Ending the sale of peat: consultation analysis

4. Moving away from using peat

This section examines respondents’ opinions on the timescales for ending the sale of peat. It explores if and when respondents might be able to stop using peat and, in particular, the use of peat in horticulture, whether and when a ban should be introduced, and the possibility of exemptions.

This chapter focuses more on horticultural uses of peat, with potential considerations and impacts for specific groups, including the whisky industry and those using peat for fuel, presented in the following chapters.

11a. Could you or your company stop using peat now? Please provide any further explanation if required.

Base	n=	% Yes	% No
All answering	414	69	31
Individuals	351	74	26
Organisations	63	43	57
Individual - Hobby / Private Gardener	242	90	10
Individual - Peat extractor / fuel for domestic use	49	20	80
Individual – Other	47	47	53
Professional gardener / commercial grower	28	61	39
Organisation - eNGO	9	89	11
Organisation - Retail plant sales	12	42	58
Organisation - Growing Media	8	25	75
Organisation - Whisky	8	0	100
Organisation - Other	11	45	55

Among those answering Q11a, over two thirds (69%) stated they could stop using peat now, and 31% stated they could not. The ability to stop using peat was very mixed by respondent type. Individuals were far more likely than organisations to say they could stop (74% compared to 43% respectively). This was driven by the vast majority of hobby gardeners (90%) who could stop, whereas 80% of individuals who extract or buy peat for domestic fuel stated they could not stop.

Among organisations, most environmental organisations (89%) could stop, and retail plant sale organisations were relatively evenly split, with 42% able to stop and 58% unable. However, growing media and whisky organisations held firm views, with 75% of the former and all of the latter stating they could not stop peat use.

A further 187 respondents left a comment to explain their answer. One third of this group, mostly hobby gardeners, commented that they had already stopped using peat. While many did not elaborate, others explained that alternatives are available and that they have successfully used them. One professional grower indicated they had stopped using peat ‘as far as possible’. Some respondents across Q11a and Q11b, who were almost all hobby gardeners, noted they no longer bought or used peat in their own garden, but may still unknowingly buy plants grown or potted in growing media containing peat.

“I buy peat-free compost often and find it is just as good as compost with peat. It is also affordable, so there is no justification for peat to continue to be used that I can see.” – Individual

“We stopped using peat 20 years ago. There are plenty of alternatives, and they are increasing all of the time, including coir, for example, or local authority composting.” – Scotia Seeds

The remaining two thirds of open comments made at Q11a, most of whom had answered that they could not stop using peat, aligned with the comments and themes evident at Q11b. To avoid repetition, the qualitative analysis of both questions is presented below.

Almost all the respondents who answered ‘no’ at Q11a answered Q11b (124 out of 128). The reasons why they cannot stop using peat are outlined in the table below. Note that percentages may add to more than 100% as multiple answers were allowed.

11b. If you answered 'no' then why cannot you stop using peat now? Please specify if necessary.

Base	n=	% Availability of suitable alternatives	% Cost	% Performance	% Change in equipment / machinery	% Storage	% Other (please specify)
All answering	124	60	56	37	17	11	22
Individuals	88	51	60	28	15	9	19
Organisations	36	83	47	58	22	17	28
Individual - Hobby / Private Gardener	23	48	35	35	4	4	13
Individual - Peat extractor / fuel for domestic use	38	47	89	26	21	11	13
Individual – Other	24	58	38	25	13	13	38
Professional gardener / commercial grower	11	82	82	73	36	0	9
Organisation - eNGO	1	100	0	0	0	0	0
Organisation - Retail plant sales	7	100	43	71	14	29	14
Organisation - Growing Media	6	100	100	100	67	67	50
Organisation - Whisky	8	63	0	25	0	0	25
Organisation - Other	6	67	17	17	0	0	50

The two main reasons why respondents felt they could not stop using peat were the availability of alternatives (60%) and the cost implications (56%). These were the main considerations for most types of respondents, with the exception of environmental and whisky organisations who did not raise cost as an issue. The performance of peat compared to alternatives was also noted by one third (37%). It was also a key consideration alongside availability and cost for professional gardeners / commercial growers (73%) and growing media organisations (100%).

A total of 59 respondents provided an open comment in Q11b. The themes evident in these responses, as well as in comments from Q11a, are listed below.

