Growing Media and the Environment Lobby in the UK 1997-2001

W.R. Carlile
Department of Life Sciences
Nottingham Trent University
Clifton Lane
Clifton
Nottingham, NG11 8NS
United Kingdom

Keywords: peat, environment, pressure-groups

Abstract
Since an earlier review (Carlile, 1997) on environmental issues and the use of
growing media, pressure groups in the UK have continued to lobby against
companies involved in peat extraction. Environmental concerns have intensified in
the UK in recent years and some prestigious organisations with a high public profile
have announced anti-peat measures. The National Trust of England and Wales has
from 1999 decided to phase out peat within its horticultural operations. The Royal
Society for Protection of Birds, with over 1m members in the UK, has called for a
moratorium on the use of peat in horticulture. In view of the fact that in the late
1990s over 70% of peat in the UK was used for plants grown and purchased by
amateur (hobby) gardeners, the environmental pressure is now directed at this
market. These pressures are primarily focused around efforts to reduce or stop peat
extraction on lowland raised bogs in the UK that are considered to be rare habitats.
The proposed designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) may influence
the extent of peat extraction in England. The environment lobby in the UK has
stimulated research into alternatives to peat, as well as studies into bog regeneration
but paradoxically, manufacturers of growing media have undertaken most of this
research.

INTRODUCTION
An earlier review (Carlile, 1997) gave details of the origins and progress of the
campaign in the UK against the use of peat in horticulture. Development of the campaign
from its origins in the late 1980s, to the high point of public interest in the early to mid
1990s were outlined. Activities included pressure groups such as the Peatlands Campaign
Consortium, the responses of the Peat Producers Association in the UK as well as the UK
government and its agencies, and the reactions of retailers and the general public. The
principal effect of the campaign was seen to be a raised awareness of the peat debate
among the general public, but with little effect on patterns of substrate use. This paper,
after reviewing the current horticultural usage of peat in the UK, serves to update the peat
debate, and describe the activities of environmental lobbies and the responses of
manufacturers of growing media, retailers of media and the UK government.

Trends in the Use of Peat in UK Horticulture during the 1990s

The amount of growing media used in the UK has increased considerably during
the 1990s. Figure 1 shows the large increase in peat use for horticulture purposes in the
UK from around 1 million cubic metres in 1990 to about 3.4 million cubic metres in 1999
(Bragg, 1990; EnvirosAspinwall and ADAS, 2000). A major survey undertaken in the UK
in 1999 revealed that the total use of all materials used for growing media and as soil
improvers was estimated at 5.3 million cubic metres in 1999, with peat having a 64%
share of the market and other materials 36%. Most peat – 3.44 million cubic metres – was
used in growing media, and most of the other materials – 1.89 million cubic metres –
were used as soil improvers (EnvirosAspinwall and ADAS, 2000). It is important to note
that the use of inorganic substrates such as mineral wool and perlite by commercial

Proc. IS on Growing Media

Eds.: Alsanius, Jensén & Asp
Acta Hort 644, ISHS 2004
107
growers of tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers was not included in the survey.
One of the surprising features of the survey was that amateur (hobby) growers
were responsible for 62% of peat used in horticulture in the UK, with only 33% used by
professional growers (Fig. 2). Peat use by amateur (hobby) gardeners has increased from
around 1 200 000 cubic metres in 1993 to over 2 000 000 cubic metres in 1999. Most
amateur gardeners in the UK buy growing media as manufactured pre-packed branded
products from garden centres, hypermarkets and other retail outlets.
In the same period, the use of alternative materials has not increased significantly
in growing media. In 1993 about 150 000 cubic metres of alternative materials were used
in growing media, and this had risen slightly to around 180 000 cubic metres by 1999.

The UK Government and the Peat Debate

The UK government through it’s Department of Environment, Transport and the
Regions (DETR) has continued to monitor the use of peat and peat alternatives and
indeed most of the data outlined above have come from surveys carried out on behalf of
the DETR. The Peat Working Group was convened by the (then) