Peat not allowed in EU Ecolabel:
on peat extraction, ecolabelling and restoration

by Hans Joosten

The third meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group (AHWG) for the revision of the European Eco-label criteria to Soil Improvers and Growing Media in Amsterdam, October 31, 2005 (see IMCG Newsletter 2005/3) led to the conclusion to exclude peat from the EU Ecolabel for the next five years. Here we present and discuss some arguments of the interest groups involved during the last phase of the process, as they may influence future developments.

With respect to “peat”, the minutes of the meeting say the following:

“In preparation to the last meeting of the European Eco-labelling Board, the Competent Bodies were asked to bring forward their position on the possible inclusion of peat. Table 1 shows that at present there is no qualified majority for the inclusion of peat. It is therefore proposed to continue the exclusion of peat (by only admitting organic materials derived from waste).

Note: in Table 1, the “No” votes represent the countries which have already stated strong opposition to the inclusion of peat. “Yes” votes are just there to see the maximum possible votes in favour that could be obtained - they are just theoretical and don’t necessarily reflect any intentions on the part of the countries and CBs listed.

Table 1: Voting Weights European Eco-label with respect to peat inclusion

Industry expresses its deep regret on this voting and emphasizes that the exclusion of peat will result in a continued reluctance of industry to apply for the Flower (i.e. the Ecolabel sign, HJ). They fear that a number of “No” voters have failed to consult industry on this matter and have based their voting more on feeling than on facts. They would lack the required insight in product and market. Existing standpoints would have been repeated without giving the issue proper reconsideration. Others deny this and underline that the evaluation of peat has been executed all over again and was performed in a thorough and well balanced manner.

During a final discussion on peat, it is emphasized that the exclusion of peat is not dogmatic. If future developments convincingly show that peat can be produced in harmony with nature, than there is no reason why peat couldn’t become part of Eco-labelled products. The issue of the inclusion of peat will therefore be definitely part of future revisions.”

Indeed, the peat lobby found this conclusion hard to swallow, and accused the countries, that voted NO to inclusion of peat, of bowing to misguided environmentalist pressure. The UK reacted by pointing out that they consulted a large number of people before deciding to support the ban: the UK concluded that reduction in peat use is extremely desirable, as peat is not a renewable resource. In the UK peat is a flagship issue. Industry and retailers promote reduced-peat products, setting different percentages of peat content as goals. If the Ecolabel would set a percentage of peat allowed in growing media, it is only a matter of time before industry reaches a lower percentage than that required by the Ecolabel, at which point the Ecolabel would lose all credibility.

The European Association of Craft, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (UEAPME) agreed that the focus should be on using recycled materials, and if after five years it’s not working we can think again. Nevertheless, the UEAPME representative asked what the member bodies feel about the efforts industry is making for improved peatland management. “If these efforts are going to be ignored by the environmentalists, industry may as well stop bothering and go back to “unwise” use of peat.” The representative had visited very good peatland restoration programmes and stated: “it is possible to recover over 90% of the biodiversity.”

The European Environmental Bureau replied that its position is not fixed for eternity, but that it wishes to protect the environment by whatever way is appropriate in a given situation at a given time. NGOs are always pleased when environmental impact is lessened, but it doesn’t mean that any industrialist who reduces an environmental impact should get a medal – or an Ecolabel.

The purpose of the Ecolabel is to promote the use and after use of waste materials. UEAPME proposed to focus the discussions (that have so far largely focused on the ban of peat) on the mandatory inclusion of at least 50% of recycled materials into growing media. This could help interested parties to concentrate on the valorisation of the waste materials. The inclusion of 50% of recycled materials into growing media would allow manufacturers to market ecolabelled products to a broader public and would give manufacturers the opportunity of fulfilling the objective of the Ecolabel, i.e. the use and after use of waste materials, according to UEAPME.

UEAPME also called attention to the efforts of peat extracting companies to manage their peatlands according to the Wise Use principles. UEAPME pointed out that in Germany the industry started in the early 1970s with a programme for peatland restoration and rehabilitation. All major European and North-American countries have been following this example. The European Union and National Authorities have a set of stringent regulations that control peatland extraction. UEAPME therefore requested from interested parties to reconsider “the peat issue” according to the efforts made by industry to adapt their peat extraction to Wise Use and to provide ecologically valuable peatland restoration or rehabilitation. UEAPME stressed that the next revision should “obviously” focus on these points. “Otherwise, one could fear that both pro- and anti-peat parties will continue their sterile discussion”.

