Ending the sale of peat: consultation analysis

Conclusions

A range of individuals and stakeholders with detailed knowledge took part in the consultation, sharing their views on the use and labelling of peat-based products and the impact of ending the sale of peat in Scotland. Reflecting their experience and perspectives, this report provides a high-level summary of the consultation responses. For more detail, readers are encouraged to look to individual responses where permission was given for publication^[8].

At an overall level there was support for a ban on the sale of peat and peat-containing products in Scotland, with the majority of supporters agreeing it should be introduced within the next few years or as soon as possible. The environmental consequences of not preserving peatlands were commonly highlighted as a reason for this stance.

However, views were more nuanced depending on respondents’ use of peat. Among the large number of individual hobby gardeners who responded, there was broad support for ending the use of peat in amateur and retail horticulture. Many highlighted that they no longer use peat and actively seek peat-free alternatives, which they felt were readily available, and there was a widespread view that peat is not necessary for propagation.

This view was not unanimous, with some hobby gardeners and many commercial growers arguing that peat remains essential when growing certain species, in particular ericaceous plants, and in producing food crops such as potatoes and mushrooms. Several argued the quality of the alternatives is too poor to switch from peat to another growing medium.

Potential negative impacts on businesses were noted by many. These included the absence or limited supply of alternatives to peat, cost implications of researching, sourcing and trialling alternatives, and increased wastage and crop failure. For some, these challenges could pose a threat to the future of their business.

The potential negative consequences of a ban affecting the whisky industry were highlighted, as Scotch whisky has an important economic value and The Scotch Whisky Association estimates peat is commonly used in around 80% of Scotch whisky production. Impacts noted by respondents included the loss of sales, exports, the closure of distilleries, and the associated impact on local areas.

Many considered the proposals from the perspective of those using peat as a domestic fuel. While the consultation does not propose a ban on personal peat cutting, concerns were expressed that a ban on the sale of peat could lead to increased fuel poverty as alternatives to peat were considered to be too costly and less environmentally friendly.

While many, particularly hobby gardeners and environmental organisations, called for a ban on the sale of peat completely with no exemptions, many others advocated for exemptions for certain businesses or sectors given the reasons above.

In summary, among individual hobby gardeners there is broad support for introducing a ban on the sale of peat in Scotland. Among organisations, however, support was more limited and several negative impacts were anticipated. Professional growers expressed concerns about increased production costs and supply chain issues. Those involved in the whisky industry noted the importance of peat in production and the challenge of finding an alternative, highlighting the negative economic impact of a ban. Many argued that a ban on peat sales for domestic fuel use could exacerbate fuel poverty.

Summary of main findings

• Over two thirds (69%) stated they could stop using peat, with individuals more likely than organisations to say they could stop (74% compared to 43% respectively). The two main reasons why respondents felt they could not stop using peat were the limited availability of alternatives (60%) and the cost implications (56%).
• Overall, three fifths (62%) indicated that there should be a ban on all or most peat sales, with a further 12% supporting a ban on all horticultural peat sales.
• The highest support for a ban on all/most sales was among environmental organisations (80%) and hobby gardeners (76%), many of whom argued that the sale of peat should be banned completely, including in horticulture. Over half (58%) of professional gardeners / commercial growers favoured a ban on all or most sales, as did 50% of retail plant sales organisations.
• The most common year suggested for introducing a ban on the sale of peat for retail horticulture was 2023; around four fifths suggested a date by the end of 2025 at the latest. Organisations involved in professional horticulture preferred a later date of 2028-2030, assuming conditions were in place such as the availability of sufficient quantities of consistent, high-quality, environmentally friendly alternatives, ongoing research and development and further investment and support in machinery and technology innovations.
• Over four fifths (83%) of organisations indicated they would be impacted by a ban on the sale of peat; one quarter (26%) would be positively impacted, and 57% negatively impacted. All whisky organisations and 88% of growing media organisations anticipated negative impacts. Frequently mentioned adverse effects included supply chain issues and increased costs, challenges maintaining growing capacity and quality, and potential closure of businesses.
• The whisky industry was most likely to suggest an industry exemption, with the lack of an alternative to peat highlighted as a particular challenge for the industry. Other businesses for which exemptions were proposed included commercial growers currently more reliant on peat-based growing media, including agriculture and tree planting businesses, historic properties, botanical gardens and science agencies. Some respondents felt exempted businesses should be subject to additional regulations.
• Many argued that a ban on peat sales for fuel, limiting the availability of peat for domestic use, could exacerbate fuel poverty, particularly in rural and island communities.