Moving swiftly on, the next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-13158, in the name of Rob Gibson, on peat extraction for horticulture. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises what it sees as the importance of peatlands for biodiversity, carbon and water and also toward cultural identity and in serving as historical archives and notes the view that stronger measures are needed to end the commercial extraction of peat for horticulture in Caithness, Sutherland and Ross and across the country to ensure the restoration and protection of peatlands and to help develop a long-term viable industry that can provide sustainable soil and growing conditions to help amateur and professional gardeners and growers.
12:35
Peatlands are a vital part of Scotland’s natural capital and provide some of our best open landscapes. They are important for biodiversity, carbon and water, for our cultural identity, and as historical archives. Globally and nationally, there are major commitments to the conservation and restoration of peatlands. As species champion for the rusty bog moss, which is one of the emblems of the health of peat bogs, I have a particular interest in my constituency in the issue.
One of the threats to peatlands is from the commercial mining of peat for the garden retail and the professional horticulture industry. In a chapter entitled “Peat as a manure”, a book called “Peat and its Products”, published in 1905, provides the testimony of
“A well-known horticulturist, Mr. James Kennedy, of the Nursery, Greenbrae, Dumfries”.
Writing to “The Scottish Peat Industries” in 1904, Mr Kennedy said:
“Considering the fact that it was on July 17th that the plants were potted, the photo taken on October 19th proves the success of the experiment, also that a good crop of tomatoes can be grown on peat in little over three months.”
He went on to say:
“I am so satisfied with the results already obtained that I intend to test peat as a good material for growing other plants as well as tomatoes and have every confidence of recommending it to other growers.”
That was more than a century ago, and the use of peat is a practice that has expanded over many decades.
At the same time, advances in the development of alternatives, including recycled materials, mean that Scotland could develop a long-term viable industry to provide sustainable soil conditioners and growing materials for amateur and professional gardeners. Clear Scottish targets for ending commercial peat extraction are needed, along with fiscal measures and incentives to support a vibrant market in sustainable horticultural products.
The global importance of peatlands, particularly for biodiversity and climate change, has been well established through the International Union for Conservation of Nature commission of inquiry on peatlands. Scotland is at the forefront of international policy to protect and restore peatlands, and it has a draft national peatland plan.
Lowland peatlands in Scotland are estimated to store 64 million tonnes of carbon in the peat, which is more than 18 years’ worth of Scotland’s transport emissions. Commercial extraction involves the stripping of peat-forming vegetation, drainage and extraction, which results in the stored carbon being released to the atmosphere. In the United Kingdom, consumption of peat leads to annual carbon dioxide emissions of more than 630,000 tonnes, at a cost to society of £32.5 million, arising from the climate change impact.
Commercial extraction—or mining—of peat for use as a growing media or soil conditioner has developed over the past 100 years, and peat has replaced traditional loam and leaf-mould-based composts. The industry mainly removes peat from lowland raised bogs because of their deep peat layer, developed over millennia, and their relative accessibility for heavy machinery. I have some raised bogs in my constituency, as will many other members.
No up-to-date records are kept by the Scottish Government on peat extraction planning permissions. Earlier data shows that, in 2003, there were 72 commercial extraction sites in Scotland, with 20 still active, 16 expired and 33 awaiting confirmations. Current Scottish planning policy permits commercial extraction only in areas suffering historical, significant damage as a result of human activity, and where the conservation value is low and restoration is impossible. Despite the fact that most damaged peatlands are capable of being restored, developers have continued to seek new permissions or extensions to existing permissions. A number of recent applications are currently being considered by local planning authorities.
Concerns about the impact of peat extraction on important wildlife habitats and the climate implications of removing ancient natural carbon stores have led to calls for a halt to peat extraction, which are supported by leading authorities such as the Royal Horticultural Society. There are now many alternatives to peat composts—including some high-profile brand names—which are already widely available in garden centres across the UK. Today, many peat-free composts work as effectively as peat ones. Much of the material used for peat replacement, such as commercial green compost, also contributes to recycling or uses by-products such as wood brash and other forestry waste. Advances are also being made in more technical applications such as the commercial growing of plants, with B&Q announcing a peat-free bedding plant range.
In 2010, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs set out proposals—now adopted by the UK Government—for retail supplies in England to be peat-free by 2020 and for commercial horticulture to end peat use by 2030, although advances in commercial peat-free products should mean that that target could be brought forward. Unfortunately, UK Government figures for 2012 show that 57 per cent of compost sold in the UK is still peat based and that there has been little reduction in peat use.
