The
current criteria for EU eco-labelling of soil improvers and growing media became
effective in 2001 and will expire in August 2006. The first meeting of the Ad-Hoc
Working Group (AHWG) on the Revision of European Eco-label criteria on Soil
Improvers & Growing Media was held 15 March 2005. One of the points discussed
was the exclusion of peat from eco-labelled product.
The
group stands more or less united in their view that peat should not be applied
in Eco-labelled soil improvers.
The majority of the AHWG, however, is in favour of admitting
a certain level of peat in growing media. An overview of some arguments:
-
The non-interest in industry for the
current European Eco-label for GM is largely due to the complete ban on peat.
In the vast majority of applications, there is a clear need for peat to ensure
quality of the GM.
-
In Ireland, Bord na Móna have proven
successful with marketing large quantities of compost in combination with peat
as a growing medium. These market experiences confirm that peat gives compost
the added value to be applied as a growing medium;
-
Peat can be used as a vehicle for developing
and marketing alternative growing media; in combination with peat, much more
waste derived products can be recycled. There has emerged a clear market for
diluted peat products; if that is regarded to be a good development for the
environment, the European Eco-label should be open to it;
-
Technically, compost and waste products
make a good combination with peat since waste products usually contain fairly
high levels of potassium (K) whereas peat typically has a low potassium level.
In addition, peat is a lightweight product which improves the handling properties.
There are, however, also arguments against the admission
of peat. There is still too much use of peat without respect for nature or regulations.
In view of the weight given to the ban on peat in the 2001-revision, the admission
of peat in Eco-labelled products would also be difficult to explain to the consumer.
It would only be marketable when built on very convincing and firm new arguments.
Possible criteria should be strict, solid and explainable, giving special attention
to the following topics:
-
The state of the art in mire conservation
regulations and peat bog restoration. The Wise Use Guidelines drafted by the
IMCG in cooperation with the IPS could be an important source of information.
This should be looked at in further detail;
-
The importance of tracing and tracking
of materials. As it should at all times be avoided that ‘unverified’ peat enters
an Eco-labelled product;
In
order to assess the state of the art in mire conservation and the possibilities
to implement elements of the Wise Use Guidelines for Mires and Peatlands [WU
2002], some questions were asked to Hans Joosten, the international secretary
of the International Mire Conservation Group. These questions and answers can
be found in the previous IMCG Newsletter.
The
Working Group advises to explore the possibility, on the basis of an overview
of environmental benefits and doubts, of a restricted admission of peat in
GM (there is a broad consensus on the continued ban of peat in Soil Improvers).
An important precondition linked to a possible admission of peat in GM should
be the continued credibility of the European Eco-label in the eye of the end-consumer.
Peat would only be acceptable if it came from sustainably managed and properly
traceable sources.
Background
documents can be found on the Environment webpage of the European Commission:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ecolabel/
product/pg_soilimprovers_en.htm#revision
Meanwhile, various European organisations have reacted
to the proposals of the AHWG. The European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-Sized
Enterprises (UEAPME), an employer’s organisation, welcomes the proposals to
allow for peat in eco-labelled growing media, with the argument that the current
ban on peat does not allow the growing media industry to use the EU Eco-label.
If this ban were lifted, the EU Flower would obviously represent an opportunity
for different players in Europe. This is especially true for products intended
for the retail market and for products that are intended for local communities.
In
contrast, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) states: EEB cannot approve
the inclusion of peat in this Ecolabel. The extraction of peat is frequently
associated with environmental degradation, particularly the loss of important
and increasingly rare ecological niches. There is some progress towards a more
sustainable use of peat, but the EEB cannot agree that this process is well
enough advanced to allow use of ‘sustainable’ peat in an ecolabel.
The inclusion of peat, even if found to be environmentally
defendable (which EEB doubts), would raise two serious problems. The first is
traceability, which might cause some practical difficulties. But the more serious
problem is one of communication and image. It has required a lot of work over
many years to educate people about the damage to the environment (biodiversity,
climate change...) that may be caused by peat use. It is thanks to this long
and patient work by environmental organisations that peat producers are beginning
to become more environmentally aware and draw up guidelines for ‘wise use of
peat’ etc. Approving an ecolabel which allows peat use could be understood as
a complete U-turn. As stated in the minutes of the first AHWG meeting, “the
admission of peat in eco-labelled products would also be difficult to explain
to the consumer. It would only be marketable when built on very convincing and
firm new arguments. Possible criteria should be strict, solid and explainable...”
The EEB has not found “very convincing and firm new arguments”.
The present Ecolabel should concentrate on encouraging
the development of alternatives to peat, by remaining peat-free. While respecting
the argument that allowing a certain percentage of peat may encourage more growing
media producers to adhere to the Ecolabel, EEB does not agree with lowering
environmental standards for short-term gains, but would prefer to encourage
the alternatives to peat that are being developed. Allowing peat in ecolabelled
growing media would disavow efforts made by some producers to offer peat-free
media, and would slow down the replacement of peat by more sustainable alternatives.
