And what about peat? EU eco-labels under revision.

by Hans Joosten

In 2001 the European Union revised the criteria for eco-labelling of soil improvers and growing media (SI & GM). The initial ideas of the preparatory commission included the proposal to give an eco-label to growing media that – next to 30% of eco-labelled soil improver – could contain up to 70% of peat.

IMCG successfully argued against this risky proposal with an extensive position paper (see IMCG Newsletter 2001/1 or www.imcg.net/docum/ ecolabel.htm). The final EU decision (2001/688/EC) was to NOT allow peat in any eco-labelled growing media and soil improvers. The relevant decision text stated:

“A product shall only be considered for the award of an eco-label if its organic matter content is derived from the processing and/or re-use of waste materials.”

“Products shall not contain peat or any products derived from peat.”

These revised criteria were decided to be valid from 28 August 2001 until 27 August 2006.

The Stichting Milieukeur (the Dutch Competent Body for the European Eco-label) has now been commissioned to revise the criteria again, including a reassessment of the possible use of peat. Stichting Milieukeur appointed SV&A sustainability consultants (the Netherlands) to perform the necessary research activities and process support. An Ad Hoc Working Group will meet for the first time on March 15, 2005. SV&A has prepared an excellent background document for that meeting (Aarts 2005), from which much factual information in this paper is derived.

This paper presents an overview of current issues in order to stimulate within IMCG the discussion on the eco-labelling of peat products.

The European Eco-label

The European Eco-label aims to achieve significant environmental improvements by developing and promoting criteria that push the market forward and that minimise the environmental impacts of a wide range of products and services over their whole life-cycle. To ensure the credibility of the award these criteria should be environmentally strong; based on good science (including the precautionary principle), developed transparently and cost-effectively (with the participation of stakeholders), and reasonably attainable.

The European Eco-label encourages manufacturers, retailers, and providers to apply for the award by publicising their participation in the scheme. It promotes the availability of and information about eco-labelled products and wants to improve consumer awareness and behaviour regarding the environmentally optimal use of products and services.

Soil improvers

Soil improvers are defined as “materials to be added to the soil in situ primarily to maintain or improve its physical properties, and which may improve its chemical and/or biological properties or activity”. In practise soil improvers are primarily applied to improve the physical structure by adding stable organic matter to the soil.

The two main waste streams of organic matter are bio-/green waste and sewage sludge.

Sewage sludge

Sewage sludge is a by-product from sewage plants treating domestic or urban waste waters, septic tanks etc.. The progressive implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 91/271/EEC in all EU Member States has increased the quantities of sewage sludge from 5.5 million tons of dry matter in 1992 to nearly 9 million tons by the end of 2005. Around 45% is currently recycled to agricultural land, 18% is landfilled, and 17% is incinerated. Uncertainties over possible risks for human health and for the environment still hamper the expansion of sludge recycling.

Sewage sludge is currently not admitted directly in eco-labelled soil improvers, but can be included after composting.

Organic waste and composts

In the former EU15 countries, around 35% of bio- and green waste is separately collected, equalling 17 million tons out of the estimated total recoverable potential of 49 million tons. This results in a compost production of around 9 million tons. The total annual amount of bio- and green waste in the new EU25 is estimated to be nearly 60 million tons. This indicates that there is a potential of approximately 30 million tons of compost production in the current EU.

When looking at organic waste reprocessing, Europe can be divided into 5 clusters:

-                     in Austria, Belgium (Flanders), Germany, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Italy, Spain (Catalonia), Sweden, and the Netherlands, separate collection and composting of organic waste is countrywide implemented. These countries cover around 80% of all organic waste currently reprocessed in the EU;

-                     Denmark, UK, and Norway have developed a framework for separate collection and composting, which they are now gradually implementing;

-                     in Finland and France, separate collection, especially in municipal organic waste, is still at a starting point;

-                     in Spain, Greece, Ireland, and Portugal, separate collection and composting are still very rare;

-                     for the ten new member states, statistical data for a sound overview are not yet available.