I ask the minister to consider establishing legal, binding targets for an end to peat in retail sales of growing media, soil conditioners and commercial horticulture; introducing carbon accounting for the use of peat-based products; immediately ending the procurement of peat by Government and public bodies; introducing fiscal measures to support the development of sustainable peat-free products; ensuring that the Scottish ministers are informed of all development planning proposals for commercial peat extraction; and biannual Scottish Government reporting on progress towards targets. If we are able to do that, we will have peat-free growing conditions that are good for plants, good for our climate and good for our natural environment.
12:42
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I extend my warm thanks to Rob Gibson for bringing the protection of the Scottish peatlands to the chamber’s attention today—not for the first time and, I am sure, not for the last. Today, the discussion is specifically on horticulture, as we heard in his comprehensive coverage of the issues.
Peatland preservation is tied in with numerous other environmental issues and is extremely important. Its inclusion in the Scottish Government’s second report on proposals and policies—RPP2—was a significant step in the right direction, promising significantly more protection and conservation by 2027.
Sphagnum moss, often the main component of a peatland bog on the surface, is one of nature’s heroes. It is the living surface of the bog, with a spongy quality enabling it to soak up and filter eight times its own weight in water, preserving the materials below. That makes it a natural barrier against flooding and improves the water quality of an area.
The biodiversity of peatlands must also be celebrated. Braehead moss, near where I stay, is a raised peat bog in South Scotland. It is a fantastic example of a complex ecosystem with interesting species such as the round-leaved sundew—a carnivorous plant. A number of birds with RSPB red status can be spotted there, including the dunlin and the yellowhammer. Members may have seen the black egg sculpture in the Parliament garden, which symbolises the pink-footed goose—another resident of Braehead moss in the winter.
Peatlands provide a quiet and precious habitat for some of Scotland’s most interesting and often endangered species, such as the moss that Rob Gibson—our Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee convener—champions. One of the most damning arguments against the commercial extraction of peat lies in the enormous stores of carbon that are held in these bogs. Peatlands account for 3 per cent of the world’s surface but hold 30 per cent of all soil carbon. When damaged or drained, those substantial carbon stores are liable to oxidise and release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It is estimated that, in part due to the overuse of peat in horticulture, 2 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide are released across the world each year. That is an enormous, dangerous and disproportionate volume.
The RPP2 commitment to peatland restoration is encouraging. Peatlands are living systems and should be treated with respect. UK amateur gardeners account for 66 per cent of extracted peat, so each of us as individuals can have a real impact on the issue. The Royal Horticultural Society offers excellent advice on the variety of reasonably priced and effective alternatives that are available to purchase and which would help sustainable agriculture. Between 2007 and 2009, peat use fell by only 1.63 per cent in the UK. A change in attitude is required.
As an eco-schools co-ordinator, I took pupils out on to Braehead moss to explore and learn. They created a joyous tapestry that tells the story of the moss and which now hangs in the school entrance. Educating children and communities is vital for a step change in both professional and amateur gardening practices and to ensure that those fascinating landscapes are not forgotten.
The word “bog” does not conjure up the most inspiring of images, but peat bogs are unique and precious. They are a product of history that develop only millimetres each year. That, combined with their acidic conditions, offers unrivalled preservative qualities and has led to the discovery of bog bodies—perfectly preserved people, such as the 250-year-old Gunnister man, who was found in Shetland. More recently, sphagnum moss was sent south from Scotland to be used in antiseptic wound dressings in the first and second world wars.
With plentiful alternatives, the use of peat in horticulture seems to me to be entirely nonsensical. I encourage the Scottish Government to stop the procurement of peat, as a signal to the public and as the convener of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee has highlighted, and I ask it to consider the recommendations that he highlighted, which are supported by the Scottish Wildlife Trust and the RSPB. Surely the time has come to set targets for an end to peat extraction for retail and commercial horticulture.
12:47
I congratulate the champion of the rusty bog moss on securing this debate, and I thank my intern, Shane O’Brien, who did some research for me and provided me with my speaking notes—I did not just conform to stereotypes and ask him to do that because he is from Ireland and I thought that there would be a natural fit.
As others have said, peat is a commodity that we need to protect, particularly in Scotland, where we have vast rural areas that are covered by it. We have about 10 per cent of the world’s blanket bog. With raised bog, those are important parts of our ecosystems.
In global terms, peat is a somewhat rare commodity, which is one of the particular reasons why we should protect it. Others have referred to the very important climate mitigation benefits that are derived from it. Scotland has a special place because of our proportion of peat.
