by Hans Joosten
Just before the meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group, EPAGMA, the European Peat and Growing Media Association - the lobbying organisation of the peat industry, sent a position paper with the content:
“….The total volume of peat consumed in the EU (hobby and professional) is estimated to be some 20 million m3 annually. If the ecolabel was taken up as a desirable and viable certification scheme by the industry, this could lead to a major increase in the use and acceptance of the European flower scheme in a very large market.
EMPAGMA considers that the current eco-label criteria are not market-oriented, are not based on the most recent and best science and do not ensure good product performance. Therefore they do not encourage manufacturers to apply for the eco-label, do not raise consumer awareness of the use of treated biowaste and related products, and do not encourage buyers to purchase labelled soil improvers and growing media.
EMPAGMA is convinced that the inclusion of peat in the eco-label criteria would support and increase the use of treated biowaste and other processed organic wastes and by-products. Peat is the only product which can dilute the negative characteristics of treated biowaste and related products on a large scale in the long term.”
IMCG immediately reacted with the following statement:
“With respect to the “peat” discussion, two things are clear:
1. Diluting composts with peat will often improve the quality of compost-based growing media.
2. There is not such a thing as “green” peat extraction. Peat extraction and the use of fossil peat is unsustainable, devastating, and polluting.
In view of these points, it is strange that it is kept unclear which market “peat diluted compost based growing media” will/should penetrate.
- The requirements of home gardeners and many professional applications are not as critical as those of other professional growers. Peat-free products perform satisfactorily on this market, as many examples show. The use of peat is non essential here and a waste of valuable material.
- Professional growers that now depend on peat will not use peat-diluted composts, as long as better peat-based alternatives are cheaply available, as all professional growers and their organisations, that I recently consulted, have assured.
We fear that eco-labelled peat-diluted composts will
- not lead to a decreased use of peat in professional horticulture, but
- penetrate existing markets that currently use composts and other renewable products,
- therefore not stimulate but directly compete with the use of these products, and
- in case of opening new markets lead to an increased consumption of fossil peat.
The necessary change-over to peat alternatives in professional horticulture has to take place by a phase-out of peat through progressive dilution with renewable materials. We can imagine that when this dilution has proceeded far enough, the product may deserve an Eco-label.
The current proposal to dilute composts with peat starts from the opposite end. It will improve the quality of composts, but – unless large shares of peat are involved - not sufficiently to replace the use of peat-dominated growing media.
It is clear that the aims of the Eco-label programme and that of EPAGMA are completely different. EPAGMA aims at maximizing peat sales (for which it would like to use a severely “diluted” Eco-label as a marketing tool), the Eco-label at minimizing environmental impacts of products and services. The Eco-label should not try to sell the EU-flower at all costs.
As EPAGMA expresses in its Remarks of 28 October 2005: “Peat is the only product which can dilute the negative characteristics of treated biowaste and related products on a large scale in the long term.” (our italics).
The European Eco-label should not be used to further the large-scale and long-term use of unsustainable and polluting products.
Hans Joosten, Secr.-Gen. IMCG, 31 October 2005”