Ending the sale of peat: consultation analysis

1. Introduction

Background

Scotland’s peatlands store around 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon, which equates to around 140 years’ worth of Scotland’s total net emissions in 2021 (41.6 mtCO2e).

In good condition, they are a significant natural carbon store and also benefit the environment and Scotland’s communities by supporting unique habitats and biodiversity, improving water quality and reducing downstream flood risk. Only when in a favourable condition can peatlands effectively deliver these benefits.

Peatland is considered central to Scotland’s future net-zero economy because of its capacity to store huge volumes of carbon. Conversely, peat extraction releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. Once disturbed, peatlands can take hundreds of years to re-form. If peatlands are in poor condition, the benefits are lost, and peatlands become a source of carbon emissions.

Peat is also evident in Scotland’s cultural heritage, particularly in rural and Highland communities, and contributes to important industries such as fuel and whisky. Peatland restoration plays a role in providing employment and supporting thriving rural economies.

Scotland’s fourth National Planning Framework has introduced a new national planning policy whereby proposals for new commercial peat extraction, including extensions to existing sites, are not supported except in very limited circumstances. In its 2021-22 Programme for Government, the Scottish Government committed to phasing out peat use in horticulture and is developing a policy on banning the sale of peat-related gardening products. While horticulture is the main user, all uses of peat are being considered in policy development. A ban on the sale of peat could be introduced in stages, beginning with retail to amateur gardeners, and widening to professional horticulture, potentially with some time-limited exemptions.

A public consultation ran from 17 February to 12 May 2023 to gather views on proposals for ending the sale of peat^[2]. The consultation contains 15 closed questions, of which 13 included space for respondents to leave an open comment, and a further 13 open questions. The questions covered respondents’ use of peat, their understanding of the labelling of horticultural products, how easy it will be for respondents to move away from using peat, and the positive and negative impact of banning the sale of peat.

Respondent profile

In total, 552 consultation responses were received^[3]. Almost all were submitted via the Citizen Space online consultation platform, with nine provided in an alternative format, for example, an email or PDF document, which was reviewed separately by analysts.

A total of 469 individuals and 83 organisations responded to the consultation. The largest number of respondents were individual hobby gardeners (337), but organisations included professional gardeners and commercial growers (29), environmental organisations (20), retail plant sales organisations (13), growing media producers (9) and the whisky industry (9). More information on the profile of respondents and their use of peat is provided in Chapter 2.

Analysis approach

The Lines Between was commissioned to provide a robust, independent analysis of the responses to the public consultation. The main purpose of analysis is not to quantify how many people held particular views, but to understand the full range of views expressed. This report provides a thematic analysis of responses using the approach outlined below.

Quantitative analysis

There were 15 closed consultation questions. As not all respondents answered each closed question, in most cases we present the number and percentage response among those who answered the question, broken down by individual and organisation responses. Figures may not add to 100% due to rounding.

A full breakdown of the number and percentage response to each question, including a breakdown by respondent type, can be found in Appendix A.

Qualitative analysis

The qualitative analysis outlines the key themes identified in responses to each question. The analyst team coded responses against a framework which was developed based on a review of the consultation questions and a sample of responses. Through an iterative coding process, new codes were created if additional themes emerged.

In a small number of instances where alternative format responses contained information that did not align with specific questions, analysts exercised judgement about the most relevant place to include this material for analysis purposes.

Where appropriate, quotes are included to illustrate key points and provide useful examples, insights and contextual information.

Reflecting the large number of people who took part, it is not possible to detail every response in this report; a few organisations shared lengthy submissions which reflect their specific subject matter expertise. These responses are referenced where relevant. Full responses to the consultation, where permission for publication was granted, can be found on the Scottish Government’s website^[4].

When reviewing the analysis in this report, we ask the reader to consider:

• Public consultation of this kind means anyone can express their views; individuals and organisations interested in the topic are more likely to respond than those without a direct or known interest. This self-selection means the views of respondents do not necessarily represent the views of the entire population.
• Some respondents repeatedly raised the same issues or suggestions at multiple questions, regardless of the specific focus of the question. These views are all included in this report, but analysts exercised judgement about the most relevant place to include each theme to avoid repetition.
• It is possible that some respondents have not fully read or engaged with the consultation paper, leading to answers which do not directly address the questions. These answers have been noted in the report.
• A few questions were targeted at certain groups, for example, growers or retailers. However, as questions were open to all, some respondents, including individuals, also answered the questions. Unless noted otherwise, we present the results based on all who answered each question rather than assume individuals were not able to answer from the perspective of a business experience, for which they have chosen not to share their full details or circumstances.
• A total of 55 respondents indicated that they use peat for domestic fuel. While some indicated they cut their own peat, others bought it, and a small number used both sources. The focus of this analysis is a ban on the sale of peat, rather than the use of peat. Those with cutting rights would not be affected by the proposals unless they offered their peat for sale. However, some did comment on fuel use amongst Crofters with cutting rights, and their views have been included in this report.

Weight of opinion

Throughout this report, the themes identified in responses are listed from most to least commonly mentioned.

Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions does not permit the quantification of results; an insightful view expressed by a very small number of participants is not given less weight than more general comments shared by a majority. However, to assist the reader in interpreting the findings, a framework is used to convey the most to least commonly identified themes in responses to each question:

• The most common / second most common theme; the most frequently identified.
• Many respondents; more than 20, another prevalent theme.
• Several respondents; 10-19, a recurring theme.
• Some respondents; 5-9, another theme.
• A few / a small number of respondents; <5, a less commonly mentioned theme.
• Two/one respondents; a singular comment or a view identified in two responses.