I am a little uncertain—perhaps the minister can clarify this for me—whether the calculation of our carbon impact fully takes account of the contribution that peat makes to the mitigation of the effects of human activity on our climate. That might be a further incentive for us to look closely at the subject.
Originally, peat was essentially a domestic heating product. It is now not a particularly common one. Indeed, I am not aware whether a single house in Scotland is solely reliant on peat for its warmth, but I may find that small numbers of houses are. We can certainly accept that the numbers are not significant. In doing his research for me, Shane O’Brien found that there were certainly none of those on Uist. I am not quite sure why he found that, but he did.
Peat was, of course, a comparatively cheap and available fuel. It was on the doorsteps of many people in parts of Scotland. Along with other primary sources of fuel such as coal, oil and electricity, peat was at one time among our most important fuel sources.
The method of producing peat was through the back-breaking task of cutting out the peat from the peat banks, latterly by using a machine taking smaller slabs as tractors dragged it across, increasing the exploitation and the damage that we are doing to our peat bogs.
In this debate, I wanted to focus on horticultural peat and not the extraction of peat for heating homes, because that is a small part of the picture, while extraction for horticulture is a very large industry.
The member is correct to focus on that. It is important that we recognise that peat is used for a variety of purposes. The debate focuses on horticultural peat, which we continue to use long after we have passed on from using peat as a fuel.
The bottom line is that peat is valuable to us. It has effects on our everyday lives. When we take it out for horticulture produce, we diminish its ability to contribute in other areas of our lives. Claudia Beamish referred to its filtering effects and benefits to the water supply. Those of us who enjoy the occasional malt whisky particularly benefit from the use of a small amount of peat in that industry.
More interestingly, the existence of peat bogs touches significantly on natural ways of mitigating the effects of flooding. When we extract peat for horticulture, it has much wider effects than perhaps many of our urban dwellers are likely to be aware of. They will participate in recreational use of peatlands, such as angling and walking, for a uniquely Scottish experience.
I hope that the Government will look to reduce the use of peat in compost. The damaging impacts need to be reduced. We need to substitute peat in our horticultural products. I give all my support to the motion that Rob Gibson has brought to us today.
12:52
I draw members’ attention to my agricultural interests in the register of members’ interests and I, too, congratulate Rob Gibson on securing the debate.
Scotland holds a high proportion of the European and world blanket bog resource of peat—it has about 15 per cent of the global total for the habitat. North-west Scotland has the highest percentage cover of peatland of anywhere in Europe. It is an internationally important resource that we must cherish and make the most of. I see that the flow country has been added to the tentative list for United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization world heritage site status.
As Rob Gibson said, our peatlands are critical in terms of biodiversity, carbon and water. Their value as a carbon sink is massive; Scottish peats are estimated to hold about 1,620 megatonnes of carbon. They can play a part in meeting our climate change and emission-reduction targets, because peatlands in good condition can sequester up to an additional 2.8 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per hectare per year. We have consistently supported efforts to restore damaged peatlands and, while recognising the efforts that are being made on peatland restoration, we believe that there is significant potential to extend the work.
The peatlands support much biodiversity—much more than conifer plantations, many of which are planted on areas of peat that were open peatland before. They also support low-level grazing of sheep and deer, which produces income as well.
Scottish planning policy confirms that planning authorities should seek to protect areas of peatland and states that extraction of peat for horticulture is
“only acceptable in areas of degraded peatland which has been significantly damaged by human activity and where the conservation value is low and restoration is not possible.”
That planning policy must be adhered to and enforced.
We recognise the Scottish Government’s stated willingness to support market-led initiatives to reduce the demand for and use of peat in horticulture and we would encourage greater efforts on that as the UK seeks to phase out the use of peat in the horticultural sector by 2030 at the latest.
We should recognise the progress that has been made to date—for example, B&Q is to be commended for rooting its bedding plants in virtually peat-free compost—but we should be aware that further research and development is required to identify appropriate cost-effective and quality alternatives to peat and to give users confidence that those alternatives will meet their needs at minimal risk to their businesses.
Another issue that we need to consider is ensuring that there is a level playing field across Europe. We need to gain European and international consensus on a strategy for peat use reduction. I believe that the significance of peat should have been included when the land classification parcels were drawn up in the new common agricultural policy—I have referred to that many times in the past.