Perceived importance of peat in some parts of professional horticulture

Many respondents stated they could not stop using peat as it is essential to their business or personal use, which varied by the type of respondent.

Several professional gardeners / commercial growers and growing media organisations stated that growing certain types of plants, vegetables, fruits, tubers, and mushrooms would only be possible with peat. Challenges in achieving consistent results and developing machinery to cater for peat-free media were particular issues mentioned.

This is explored more in the analysis of Q12 and Q13 below. In response to this question, the Growing Media Task Force (GMTF)^[5] noted that a ban on the sale of peat could have a severe impact on different growing industries and called for any ban to be “brought in on realistic and well thought through time scales, built upon sound evidence and analysis of the impacts such a ban will have on an environmentally and economically important sector including assessments of consumer choice & price, jobs and businesses viability”.

Others stated they could not continue their business as usual without peat. This included Northern Peat & Moss Ltd, which extracts peat moss commercially, and the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, which acknowledged they would be able to stop selling plants grown in peat-based compost, but would find it difficult to source the plants for the Garden.

Many highlighted that peat is essential to those using peat as fuel, and some noted the importance to the whisky industry; these are described in more detail in Chapters 6 and 7.

Challenges of using alternatives to peat

Many respondents outlined why it would be difficult to use alternatives to peat, mostly echoing the answer options in Q11b. Challenges included the higher cost of alternatives, that alternatives are typically poorer quality, the lack of availability and that alternatives could be less environmentally friendly.

“How the actual availability for the industry can be created in practice remains the subject of discussion. The political framework must be adapted accordingly. Obstacles to use in the substrate industry are, e.g. the hard-fought and empty raw materials market, the thermal utilization of biomass, the failure to meet the high-quality standards for raw materials in the production of growing media as well as transport routes and costs.” - Industrieverband Garten e.V.

Similarly, many responses to Q11c suggested respondents could only feasibly stop using peat when alternatives were effective and available.

The higher cost of peat alternatives was highlighted by several, primarily individual hobby gardeners and individuals using peat for fuel. A few growers noted that using alternatives could result in higher growing costs and the cost of potential wastage or loss of crops.

“We have already had issues with storing peat-free products over winter and having to dispose of product as it had rotted in the bags because of the higher green waste component. This cost the business money but could also happen to consumers at home storing bags over a longer period with inconsistent results if used after a period of time.” – Torwood Garden Centre

Several respondents, almost all hobby gardeners, professional growers or retail plant sales organisations, argued that the quality of the alternatives was too poor to switch from peat to another growing medium. Respondents frequently highlighted that they had tested peat-free composts but with limited success.

“I was asked in 2021 to attend the official NIAB peat-free compost trials for acid-loving plants. They tested the six leading brands, and in every case, the results were very bad. Plants were chlorotic, unsalable and certainly not commercially acceptable. Indeed to sell such a thing as peat-free ericaceous compost, which is not fit for purpose, should not be allowed, and as Scotland's leading rhododendron breeder and grower, we won't sell it.” - Glendoick Gardens Ltd & Glendoick garden centre

“I have been trying alternatives for three years and not found a viable product.” - Beechgrove Trees and Hedging

Various types of respondent noted concern about the availability of alternatives. Some respondents suggested that, regardless of the efficacy of any alternatives, the current production and supply chain of alternatives would be insufficient to meet the demand from commercial growers in the event of a ban.

“In 2020 we surveyed our regular plant suppliers to see if they were ready to supply us peat-free; we concluded that, in general, they were not, and that to become peat-free we would have to procure from much further afield. On balance, we decided that the environmental and financial cost, as well as the impacts on small and local Scottish horticultural businesses, were all too high to insist on our plant suppliers being peat-free without the wider support of government and industry.” – National Trust for Scotland

“Commercial plant propagation also relies heavily on peat as its main growing media. While there are some replacements available, the availability of such alternatives on the scale needed to grow food on a national scale is yet to be established.” – Soil Association Scotland

“When I find a suitable alternative. That depends on others bringing new products to market, me trialling them and then making any necessary adjustments to my production system. In reality, even if a new viable proctor was found in 2024, it would be 2026 or 2027 at the earliest by the time I could make a complete switch.” - Beechgrove Trees and Hedging

Some suggested that the alternative would need to be environmentally friendly, and a few requested that any transition includes enough time to adequately test the quality and supply chains for any alternative. For instance both the HTA and Growing Media Association suggested the time needed to be long enough to allow production to continue supply to current market levels but short enough to generate innovation and change. A commercial grower noted that the lifecycle of some of their plants is several years, so sufficient time is required to repeatedly test alternatives to fully understand their impact and then implement alternatives if they are successful

"It is therefore vital that plans for banning the sale of peat are accompanied by research and innovation in peat free product development and supply chains, to help make alternatives available and cost effective across the professional horticulture industry.” – Soil Association Scotland

11c. If not now, when could you feasibly stop using peat? Please indicate a date (year) when it is likely that you could stop using peat.