It looks, therefore, as if restoration will become a major issue in future discussions on the Ecolabel.

With respect to restoration, the situation is not as rosy as UEAPME suggests. The “90% of the biodiversity” that can be restored reflects a very limited conception of biodiversity. Biodiversity is, furthermore, not the only concern of conservationists. Time and again peat extractors and their organisation display a complete lack of understanding the issues at stake, for example by presenting restoration of cut-over peatlands as an adequate compensation for the carbon emissions associated with the extraction and use of peat.

Peat extraction negatively and irreversibly affects various peatland values, such as the Carbon-store of the peat, the palaeoecological archive value of the peatland, its cultural heritage value, all kinds of natural phenomena that require a long time of development (such as micro- and macrorelief, patterns, and rare plant species), the option functions, and the value of peatlands for individual human esteem. Often these values are non-substitutable. Other values are negatively impacted, that might be restored, including CO₂ sequestration in newly accumulating peat, the regulation of hydrology and hydrochemistry, the habitat of various plant and animal species and their indication value, diverse landscape phenomena, and their role in recreation, aesthetics, spirituality etc.

In discussing ecolabelling and restoration, conservationists have to stress that

-                                              important peatland values are irreversibly lost by peat extraction,

-                                              not all environmental damage can be prevented or compensated;

-                                              it is therefore necessary to analyse the balance between the losses (of peatland values) and the gains for society of using a not renewable resource like peat, and that

-                                              a honest judgement can only take place after assessing the full life cycle of the peat (including extraction, use, and disposal) ànd the products for which it is employed.

For the wise use of non-renewable resources some simple rules can apply (cf. Hartwick 1977):

1)                                                                                           A non-renewable resource should not be squandered on low-grade applications;

2)                                                                                           The profits from non-renewable resources should be invested in the development of renewable substitutes.

The first criterion is a central issue in Wise Use. Currently peat extractors and their organisations indeed love to wave with the IPS/IMCG Wise Use concept in extenuation of their deeds. Merely publishing a book or a set of guidelines, however, does not make peat extraction “wise”. The “wise use” concept of IMCG and IPS implies weighing all costs and benefits of all (direct and indirect) effects of peat extraction on all (present and future) people. I still wait for “the other side of the balance” where the industry clearly expresses that some applications of peat have no justification, are irresponsible and unwise, and decides to ban them….

With respect to the second criterion, it is clear that “restoration” is currently still largely a pretext, a “shame green” to hide the most obvious uglinesses of peat extraction, not a step towards the development of renewable substitutes for fossil peat.

Peatland rehabilitation has furthermore largely been paid by public (also EU) funding, not by the extractors. The required after-use of many planning permissions is also often still for unspecified or ecologically low-grade conservation (e.g. lakes or reedbeds) rather than for the restoration of the habitat destroyed by the peat extraction. And, though locally promising, the overall results of restoration are still, i.e. after several decennia of efforts, rather disappointing.

These aspects have to be taken into account in a European Union where peat is running out in the classical peat countries and the Moloch of unsustainable peat use inevitably forces peat extraction to move into peatlands that are little damaged and still easily restorable, such as in Scandinavia or in the Baltic states, where even discussions are taking place to extract peat from almost pristine, protected mires. The eager eye of peatland destruction now even focuses on more remote peatlands, e.g. a Danish company that is currently assessing the possibilities to extract peat from the extremely valuable Imnati bog (National Park and Ramsar site!) in Kolchis (Georgia).

The industry has to focus stronger on the preparation of growing media on the basis of renewable resources, including wastes (cf. the aim of Ecolabel) and cultivated plant material. Only with renewable growing media, the industry can address the societal demands for a

- sustainable development,

- conservation of biodiversity, and

- decrease in atmospheric Carbon-emissions.

This is not a matter of “misguided environmentalist pressure”, but of common sense.

Hartwick, J. 1977. Intergenerational equity and the investing of rents from exhaustible resources. American Economic Review 67: 972–974.