If those areas of peatland are so important, surely they should draw down a level of subsidy that ensures that land managers will keep them in their present condition or try to improve them. The fact is that most peatland attracts a payment of €10 per hectare, whereas arable land attracts €220—that is 22 times as much. That may be fair for food production but it does not take into account the public good that peatland produces.
Although it is too late for this round of CAP negotiations, I feel that any new round should include a figure that takes in the public good element that farmers with peat on their ground produce for everybody else. A recognition of the importance of such land would make an enormous difference to hill farmers in the Highlands and Islands, who have difficulty in sustaining their livelihoods on the payments that are received under the CAP.
I call for a derogation for crofters who still burn peat, which Rob Gibson mentioned. Someone recently said to me, “You get four heats from burning peat: first, when you cut it; second, when you turn it; third, when you carry it home; and fourth, when you finally burn it.” Home consumption of peat is a tradition that does little harm, and it would be sad to lose the famed peat reek that is remembered in the traditional poetry and songs of Highlands and Islands culture. Equally, the peat-smoked salmon and sea trout from the Hebridean Smokehouse in North Uist and other smokehouses are delicious and I thoroughly recommend them.
12:56
I thank Rob Gibson for securing a debate on what is, as Claudia Beamish acknowledged, an extremely important subject. Outwith we peatland anoraks—I acknowledge that my friend Mr Gibson is the anoraks’ anorak in this area—the majority of people might not understand the pressing need to better protect our peatlands.
Scotland is home to around 60 per cent—covering around 1.9 million hectares—of the UK’s peatlands, which represent our most significant carbon store. Scottish peatlands hold almost 25 times the amount of carbon that is stored by all other UK vegetation. To put that in perspective, the carbon stored in Scotland’s peatlands is equivalent to 180 years of our current carbon emissions.
It is the carbon below the bogs’ surface that is so important and which must be protected. Releasing just 1.6 per cent of those carbon stores would be equivalent to the total annual human carbon emissions from Scotland. Ensuring that those carbon stores are secure is vital to reduce the effects of climate change.
Of course, carbon storage is not the only benefit from those vast peatlands, because their relationship with water is also beneficial, as is their relationship with vegetation and wildlife. Raised bogs support many rare and declining species, such as bog rosemary, cranberry and the large heath butterfly, and blanket bogs are known for their multiple moorland breeding birds.
Unfortunately, there are a number of threats to those valued areas, such as burning, drainage, overgrazing and commercial peat extraction, to name but a few. Those threats are making a huge dent in our peat soils. It is estimated that 70 per cent of Scotland’s blanket bogs and up to 90 per cent of the raised bogs have been negatively affected and would benefit from restoration. Scotland’s area of intact raised bog has declined from 28,000 hectares to 2,500 hectares, and it is recognised that commercial peat extraction for horticulture is one of the main reasons for that.
I agree that that level of extraction cannot continue and that the already damaged areas must be restored, but some understanding must be shown towards industries that rely on peat for agricultural purposes and which are taking voluntary steps to reduce usage. One of the industries that use extracted peat is the soft fruits sector. For example, Angus Growers, which is based in my constituency, is a group of 19 soft fruit producers that use peat to produce numerous fruits, but particularly strawberries and raspberries. Peat’s specific qualities enable soft fruits and vegetables to be produced in Scotland in volumes and for values that would be otherwise impossible. The peat has worked particularly well for the strawberry and raspberry crops because of its stability, predictability and cheapness. The peat’s ability to buffer water and nutrients allows for a larger margin of error and easier management when growing fruit.
Alternatives exist, but the best alternative—coir—costs about 30 per cent more and is imported from Sri Lanka. I am told that, since funding for half of the difference in cost has been available to producer organisations through the fresh fruit and vegetable scheme, Angus Growers has begun using coir rather than peat. In 2014, it reduced its use of peat by almost 8,000m3, which is a drop of 40 per cent. All its new raspberries and blackberries are planted in pots with coir, not peat, and about 25 per cent of its strawberries were planted in coir this year.
However, those advances have not been without difficulties. Growing techniques and crop nutrition have had to be adapted to maintain production, which has been possible only with Angus Growers’ in-house team of agronomists carrying out many trials across many crops. Of course, that takes time.
Although those advances are impressive and replication of them should be encouraged across the country, we should acknowledge that other groups do not have the same resources and will not be able to adapt as quickly as Angus Growers has. That is why a managed move from peat to alternative substrates such as coir is necessary. We cannot simply stop peat extraction immediately—I accept that that is not what Mr Gibson seeks.