In the past the European Commission tended to favour mandatory separate collection of biowaste throughout the EU by 2010. Mid 2004, it was decided not to produce a separate Biowaste Directive, but to include the subject of separate collection of biodegradable waste and composting in the Soils Strategy, which is still being developed.

Most composts are applied in low price segments such as agriculture. Relatively low volumes find applications in the production of high quality topsoils or as constituent in growing media (Table 1).

Table 1: Compost sales and market shares in selected EU countries in 1000 tons (1999 - 2001). After Aarts 2005.

Quality control and certification are most important to the market acceptance of composts. At present, all countries with a high level of organic waste recovery have established extensive quality management systems, covering 70 % of the source separated organic waste in Europe. These standards usually exceed the requirements contained by the current European Eco-label for SI & GM.

Since the last revision of the Eco-label in 2001, the number of licence holders of eco-labelled soil improvers has grown from 5 to 17. The 17 producers (13 French, and each 1 in Denmark, Italy, Spain, and Belgium) manufacture 20 eco-labelled products with a total sales volume of 140.000 tons in 2003. The broadening of scope to professional applications has contributed considerably to the volume growth, as the professional market for soil improvers is by far bigger than the hobby market.

Growing media

Growing media are materials, other than soils in-situ, in which plants are grown. They provide a physical structure in which plants can root. In addition they facilitate the water-gas system in the root environment (including the uptake of nutrients and trace elements). Nutrients and trace elements can be an intrinsic part of the growing medium, but in most cases they are applied separately. Growing media are used in the professional and the hobby market.

In the professional market, growing media are applied on a large scale in greenhouse and container cultures for soil-less food production (mainly greenhouse tomato, cucumber, sweet pepper, and strawberry) and the production of cut flowers and pot plants. In comparison to in-soil cropping, growing media can have substantial benefits: no need for soil decontamination, better utilization of nutrients, lower energy consumption, and higher yields. These benefits contribute to an ongoing increase in soil-less horticulture throughout Europe.

In the hobby market, growing media are better known as potting soil, used in- and outdoors to grow pot plants.

The total volume of growing media consumed in the EU (hobby and professional) is estimated to be some 45 million m³ (or 15 million tons) annually. Hobby applications are estimated to account for approximately 60% of this volume (cf. Table 2). or many crops, soil-less horticulture has become standard practice in Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Belgium, and to a lesser extent also in France and Germany. Southern Europe is a growth market due to its vast areas of greenhouse cropping. The volumes of growing media used in Southern Europe have risen considerably over the last years (cf. Joosten 1995).

Large variations exist between countries in the consumption of growing media per capita (Fig. 1) because of differences in the size and structure of professional horticulture (cf. the Netherlands with its large area of soil-less horticulture) and by differences in consumer behaviour (as reflected by the high consumption of potting soil in the Scandinavian countries and the UK [GB]).

Fig. 1: The volumes of growing media used per capita per year in various EU countries (period 1999 – 2001; after Aarts 2005 based on data of the IPS Horticultural Peat Working Group).

Table 2: Vegetable horticulture and substrate consumption in the EU. After Aarts 2005.

Worldwide, peat based growing media cover some 85 - 90% of the market. Other materials applied are composts, synthetics, and a wide range of natural organic products and minerals.

Many growing media are blends, where the mix of materials is determined by the required end-product characteristics and the availability and price of the raw materials. For composts, various studies indicate maximum feasible levels in growing media of some 20 - 40 %vol., but higher percentages have been reported as well.

So far, no producers of growing media have applied for the EU Eco-label.

