Ending the sale of peat: consultation analysis

9. Other considerations

This chapter presents the analysis of responses to a small number of questions which explored other outcomes which could arise from the consultation.

Q22. Might outcomes arising from this consultation affect one age group more than another, either in a positive or negative way?

No particular age group more than another

Of the 239 respondents who answered Q22, the most common theme was that it would not affect any one age group more than another. Many respondents stated there would be no impact without providing any further details. However, many others argued that the proposals would affect all age groups equally, because:

• positive impacts on the environment would improve the lives of all people.
• negative impacts on the cost of food and fuel would increase poverty, especially fuel poverty, for all age groups.

“All age groups affected when considering food production. All age groups affected when ‘peat heat’ is no longer available if no suitable ‘green’ substitute is offered.” - Individual

A small number stated that while they acknowledge the impact it may have on specific age groups, protecting the peatland is more important.

Older people

Respondents commonly suggested that older age groups may be most affected. Many noted a traditional dependence on peat as a fuel source among older people in remote rural communities, with a ban negatively impacting fuel poverty rates among this age group. Others noted that older people are more likely to garden and need to adapt their gardening techniques following a ban. Several suggested that older people may be less open or resilient to change, preferring traditional methods and uses of peat.

“Older generation may be negatively affected as peat use is traditional and it can be hard to change ways and try new things. But if the changes are encouraged with signposting of where to find alternatives then the transition can be easier for them.” – Individual

Younger generation

Many argued that the younger generation, and future generations, would benefit from the positive environmental consequences of banning the sale of peat. One organisation argued that the younger generation could lose traditional skills in peat cutting.

“Anything we can do to mitigate climate change will benefit everyone but especially the young - who will be around longer!” – Individual

Q23. Might any outcomes arising from this consultation have any positive or negative impacts on data protection or privacy?

Q23 was answered by 165 respondents. Almost all either stated there would be no impact on data protection or privacy arising from the consultation without providing more detail, or stated that they did not know if there would be an impact.

However, specific impacts detailed by a few included: a danger of privacy breaches for people owning properties with peat banks, more controlled monitoring of composting, and impacts on businesses that may need regulation or inspection to ensure compliance with a sales ban. A few others suggested that if data were protected correctly, there would be no impact on privacy.

“Ensuring that businesses, producers and some sectors (private estates, for instance) comply with legislation may require inspection or other active regulation which may have privacy impacts - however these are overridden by the public interest, justice and environmental impacts that would arise from these areas evading or avoiding a ban on peat use.” – Common Weal

Q26. Please use this space for anything else you'd like to tell us in relation to ending the sale of peat.

295 respondents answered Q26. Responses covered many themes, some of which of which have already been detailed elsewhere in this report. These include:

• Many reiterated their support for a ban on peat for climate and environmental reasons – see Chapter 8.
• Considering the impact on those who use peat for fuel was mentioned by many – see Chapter 7.
• The availability and reliability of alternatives were mentioned both positively and negatively by respondents – see Chapter 4.
• Some reaffirmed the importance of peat to the whisky industry and argued that a ban for this sector should not proceed – see Chapter 6.

A ban is needed now

The most common theme in response to Q26, mentioned by almost one third, was for a ban on peat to happen immediately or as soon as possible. Some noted that while they are already peat-free or have been working toward becoming so, they argued that any remaining peat users would continue to use peat unless strict controls are introduced. Others highlighted that peatland restoration can only go so far if people are still cutting peat.

“A ban on commercial peat extraction and sale should be put in place as quickly as possible. The Scottish taxpayer is currently funding the restoration of large areas of degraded peatland while peat extraction still continues for commercial gain. The Scottish Government need to realise that this is not a sustainable way to manage peatlands and take action to stop any further extraction of peat.” – Individual

Careful consideration

Further thought about the impacts and the different methods of introducing a peat ban was advocated by several respondents. This included ideas for a phased introduction and suggestions that banning peat, while necessary, could significantly impact certain groups.

Several respondents provided ideas to mitigate possible impacts, such as community or council composting and ensuring compost is local and not imported. Some specifically mentioned education and ensuring gardeners and producers understood new developments, techniques and uses of peat-free growing media.

Building on peatlands

The approval of other uses of peatland was highlighted as problematic and counterintuitive by some in response to Q26 and other questions. Most of these respondents criticised wind farms being built in Shetland which have required significant peat extraction.

“While ending the sale of peat for the purposes indicated is laudable (if long overdue) it will be largely cosmetic in terms of its impact on tackling loss and damage to our peatlands… Perhaps even more frustrating, as it is technically more readily avoidable, is the loss of peat and peatland habitat to wind farms and electricity transmission infrastructure. Our renewable energy comes at a great cost to the very resources we claim to be safeguarding and restoring. We even have a new space hub joining the list of developments being built in an area of, and at the expense of, high quality peatland. Only when we either stop approving such developments, or ensure and enforce meaningful compensation, will we be able to consider that we are doing something meaningful to safeguard our peatlands and the many benefits that healthy peatlands provide.” – Individual

“I agree about ending industrial peat extraction, but that rule seems to have been ignored while the peat hills in Shetland were cut to pieces building the wonderful "Green" windfarm. More carbon has been released there than anything I or any other small peat cutter could ever do in a thousand lives.” - Individual

Less commonly mentioned themes

Some respondents each mentioned the following themes:

• Respondents provided other suggestions for legislation, including to ensure Scottish peat is not exported; reducing peat use where it is non-essential; labelling requirement on growing media; and ensuring commercial extractors of peat offset the carbon emissions.
• Comments on the consultation, including that the consultation is biased or working toward an agenda. Growing Media Europe, Peat Alliance and International Peatland Society criticised the stance of the consultation and the quality of the Strategic Environmental Assessment, with the latter stating that their response to the consultation aimed to “correct the incorrect statements and inferences introduced by misrepresentation of the scientific facts and the lack of them.”
• Suggestions to engage further with stakeholders and community members, specifically regarding the lost cultural heritage of peat cutting.