Never

Of the one fifth of respondents who answered Q11c, the most common theme was that they would never stop using peat or that it would be impossible to stop. Almost all were individuals, and most did not provide further details as to why. However, some of these comments were from those who cut their own peat and were clearly concerned about all use of peat being banned, rather than just the sale of peat.

“When I’m dead or unable to stagger to the peat hill.” – Individual

Availability of suitable alternatives

The availability of alternatives was the second most common theme, as outlined in the analysis of the previous question.

Specific years

Some respondents outlined when they could realistically stop using peat. A few each mentioned, in order of prevalence: between 2030 and 2050; by 2030; 2024; 2023; 2025; and 2026. Some other respondents argued the use of peat should stop immediately, while one of those suggesting a ban by 2030 noted that it should start sooner and be phased in.

“The REA supports the earliest possible date for a ban on the sale of peat generally. A reasonable baseline could be to align Scottish legislation with the ban on peat-based products in England and Wales; the earliest dates consulted on were 2024 for the retail sale of peat for the amateur horticulture sector and 2028 for the professional horticulture sector. The REA supports these dates.” - The Association for Renewable Energy and Clean Technology (REA)

“We would support a ban on bagged compost containing peat by the end of 2024… We believe it is more complex for plants…We believe it is more reasonable to aim for a phased reduction of plants grown in peat starting from 2028. However, this will only be viable if supported by financial support for research and development for horticultural producers to allow them to develop and bring to market viable alternatives to peat.” Scottish Retail Consortium

Some suggested it was impossible to predict a date, due to a lack of knowledge about when alternatives would be available. One retail plant sales organisation highlighted that their suppliers are unable to say when they can produce a peat free product.

“Our members will confidently be able to stop using peat when suitable alternatives are found. While setting a date for a ban will drive innovation to find alternatives, it could be disastrous if an alternative is not found by that date. At the current rate of progress, it is very difficult to estimate when this date would be.” – National Farmers Union Scotland

12. Are there any plants for which peat is vital for growth and you are not aware of suitable alternatives? If yes, please provide further information.

13. Is peat necessary for propagation (raising a plant from a seed / bulb / corm / tuber / vegetative cutting)? Please specify if necessary.

The themes in responses to Q12 and Q13 were very similar. We therefore present the quantitative results of Q13 below, followed by the qualitative analysis of both questions.

Base	n=	% Yes (please specify)	% No	% Sometimes (please specify)
All answering	357	10	83	8
Individuals	302	6	89	6
Organisations	55	31	51	18

Overall, four fifths of respondents (83%) stated that peat is unnecessary for propagation. Individuals were very clear in this view – 89% answered no, including 92% of hobby gardeners. However, organisations held more mixed views. Half (51%) answered no, with this view held by 82% of environmental organisations. A further third of organisations (31%) stated peat was necessary, and 18% indicated this was sometimes the case. Growing media organisations were mostly likely to state peat is necessary (63%), with retail plant sale organisations and professional gardeners/commercial growers also more likely than other groups to state peat is, or is sometimes, necessary.

Peat is not essential in retail horticulture

The most prevalent theme in open comments in response to Q12 and Q13 was that there are no plants for which peat is essential for growth or propagation, or that the respondent was unaware of any. This view was held by the majority of hobby gardeners who commented and a mix of other types of respondents, including some professional gardeners / commercial growers.

Many held this view because of the availability and quality of peat-free alternatives; some elaborated that compost can be made acidic using alternatives to peat such as bracken, coffee grounds and recycled paper or card. Other alternatives to peat were mentioned, including coconut coir, sand, perlite, grit and vermiculite. The Anaerobic Digestion and Bioresources Association (ADBA) referred to a study which demonstrated the efficacy of digestate-based growing media as a suitable alternative to peat for germination.