Quality labels

In the case of growing media and soil improvers, lacking product quality easily leads to damage to the plants or crops. For this reason a variety of quality labels for growing media have been developed, including CAS (France) and BECAS (Belgium), both assuring that legal requirements are met, RAL/GGS (Germany and German speaking countries) with additional requirements regarding the end product, RHP (Netherlands), focusing on the entire production chain (including the retrieval and transport of raw material), and the recently introduced KIWA label (Netherlands), primarily focussing on mineral growing media. In the countries mentioned above the market share of certified professional products is high (60 - 70%). In the hobby market, the market share of certified products is much lower (30%). Also in countries without a ‘national’ quality mark, the market share of certified products is very low. In view of the ongoing internationalisation and concentration in the sector, this market share is expected to grow in the coming years.

In the Netherlands, RHP recently carried out a research project to investigate the options to upgrade biomass for large-scale application in growing media. The main hurdle was the necessary reduction in salt levels. An extensive survey of existing and expected techniques did not identify feasible solutions offering a promising perspective in terms of costs and reliability.

The 2001 IMCG position

For several years the peat industry has been lobbying the EU to allow peat in eco-labelled soil improvers and growing media. In its interventions in the EU eco-label debate in 2001, IMCG presented the following arguments against such incorporation:

-                     Allowing peat into eco-labelled products will destroy the credibility of the EU eco-label as peat is not a renewable resource.

-                     Peat must be considered as non-renewable, because the time needed for its renewal exceeds any reasonable economic and cultural time frame (see also the IMCG Resolution for EU, UN, and GEF in IMCG Newsletter 2004/4).

-                     Peat extraction is not sustainable. Peat losses from human exploitation are currently 2 – 3 times larger than global peat accumulation. The annual consumption and losses of peat in the EU are larger than its annual accumulation in entire Europe. Most countries from which peat is imported into the EU have a negative peat budget, including all Baltic states.

-                     Peat extraction destroys various ecological and environmental functions of the peatlands virtually irreversibly.

-                     The slightly humified Sphagnum peat preferably used for growing media is restricted to raised bogs, that only occur in specific climatic and biogeographic regions. Within the EU, this peatland type has become near to extinct and is consequently a priority habitat in the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEG). Outside the EU the type is under threath.

-                     The eco-labelling of non-sustainably extracted peat is in conflict with many international Conventions, Directives, and recommendations.

-                     The condition that the peat used in eco-labelled GM “shall come from peatlands where protocols of good environmental management and final restoration practices are applied (i.e. the fulfilment of national and/or international conservation standards)” can not be met, because such protocols do not exist and can not expected to become available before 2006.

-                     An eco-label will hardly influence the volume of composts used in professional horticulture, because industry cannot take the risk of using suboptimal materials as long as better alternatives are cheaply available.

-                     Eco-labelling may lead to a larger use of peat as eco-labelled growing media with peat may penetrate markets that currently use a much larger share of composts.

-                     The eco-labelling of growing media that contain fossil peat will hinder the development of growing media based on re-used organic wastes as the failing properties of current composts can easily be corrected by adding considerable amounts of fossil peat.

-                     The challenge to develop renewable alternatives for peat will decrease as eco-labelled fossil peat –mixed with only 30% of compost – will already have the image of environment-friendliness, sustainability, and biodiversity protectiveness, and therefore have the same market-advantages as products that rightfully deserve the eco-label.

-                     The efforts that already eco-labelled companies have made in the past years to produce and to promote peat-free products will have been in vain.

-                     The introduction of a new discredited European eco-label will also discredit other environmental labels.

We concluded: “As eco-labelling of Soil Improvers and Growing Media containing peat will significantly miscredit eco-labelling, we ask you to refrain from awarding an ecolabel to products that contain peat.”

In preparation of the Eco-label criteria revision, SV&A have now asked IMCG whether its position of 2001 is still standing or if it has undergone any changes as a result of recent developments. Let’s look closer to the relevant issues.

Protocols, frameworks, guidelines

SV&A asked: Are there still no generally accepted protocols for environmental management or restoration of peatlands?