EEB feels that other tools, such as the taxing of natural
resources used (peat in this case) and stringent environmental safeguards applied
to peat extraction, would make peat more costly and thus stimulate the search
for and use of alternatives. The Ecolabel should remain ahead of mere market
forces.
Furthermore, EEB concludes, the comments by the secretary
of the International Mire Conservation Group on pages 9 and 10 of the 2nd background
document seem to be conclusively against including peat in the Ecolabel.
Also the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)
remains opposed to the inclusion of any peat in the specifications for both
soil improvers and growing media, believing that there are too many ambiguities,
unresolved issues and environmental question marks to allow the use of peat
to be included in the Ecolabel, as well as the difficult issue of public perception
of any such change. RSPB also believes that the ecolabel should reward best
practice, rather than the ‘halfway house’ stage of peat reduction, particularly
in view of the many peat free growing media products that are available to both
consumers and horticultural growers (yes, there are professional growers using
peat-free growing media, which doesn’t come across in the background paper).
The RSPB also notes that very few of the growing media products which currently
are peat-free appear to carry the ecolabel. This refutes the suggestion that
the moratorium on peat in the ecolabel is holding back peat replacement, or
holding back interest in the ecolabel, because the industry is not yet using
the ecolabel in the many situations where it can do so. There is no point having
a logo scheme that allows every product to use it - the value of the logo then
becomes meaningless.
The RSPB further stated that the Dutch RHP hallmark scheme
has some serious flaws with regard to the environmental aspects. Legitimate
extraction still occurs on UK bogs designated for nature conservation, and indeed
on sites proposed as Natura 2000 sites; this extraction is, however, damaging
to the biodiversity interest of the sites and is due to historical precedence
rather than to wise use. Restoration is weakly defined: there must be a clear
presumption to restore to the habitat that has been lost to peat extraction,
and a clear attempt to redress the environmental damage that commercial use
has caused.
In a following meeting 20 June, the AHWG did not reach
agreement on allowing peat under stringent requirements nor on excluding peat
from Eco-labelled products. Key arguments were brought forward and disputed
over and over, and weighed differently by the various stakeholder groups. It
is decided to ask the Competent Bodies (CB’s) for their opinion, presenting
in an unbiased way the arguments pro and contra. The Competent Bodies are independent
and neutral organisations responsible for implementing the Community Eco-label
award Scheme at national level. (for their addresses see:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ecolabel/tools/competentbodies_en.htm
This approach seems most straightforward, since it will
ultimately be the CB’s who have a strong say in the final proposal of revised
criteria to the Commission. The aim is to communicate feedback from the CB’s
before the next meeting of the EUEB on the 27th of September 2005.
In a reaction to this hesitant position, Gerald Schmilewski
of Klasmann-Deilmann, a large German peat mining company, and coordinator of
the Horticultural Peat (HOPE) Working Group of IPS Commission II on industrial utilizations of peatlands and peat, wrote that
in his opinion “the whole eco-labelling scheme for growing media will again
(just like the current criteria) be a flop if peat is not admitted and the criteria
too stringent –including any track and trace systems the Eco-labelling Board
might come up with.
Valuable resources (money) are wasted by the Eco-labelling
Board and members of the AHWG, if technical reasons for the admission of peat
in the criteria are not followed. There will be little – if no – interest by
the producers of growing media in eco-labelling. A product must work and there
is such a thing as product liability. That’s what it comes down to! Wishful
thinking is one thing, product performance is reality.”
Paul Waller of Paul Waller Consulting supported Schmilewski
and went so far as to propose to add one sided argumentation for the
inclusion of peat to the minutes of the meeting.
Instead of using an environmental seal of approval as a
mere tool to regulate the market economy, it would be more appropriate to use
existing tools like taxes and subsidies and not dilute and ridicule the meaning
of a prestigious seal for short term financial gains. To increase the use of
composts is a laudable goal and certainly a step in the direction of a greener,
more environment friendly world, but that in itself does not deserve an ecolabel,
certainly not if that ecolabel would then also support the continued destruction
of valuable biological and landscape diversity. Peat extraction simply is not
“green”, it is not environmental friendly. Peat extraction is evil. If
the “eco” in ecolabel means anything, the inclusion of peat is a no-go.
Awarding an ecolabel to peat based growing media or to
growing media containing even a small amount of peat is like giving a health
reward to cigarettes because they “only” contain a little amount of carcinogenic
substances. They do contain them and therefore they are bad and therefore not
healthy and thus they do not deserve any reward for being healthy.
With a peat content of “only” 50% or 75%, growing media
do not become healthier. Every pristine peatland that is drained for peat extraction
is another nail in the coffin of our natural environment. It is high time the
peat extractors leave their primitive hunter gatherer mentality and move to
become wised up farmers who only reap what they themselves have sown.
See
the previous IMCG Newsletter for a detailed background on eco-labelling and
peat.