“Peat-free composts are widely available and have excellent results in many species. The quality of peat-free alternatives has improved over the years, covering the necessities of a growing market.” - Scottish Wildlife Trust

“We have carried successful peat-free trials on ericaceous plants and do not believe there are any plants that cannot be grown in peat-free compost.” – Kingfisher PLC

“There is plentiful evidence, over many years, that has demonstrated alternatives to peat can be used successfully during propagation.” - For Peat Sake

“We grow a wide diversity of plants in our gardens across Scotland and have not found any that we need to propagate that we cannot do so peat-free.” – National Trust for Scotland

A few gave examples of growers who have successfully transitioned to peat-free practices.

“Salix Plants grows peatland and wetland plants in peat-free compost. The plants that Salix Plants grow are the plants that are naturally found growing in pure peat in peat bogs.” - Individual

Perceived importance of peat in some parts of professional horticulture

However, this view was not unanimous; several different types of respondent highlighted plants which they deemed to require peat for successful and healthy growth, including:

• Ericaceous or acid-loving plants, such as azaleas, rhododendron and calluna.
• Fruit and vegetables, including potato mini-tubers, mushrooms and blueberries.
• Peatland or bog plants.
• Carnivorous plants.

A few noted that while peat is not vital for propagation, it makes the process easier and yields better success rates, meaning a ban on the commercial sale of peat may significantly impact businesses and the mass production of fruit and vegetables.

Some respondents recognised the availability of peat-free alternatives but maintained that peat yields the best results. Alternatives to peat were described as low-quality or unsuitable, particularly by commercial growers. For example, a few described them as too rough or too high in nutrients for small seeds to germinate. Others claimed that peat has greater water-holding capacity than alternatives.

“Our potato plantlets are grown by micropropagation; the plants require a good substrate for successful weaning.” - Gentech Propagation Ltd

“Alternatives I have tried are poor quality including what looks like recycled clothing material and wood chips which have not broken down sufficiently.” – Individual

There were calls for improvements to the quality of peat-free alternatives and consideration of their commercial viability and environmental impact before implementing a ban on the sale of peat. A few respondents called for more time for peat-free alternatives to be tested. For example, one commercial grower suggested that once they are presented with a possible alternative, it could take at least three years to assess whether it is a viable alternative and then a further three years to grow plants on a commercial scale. A growing media organisation cited a 30% mortality rate with seeds which are sensitive to lime when raised on peat free substrate.

The Growing Media Taskforce and HTA indicated that research was ongoing in many locations, hence longer being required for propagation purposes. One commercial grower stated it was currently undertaking trials into the use of peat-free propagation media and pre-made plugs from five different manufacturers. However, they cautioned these were at an early stage, and more time was required for repetition to ensure consistency was achieved.

HTA noted it would send the Scottish Government grower technical workshop feedback on propagation difficulties in plug production in peat-free substrates. A small number indicated the importance of plug and young plant imports for the horticulture industry leading the Scottish Retail Consortium to call for further research:

“Consideration should be given to the process involved to develop peat-free propagation techniques for all species and types of propagation. Also, an evaluation should be made of the ability of and willingness of the EU market to supply peat-free plugs and young plants to Scottish growers leading up to a complete ban on peat.” – Scottish Retail Consortium

Other comments

Some respondents suggested that even if there are plants for which peat is essential, they should not be grown or sold for horticultural purposes if it means peat is required.

A few stated they did not have the knowledge required to provide an accurate response to the question; one called for the Scottish Government to conduct its own horticultural research to get definitive answers.

14. Are there any instances where a % of peat should be permitted within a container-grown plant and what are those instances? Please explain further if necessary.

Base	n=	% A small percentage should be allowed to account for that which is transferred when replanting propagated material	% A percentage should be allowed, for a finite period of time, to facilitate transition away from peat for certain plants (please specify plant and %)	% None / No instances / 0%	% Other (please specify)
All answering	236	19	25	44	15
Individuals	193	20	24	48	10
Organisations	43	16	33	23	37
Individual - Hobby / Private Gardener	150	17	23	55	7
Individual - Peat extractor / fuel for domestic use	9	44	33	0	22
Individual - Other	24	25	25	25	25
Professional gardener / commercial grower	19	21	26	32	37
Organisation - eNGO	10	0	20	40	30
Organisation - Retail plant sales	12	25	33	17	33
Organisation - Growing Media	7	29	29	14	43
Organisation - Whisky	0	-	-	-	-
Organisation - Other	5	0	60	20	20

Just over two fifths of respondents answered the closed element of Q14, while one third left an open text comment. However, in the absence of a closed answer option for ‘no’, over half of the open comments argued that there are no instances where a % of peat should be permitted within a container-grown plant. For analysis purposes, we have recoded these open comments into a new answer option in the above table. Please also note that multiple answers could be selected, so some rows add to more than 100%.