For peat there are no certificates yet available, which testify that the peat product comes from sustainably managed sources (e.g. paludiculture) or has been extracted in a way, which reflects “wise use” principles. Quality labels such as RHP hallmark in the Netherlands guarantee that the peat has passed a quality check with respect to its suitability as a substrate for horticultural and gardening purposes. Such quality hallmarks have the potential to develop into a certificate that peat has been produced according the principles of “wise use.”

SV&A asked: Is there still no framework for the identification of peatlands of international importance?

The criteria for identifying peatlands as Wetlands of International Importance that Ramsar Conference of Parties (CoP8) has adopted in 2002 are not helpful for selection, because – following these criteria – all peatlands are internationally important and need special attention for designation.

More practical and detailed guidelines for identifying peatlands of international biodiversity importance have been published by the IMCG (http://www.imcg.net/docum/criteria.htm and http:/www.imcg.net/docum/redlists.htm), but these do not have an official status.

Also these criteria have not been worked out satisfactorily for the ecosystem level, which is particularly relevant for peatlands.

In its Resolution VIII.11 (Additional guidance for identifying and designating under-represented wetland types - including peatlands - as Wetlands of International Importance), the Ramsar CoP8 (2002) has recognized the insufficient consistency between the concept of peatlands (being defined by the presence of peat) and the Ramsar Wetland Classification System (being based on vegetation). Peatlands may occur in almost 20 wetland categories in the Ramsar Classification System, in over 40 habitat types of the EU Habitat Directive, and in over 60 types of Endangered Natural Habitats of the Bern Convention.

CoP7 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, Kuala Lumpur, 2004) recognized that also the CBD insufficiently addresses the ecosystem-level of wetland biodiversity (CBD VII/4 – 21) and requested a review of the Ramsar classification system in order to develop a definitive classification system prior to 2010 (CBD VII/4 – 28).

The absence of an adequate peatland classification system in these major international conventions and a consequent conservation strategy is particularly pregnant, because peat extraction for growing media concentrates on specific peat types (slightly humified Sphagnum peat) from specific peatland types (raised bogs).

SV&A asked: Do the Wise Use Guidelines have already led to detailed criteria for 'good environmental management' - both in site selection, extraction and in the restoration phase?

The IPS/IMCG Wise Use framework (Joosten & Clarke 2002) has provided detailed guidelines for “wise use” of peatlands. “Wise Use” should, however, not simply be equated with “sustainable use” or with “good environmental management” as all these concepts are underlain by different norms. The general IPS/IMCG Guidelines do not formulate concrete and detailed criteria for “good environmental management.” Such criteria have to be worked out by integrating international criteria (including Ramsar criteria) with national and regional conditions. The IPS/IMCG concept of “wise use” implies that the same activities may be judged differently under different conditions, e.g. in different countries or for different purposes. This complicates the development of identical criteria for all EU countries.

Conflicts with conventions

SV&A asked: Does the IMCG still advocate the position that all peat extraction is in conflict with the Ramsar convention?

Peat extraction is certainly in conflict with the Ramsar Convention. In its Regina Conference (CoP3 1987) the Ramsar Convention has defined ‘wise use’ of wetlands as “their sustainable utilisation for the benefit of mankind in a way compatible with the maintenance of the natural properties of the ecosystem.” Peat extraction clearly ruins the natural properties of peatland ecosystems both by destroying peat accumulation capacity and the peat storage.

In contrast IPS/IMCG define ‘wise use’ as “those uses of mires and peatlands for which reasonable people now and in the future will not attribute blame”. In this way endless discussions are avoided on what ‘sustainable’ means, what ‘the’ (= all) natural properties are, what an ‘ecosystem’ is, or on the spatial, temporal, and functional boundaries of ‘the’ ecosystem.

