the methodology and assumptions made throughout the process. The project was overambitious and set out to collate published information that unfortunately never really existed. "The report acknowledges that frankly the project was unable to reach meaningful conclusions and the GMA would urge readers to approach it with caution. This work set out to understand important questions that the industry had raised. Unfortunately, we do not believe that this report enlightens the debate." Former GMA chair Jamie Robinson added: "Like so much of the CO2 debate, there are a lot of questions on the methodology used and the conclusions are ambiguous - you can basically choose your outcome. I don't think that it takes the peat reduction debate any further forward." But Vital Earth managing director Steve Harper said: "I think you need to take offsetting into consideration. Ultimately, if peat is undisturbed it is a carbon sink. If dug, it creates a footprint. If you can divert green and food waste from landfill, you reduce its impact on the planet (by not creating methane) and reduce waste and create a truly sustainable product."

A Defra representative said: "The research indicates that alternatives to peat are likely to have similar or lower greenhouse gas emissions associated with their production compared to peat - although the report does not consider specific products on the market, which are usually a blend of different materials. "We are considering the development of a future policy to further reduce the horticultural use of peat. All evidence, including this newly published research, will feed into the development of the policy."  - The final report is available from www.defra.gov.uk

Comparing C0₂ emissions for peat to other growing media

UK peat greenhouse gas emissions (CO2)

Extraction & harvest 36kg

Processing 24kg

Transport 42-123kg

End of life 543kg

Carbon storage -136kg

Total 509-590kg

Now compare that figure with these:

Total CO2 emissions from other growing media

Green compost 12-93kg

Coir 113-350kg

Bark -82-5kg

Wood fibre -56-145kg

Perlite 736-817kg

Vermiculite 772-853kg

DEFRA PUBLICATION  Consultation findings June 2011

This includes the following milestones:

• a progressive phase-out target of 2015 for government and the public sector on direct procurement of peat in new contracts for plants;

• a voluntary phase-out target of 2020 for amateur gardeners; and

• ·       a final voluntary phase-out target of 2030 for professional growers of fruit, vegetables and plants;

• we will establish a Task Force bringing together representatives from across the supply chain with a clear remit to advise on how best to overcome the barriers to reducing peat use, exploring all the available measures to achieve this goal;

• building on the advice of the Task Force, we will review progress towards these targets before the end of this spending period and consider the potential for alternative policy measures if necessary.

The taskforce will be chaired by Dr. Alan Knight OBE and will include representatives from retailers, growing media manufacturers, growers and environmental organisations.  It will have a clear remit to foster a partnership approach focussing on identifying and addressing supply chain issues, exploring all available measures to deliver our ambition and determining the criteria against which the policy will be reviewed.  Peat is cheap, readily available and of consistent quality, and any alternative has to compete with these factors.  The taskforce will produce a comprehensive and detailed roadmap to address barriers in relation to both the supply and demand of peat alternatives, with the aim of reforming once and for all a supply chain focussed around peat.