Among those answering Q14, 44% were in the new category of no instances should be allowed. This option was more likely to be selected by individuals (48%), particularly hobby gardeners (55%). One fifth (19%) agreed that a small percentage should be allowed to account for that which is transferred when replanting propagated material, and one quarter (25%) agreed that a percentage should be allowed, for a finite period of time, to facilitate the transition away from peat for certain plants. The remaining 15% suggested another option, with growing media organisations (43%) and professional gardeners / commercial growers (37%) more likely to suggest another option.

Support for an outright ban

Many respondents reiterated their support for an outright ban on peat for environmental reasons. A few described the proposal to allow a percentage of peat within a container-grown plant as a ‘partial exception’ and raised concerns that this may be exploited or used as a loophole.

“There are no such instances. We need to withdraw from using horticultural peat in order to address the climate emergency and safeguard biodiversity.” - Individual

“Permit any percentage and it opens a loophole for continued destruction of Scotland’s peat lands.” - Individual

However, several respondents recognised the challenges that becoming peat-free poses to industrial growers, and therefore supported an approach whereby a small percentage of peat is allowed for now but phased out over time. Support for this approach was echoed by a few respondents who suggested that to avoid waste, any potted trees and shrubs which were propagated using peat before its use was prohibited should be allowed to mature and be sold within a defined period.

“A small percentage of peat transferring due to propagation should be tolerated as a contaminant but only for a short and finite period of time (e.g. one generation of plants).” – Common Weal

“A small percentage should be allowed to account for that which is transferred when replanting propagated material, but for a relatively short period of time to give a year or two for those propagating to move away from peat.” - Individual

There were calls for adequate time and support to be given to growers during the transition to peat-free growing.

Exemptions

Several respondents agreed that there are instances where a percentage of peat should be permitted within a container-grown plant; for example, some suggested that ornamental, ericaceous, vegetable, and mini-tuber producers should be allowed to use some peat to support successful propagation and growth. Views on the percentage which should be allowed varied. Each of the following levels were suggested by either one or two respondents: 1%; 5%; 10%; 25%; 40%; 50%; and 80%.

A few called for separate consideration for using reclaimed or sustainably sourced peat, and others suggested that a percentage of peat should be allowed until better peat-free alternatives are developed. Two advised that a percentage of peat should be allowed only for endangered plant species by botanical gardens that deal with their conservation.

As with other questions, some argued that there should be no limit or restrictions on the percentage/amount of peat permitted or the circumstances under which it is used.

The Growing Media Task Force cautioned against using percentages to define a limit, describing this approach as complicated and difficult to enforce. Instead, they suggested the premise should be to accept there will be peat in pots, whether due to legacy peat from green waste or from young plants raised in peat based media and then containerised.

15. Should there be a ban on the sale of peat and peat-containing products in Scotland? If yes, please explain anything that should be exempt

Base	n=	% Yes - for all/ most peat sales	% Yes - for all horticultural peat sales	% Yes - for retail horticultural peat sales	% Yes - for professional horticultural peat sales	% No
All answering	514	62	12	5	2	19
Individuals	448	65	11	4	2	18
Organisations	66	47	15	9	0	29
Individual - Hobby / Private Gardener	330	76	12	4	1	8
Individual - Peat extractor / fuel for domestic use	50	6	18	2	10	64
Individual – Other	56	45	5	5	5	39
Professional gardener / commercial grower	26	58	4	19	0	19
Organisation - eNGO	15	80	13	0	0	7
Organisation - Retail plant sales	12	50	17	0	0	33
Organisation - Growing Media	8	0	13	13	0	75
Organisation - Whisky	3	0	67	33	0	0
Organisation - Other	14	50	14	7	0	29

Responses to Q15 were very mixed. Overall, three fifths (62%) indicated that there should be a ban on all/most peat sales, with a further 12% supporting a ban on all horticultural peat sales. One in five (19%) disagreed. A majority of both individuals and organisations were in favour of some form of ban, though organisations were less firm in their views. 65% of individuals and 47% of organisations stated there should be a ban on all/most peat sales, with 18% and 29%, respectively, stating there should be no ban.