Also the Ramsar Conventions sees some problems in the consistency of its definitions and their compatibility with concepts of other conventions. Therefore the Ramsar Scientific and Technical Review Panel, in its meeting of 12 February 2005, has discussed an updating of the Ramsar Convention’s “wise use” and “ecological character” concepts. The working group involved has proposed to re-define Ramsar “ecological character” as “the combination of the ecological components, processes and ecosystem services that characterize the wetland”. Also with this definition, peat extraction remains incompatible with the Ramsar Convention.

SV&A asked: The [IPS/IMCG] Wise Use Guidelines … seem to imply that in some cases the harvesting of peat is justified. Is that a fair impression and if so, has this approach already been translated into 'accepted and easily applicable protocols and standards' for peat harvesting? Is there any progress being made in this field?

The IPS/IMCG Wise Use Guidelines indeed allow peat extraction, provided that the full Framework for Wise Use (Chapter 5 of the book) is applied and a total and integrated cost-benefit analysis has been made that takes all values of peatlands into account. The book presents in its appendices 5 and 6 detailed questionnaires that may form a basis of concrete codes of conducts, protocols, and standards. The book, however, also recognizes that “it is not possible to reduce all complexities to simple principles or single measures” (p. 16) and that “Wise Use is not simple or simplistic and cannot be reduced to formulae” (p. 122). The framework has been practically applied both in nature conservation and in peatland exploitation decisions. “Accepted” protocols and standards for peat extraction, however, do not yet exist and it can be doubted whether “easily applicable” protocols can ever be made.

Peatering Out

SV&A asked: What is your opinion on the gradual replacement of peat in professional applications as presented by RSPB and English Nature in their Peatering Out report? … Should a total ban on all types of peat in professional growing media be maintained, even if this would result in the continuing absence of professional growing media in the Eco-label assortment?

At the end of the 1990’s, industry, environmental organisations, and government in the UK jointly agreed to reduce the use of peat in hobby gardening, landscaping, and professional horticulture. The UK Biodiversity Action Plan for lowland raised bogs requires all four UK countries to “undertake and promote research and development of sustainable alternatives to peat to speed up reduction of peat used in both amateur and professional markets.” It aims “for a minimum of 40% of total market requirements to be peat-free by 2005 and 90% by 2010.”

Peatering Out, a plan that the RSPB and English Nature have worked out with the horticultural consultants Rainbow Wilson Associates, presents a scenario to end all commercial use of peat in the UK in 10 years. The programme aims at conserving the raised bog peatlands, at securing a sustainable growing media industry in the UK, and at supporting the development of the UK composting industry to avoid that the environmental problems associated with peat extraction are exported to other countries.

The initial huge resentment across the UK industry for the Peatering Out target is gradually turning to acceptance and the interim target of 40% by 2005 will probably be met. Large retailers such as B&Q and Homebase launched far-reaching objectives in peat reduction in their potting soil assortment (B&Q for example 85% in 2006).

The retail market indeed offers the biggest opportunity for the early replacement of peat. Home gardeners need quality products, but their requirements are not as critical as those of professional growers.

The change-over to peat alternatives will be slower in the professional horticulture market. Professional products have to fulfil the highest standards. Growers need to have thorough confidence, knowledge, and familiarity with materials before they will use new materials for commercial crops, on which their livelihood depends. The Peatering Out programme recognises that for many users a gradual phase-out of peat through progressive dilution with other materials will be the most realistic way to work towards ending peat use (Fig. 2).

The scenarios of Peatering Out are distinct for hobby and professional applications as well as for the application of peat in growing media and the use of peat in soil improvers. This is a realistic approach. Peat can easily and immediately be replaced by composts and other renewable products in soil improvers and on the hobby market, where peat is non essential or rather a waste of valuable material. For the more sophisticated growing media, further technical development work is still required to improve the consistency, supply, and cost-effectiveness of low-peat and peat-free growing media.

Eco-labelling peat?

The question is: what does this all mean for eco-labelling?