Angus Growers’ turnover from Scottish fruit alone last year was £31 million, which represents a huge amount of money going into Scotland’s economy. Since incentives such as the fresh fruit and vegetable scheme have been introduced, a change has been made in how soft fruit is grown. That should be recognised.
I strongly agree that commercial peat extraction must come to an end to protect peatlands and allow them to thrive as they should. However, that should not be done in an abrupt way that is to the obvious detriment of specific agricultural industries and our hugely successful food and drink sector.
13:01
Like others, I congratulate Rob Gibson on securing the debate, which recognises the importance of Scotland’s peatlands and their need for protection. It is the second time this month that we have had a members’ business debate on peatland issues. That demonstrates how much we all value the recognition of an important component of Scotland’s soils.
As I indicated during Christian Allard’s debate on 5 May on north-east mosses, the recognition of our soils is timely this year, which is the United Nations year of soils. Scotland holds an important share of the global peatland resource.
I am conscious that, in celebrating peatlands, I will repeat aspects of what I said on 5 May. However, those aspects are relevant and contextual to today’s discussions, which focus on the commercial extraction of peat for horticultural use.
The Scottish Government has long recognised the importance of peatlands. Last year, with Scottish Natural Heritage, we consulted on a national peatland plan, which sets out the benefits of peat and peatland habitats and highlights the actions that are being and can be taken to support land managers to protect, manage and, where needed, restore peatlands. Building on that consultation, I look forward to launching the finalised plan in the near future.
Currently, 63 per cent of blanket bog, 60 per cent of raised bog and 72 per cent of fen, marsh and swamp features on designated sites are assessed as being in favourable condition, although others are not. Action is needed to improve those peatlands and maximise their benefits and contribution to Scotland. That is why we are highlighting work to restore peatlands under our priority projects for action in the biodiversity route map to 2020, which will be published soon.
For many decisions, potential trade-offs between different land uses need to be considered, and our land use strategy, which is due to be refreshed by next March, is an important articulation of that. Many of those trade-offs relate to sensible and appropriate questions about which use is the most appropriate—for example, forestry, agriculture or conservation management. Each use is appropriate in the right area and the right context and should be seen as a relevant choice.
The debate has highlighted the need to protect the peatlands that we have, and we have focused on the themes of protecting and managing well. I welcome that, because much recent consideration has been about restoration opportunities. Those are important, of course, but they are reactive to historical actions and we are well placed to learn from those lessons.
Extracting peat for horticultural use is different. The Scottish Government agrees that there are better sources for achieving horticultural outcomes, which I appreciate is of value to gardeners and horticulturists across Scotland. We are committed to working with others to develop alternative commercial products that deliver what is needed.
Tomorrow, I will visit the gardening Scotland event, where I expect to see such alternative products. As Rob Gibson said, new technology provides good and effective alternatives to peat.
Where it has been able to, the Scottish Government has taken appropriate action. Scotland’s national planning framework 3 recognises the important habitat and carbon-store roles of peatlands. Scottish planning policy states that development plans should protect areas of peatland, but it also establishes a policy approach for situations in which commercial extraction of peat might occur. That is a proportionate approach that recognises that there may be a wish for some peat extraction and provides direction on the limited circumstances in which that might be permitted. Planning authorities need to consider applications for peat extraction against the relevant development plan policies and parts of Scottish planning policy and the national planning framework 3.
The Scottish Government believes that there are better sources of compost than peat. I take the point that Jamie McGrigor made about the importance of peat extraction by crofting communities. We recognise that that is a cultural and traditional activity that reflects the absence of alternatives such as wood and coal in many of our remote rural communities. That is a practical point.
From the environmental perspective, most extraction for horticulture comes from our limited resource of lowland raised bogs whereas, as Jamie McGrigor said, crofters cut their peats on the much more extensive and widespread blanket bogs. I am advised that, where good practice is employed, such as replacing turf and ensuring that cut-over areas are kept wet, that is much more sustainable than commercial extraction over large areas.
I thank Rob Gibson for bringing this useful debate to the Parliament. I agree with all the members who have highlighted the value that our peatlands provide and the need to protect them, both of which are reflected in our planning policy.
I also agree about the need to avoid using peat for things such as horticulture when alternatives exist. Ending that use is not a Scottish challenge; it is a global one, and the Scottish Government is committed to playing its part. The Government is committed to supporting the phasing out of peat in horticulture. We will use the finalised peatland plan to press that agenda further forward, and I will certainly carefully consider the further recommendations that Rob Gibson made.
13:07 Meeting suspended.Previous
First Minister’s Question Time