The highest support for a ban on all/most sales was among environmental organisations (80%) and hobby gardeners (76%). Over half (58%) of professional gardeners / commercial growers favoured this option, as did 50% of retail plant sales organisations.

Conversely, three quarters (75%) of growing media organisations opposed any ban, as did two thirds (64%) of individual peat extractors/fuel users. Among the three whisky organisations who answered Q15, there was support for a ban on horticultural uses only.

One third of respondents provided further comment in Q15. One third of comments called for a complete ban on selling peat and peat-containing products with no exemptions. Other respondents suggested specific exemptions, notably the whisky industry, traditional heating purposes and specific horticultural practices.

No exemptions

The most prevalent theme raised by many respondents was the need to ban the sale of peat completely and that there should be no exemptions. This was mostly supported by individual hobby gardeners and environmental organisations. The environmental consequences of not preserving peatlands were commonly highlighted as a reason for this stance, with some calling for further investment in peatland conservation. Others felt it was taking too long to stop using peat products, arguing that voluntary measures had helped somewhat but had been insufficient to drive the required reduction in peat use.

“Nothing should be exempt. There has been a 'voluntary' peat reduction code since 2010. Thirteen years is plenty of time to have transitioned. We should have stopped using peat years ago.” – Individual^[6]

“I don't like the idea of being forced to use peat-free composts, but we have been debating this for decades, and progress has been at snails' pace.” - Individual

Ban horticultural use of peat

Many respondents, mostly environmental organisations and individual hobby gardeners, argued there was no reason to exempt the use of peat in horticulture. Most called for a complete ban on peat use by both amateur gardeners and professional growers as they felt suitable alternatives were available.

“There should be no exemptions; no plants should be grown using peat. Almost all plants grow better without the inclusion of peat in their growing media. I achieve excellent germination using peat-free growing media. Salix nursery raises peatland plants in the UK, using peat-free growing media. arnivorous plants are also successfully grown peat-free by many UK growers.” – Peat Free April

“From our own experience we have established that there are suitable alternatives for plant propagation and growing-on and believe that there is no reason to continue using peat for horticultural purposes.” – National Trust for Scotland

It was argued that because alternatives are available for amateur gardeners, a ban could be introduced swiftly. However, some felt professional growers should have longer to transition. The IUCN UK Peatland Programme referred to their reports demonstrating viability across different horticulture areas^[fn][fn].

Some highlighted the potential impact of a ban on horticultural use, such as shifting the problem elsewhere. Notably, the potential for peat alternatives having a worse environmental impact than peat was mentioned through processing alternatives, longer transportation routes for alternatives, mining of mineral alternatives and more importation of products that used peat in their production, such as young plants grown in peat-based growing media.

“Restrictions and banning only show results inside the borders of EU, Scotland or UK but does not make the market and consumers all over the world to change. If there is a market, there will be producers – for the climate, it does not matter, if the extraction or the usage is taking place in EU, Scotland, UK or outside the borders. Globally the emissions will stay.” - Estonian Peat Association

A few felt some may attempt to circumvent the rules, such as if people could still buy peat in other parts of the UK or Europe or if producers made a non-exempt peat-based product, e.g. for heating, but really aimed at the horticulture market.

“And lots of people would circumvent it if peat was legal in England, with online purchases or trips to garden centres over the border.” – Professional Gardener

The NFU Scotland and Scotia Seeds highlighted that competitors using peat would have commercial advantages, from price or performance. One also felt parity should exist between small and large gardening retailers when applying any ban.

“Our competitors may be using peat to gain a commercial advantage from price or performance.” – Scotia Seeds

Cutting peat and use for fuel

Retaining peat use amongst crofters or people cutting their own peat was advocated by many. However, these comments typically suggested respondents’ misunderstanding that a ban on all peat use was proposed rather than a ban on selling peat only. More analysis of comments relating to the impact on those using peat for fuel is in Chapter 7.

Exemptions for certain businesses

Another recurring theme was exempting certain businesses or sectors from using peat if no other alternative existed. Many argued that the whisky industry should be exempt; this is addressed in Chapter 6.