Allowing peat in eco-labelled growing media may to some extent stimulate the use of peat alternatives (incl. those from waste materials) among professional growers. I do not expect very large effects, however. Professional growers do not sell peat, but vegetables or plants. A (discredited) eco-label on peat, that forms just a small part of the total production chain, will only marginally improve the “ecological” value of the end product. Therefore the product performance of the growing media will always prevail in high-tech horticulture. Eco-labelling peat will be a step back from the current situation in the amateur sector, where peat-free potting mixes are performing satisfactorily. It will create image problems to the Eco-label, also when different standards are applied to professional and hobby products.

Keeping eco-labelled growing media peat-free will maintain the environmental appeal of the label and will stimulate the use of peat alternatives. It will also hamper the use of peat alternatives in professional horticulture, where current cropping techniques and perceptions (uniform plant growth, high expectations and sensitivity on performance, price etc) prevent a 100% substitution of peat.

Good and evil

Let it be clear: There is not such a thing as “green” peat extraction. Peat extraction as such is unsustainable, devastating, lethal, destructive, and polluting. Peat extraction is evil.

But so are many other activities we undertake.And similar to these actions, peat extraction does not happen “for peat’s sake,” but for a purpose that by itself might be good. Whether the balance of the two is “wise” and beneficial depends on how “good” the aim of peat use is or on how much “worse” the alternative is.

This means that we always deal with a trade-off between the loss of peat, peatlands, and associated values at the one side and the societal benefits on the other side. If a small evil helps to prevent a big evil or to achieve a big good, the smaller evil might be allowed.

For that reason the purposes of the peat use and the availability of (sustainable) alternatives for peat for

those purposes must play an important role in judging the “wise” use of peat. A sincere judgement can only be done in the framework of the whole product chain of the end product. This might, for example, mean that you allow the use of peat for the cultivation of medicinal plants, but not for that of ornamental plants. Eco-labelling of substrates does not allow for such valuation.

Peat is not a renewable resource. Whereas agriculture and forestry can be sustainable on the spot, peat extraction leads to a continuous expansion of cut-over peatlands, because the peat can only be extracted once. An eco-labelling approach that aims at minimising environmental impacts shall therefore aim at a replacement of peat by alternative renewable materials.

Allowing peat in growing media may stimulate the beneficial use of composts from waste materials in professional horticulture. But, if “necessity is the mother of invention,” it may also retard the development of a modern greenhouse industry based on fully renewable substrates.

Sooner or later renewable alternatives will become available that are as good and as cheap as fossil peat. A good candidate is sustainably cultivated Sphagnum bryomass, the stuff from which the peat was formed (Gaudig & Joosten 2003). Only with renewable growing media we may guarantee, that professional horticulture can meet societal demands with respect to sustainability, conservation of natural bio-diversity, and the reduction of carbon emissions.

Further reading:

Aarts, R.J.M. 2005. European Eco-label for Soil Improvers and Growing Media Revision 2005 - background document (phase 1) ENV.G.2/SER/2004/0024r. SV&A sustainability consultants, Leiden, 39 p. http://europa.eu.int/comm/ environment/ecolabel/pdf/soil_improvers/2005_revision/soil_improvers_growing_media.pdf

Gaudig, G. & Joosten, H. 2003. Kultivierung von Torfmoos als nachwachsender Rohstoff – Möglichkeiten und Erfolgsaussichten. Greifswalder Geographische Arbeiten 31: 75 – 86.

Joosten, J.H.J., 1995. The golden flow: the changing world of international peat trade. Gunneria 70: 269 - 292.

Joosten, H. & Clarke, D. 2002. Wise use of mires and peatlands – Background and principles including a framework for decision-making. International Mire Conservation Group / International Peat Society, 304 p.

Peatering OutTM - towards a sustainable UK growing media industry. http://www.english-nature.org.uk/pubs/ publication/PDF/peatering.pdf