Other businesses for which exemptions were proposed included historic properties, botanical gardens, science agencies and commercial growers currently more reliant on peat-based media, including agriculture and tree planting businesses. One argued it would be necessary to safeguard local jobs by exempting locally sourced peat extracted from existing designated sites.

Where such exemptions existed, some respondents felt businesses should be subject to additional regulations. The prevailing view was that companies should be:

• Minimising and monitoring their use of peat.
• Seeking to identify alternatives.
• Adopting carbon off-setting measures.
• Involved in peatland conservation and restoration.

“Specific exemptions could be created for sectors that still genuinely have no current alternative to peat. WWF Scotland recognises that some sectors that are relatively small users of peat may need justifiable exemptions, including the Scottish whisky industry. Sectors with no genuine alternative should be required to minimise peat use, invest in peatland restoration, and sustain a programme of research & development into sustainable alternatives. For the whisky industry this could include sourcing peat from hand-cut sites, maintaining sphagnum to reduce conservation impact and carbon loss, and halting the use of mechanically cut peat.” – WWF Scotland

“Only under very restricted licenses and strict controls should peat be used. A clear scientific or ecological purpose must be established for exemption and only to benefit the conservation and restoration of peat bogs. Exemptions must not be extended to the public or consumers.” - Buglife - The Invertebrate Conservation Trust

Some argued for a transition period for some businesses to give them time to source and trial alternatives. However, this transition should be time-limited with the aim of all businesses becoming peat-free in the long-term. Peat Free April suggested these could be matched with a peat-free expert for active, ongoing support and advice and to provide regular checks during the transition period.

“We recognise there may need to be some time-limited exemptions to allow for transition in specific areas, provided a clear plan of action is developed to enable a speedy end to these temporary uses. Achieving the urgent protection and recovery of Scotland’s peatlands will require a clear plan of action for any time-limited exemptions to a general peat sales ban. Any areas where an immediate end to peat use are considered worthy of an exemption must be examined to identify the hurdles and set out the means to address these.” - IUCN UK Peatland Programme

Exemptions for specific horticultural uses

Another theme raised by many was allowing peat for some horticulture uses – mostly propagation and growing challenging species or for conservation purposes. This was explored earlier in Q12 and Q13. A few suggested composts made with naturally filtrated or reclaimed peat should be excluded, such as Moorland Gold Compost.

Maintaining a voluntary approach

Some felt the shift towards peat-free should remain voluntary. A few highlighted data demonstrating reductions in peat use among amateurs and professionals or argued that a voluntary approach would protect the commercial viability of the UK horticultural sector.

17. In what year should peat sales stop for retail horticulture (amateur/hobby gardeners)?

18. In what year should peat sales stop for professional horticulture (growers/landscapers/producers/business to business horticultural enterprises)?

19. In what year should peat sales stop for other uses? You may break this down to different years for different parts of the sector.

The majority of responses to Q17, Q18 and Q19 were very brief, with most simply stating a year or a timescale as instructed. However, some additional comments were made, with significant overlap in the points raised under the three questions.

Bans on peat sales for retail horticulture

Q17 received 444 responses. The most common year suggested to introduce a ban on the sale of peat for retail horticulture was 2023; this deadline was proposed by over two fifths of those answering. Several other respondents felt a ban should be implemented immediately, and several more noted their preference was ‘as soon as possible’, though this does not necessarily mean in 2023.

Approximately three in ten suggested a ban on peat sales for retail horticulture should be introduced in 2024, with some adding that the end of 2024 should be the goal at the latest. Just under one in ten proposed 2025. This means that around four fifths of those answering suggested a date by the end of 2025 at the latest, including almost all hobby gardeners who responded to Q17

The remaining respondents either suggested dates later than 2025 or argued that the sale of peat should not be stopped. Among those arguing for a later date, many suggested 2025 and some 2026, with a few suggesting other years between 2027 and 2050.

Peat sales stopped for professional horticulture

Analysis of the 380 open text responses to Q18 indicates that respondents generally consider a ban on peat sales for professional horticulture to be less urgent than a ban on sales for retail purposes.

Approximately one quarter stated that a ban on sales of peat for professional horticulture should be introduced in 2023, lower than the two fifths who suggested this year for a ban on retail sales. A further quarter suggested that the ban should come into place in 2024. As with Q17, many respondents suggested ‘as soon as possible’, ‘now’ or ‘immediately’. Environmental organisations were more likely to seek an earlier start date:

“SCCS therefore supports the Scottish Government’s proposals to phase out the sale (and use) of peat for horticulture. Our only additional comment to this support would be that this phase out should be implemented as speedily as possible, and before the end of 2024 at the latest.” – Stop Climate Chaos Scotland

A larger proportion of respondents suggested a date later than 2025 for a ban on professional horticulture peat sales than that for retail purposes – approximately one in six compared to fewer than one in ten, respectively. Suggested years, each mentioned by at least some respondents, included 2026, 2027, 2028, 2030, and 2050.

Within professional horticulture, a date of around 2028-30 was considered more feasible, assuming conditions were in place such as the availability of sufficient quantities of consistent, quality environmentally-friendly alternatives, ongoing research and development and further investment and support in machinery and technology innovations.

One commercial grower suggested 2028 for professional users to stop using peat but, along with a few other producers, felt that propagation material (including imported plugs and liners) and ericaceous plants needed longer than this. A growing media manufacturer, for instance, indicated a minimum of 10% of peat would be necessary for quite some time into the future for such plants. The Growing Media Taskfrorce noted that around 15% of nurseries growing ornamentals have gone entirely peat-free, with most others on a journey to peat-free by 2030.

“Peat should remain available to the seed potato industry until suitable alternatives have been proven to be equal to peat in respect both of freedom from pests and diseases as well as the cost per tuber within the production process; currently approximately 50p per tuber!” - British Potato Trade Association

"Exemptions should be considered past any end date for difficult to produce species or categories such as ericaceous, carnivorous, houseplants, for propagation purposes or for conservation purposes.” – Horticultural Trade Association

The Scottish Retail Consortium also suggested 2028 as a suitable date for beginning to phase in a ban, whilst the Growing Media Association UK felt 2030 would be more suitable. However, both cautioned that these dates were only feasible if conditions were right, including the continuation of research and development and innovations in machinery. The former advocated for financial support to horticulture producers to allow them to develop and bring to market viable alternatives.

Stopping peat sales for other uses

As suggested by over one quarter of those answering, the most common year proposed for a ban on the sale of peat for other purposes was 2023, with just over one in five suggesting 2024 instead. Around one in seven respondents did not provide an exact date. Instead, many gave timescales like ‘as soon as possible’ for the ban, while several others preferred ‘now’ or ‘immediately’. Many others also suggested it should begin within two years or by 2025.

As with other questions, a range of other long-term deadlines were suggested by a few respondents, including: 2026, 2027, 2028, 2030, and 2050. Again, some stated that the sale of peat should not be banned at all

“Ideally, we would want to continue to use sustainably sourced peat. It's been used for over 200 years and we would want to continue in high-efficiency methods and continuing to support peatland restoration.” - Whyte and Mackay Ltd

A higher proportion of respondents objected to a ban on the sale of peat for ‘other’ uses than for professional or retail horticulture, with around one in six arguing there should never be such a ban. These respondents highlighted the importance of peat to heating in rural and island communities, as well as the use of peat in the whisky industry.

“Individuals who own or rent a peat bank and cut it by hand for domestic fuel are following a long tradition and have a minimal impact on peatland overall and should be allowed to continue.” - Individual

Other suggestions

Many respondents did not give a specific timeframe in their responses to each question. At Q18 several respondents instead advised that a ban in professional horticulture should be introduced once suitable alternatives become widely available; some respondents made the same argument in relation to a ban for other uses at Q19. Linked to this, in response to both Q18 and Q19, several respondents suggested that different timescales should be set for different sectors. However, very few elaborated on specific timescales for different sectors, and there was no pattern or consensus among those who did, except for a longer period or exemptions possibly being required by the whisky industry.

A few respondents at each question supported bans being introduced under timescales which align with England/the UK. Others asked for a phased approach to the ban on the sale of peat.

“A phased reduction of peat to a maximum 50 in any substrate mix should be brought to 2030.” – Dejex

“This should be a phased approach, with the smaller the scale of the use of peat being phased out from 2026 in increments of a year or two years to allow the supply chains to catch up with the demand for peat-free alternatives.” – Individual

“This should be phased out by consulting horticulturists and other specialists” – Individual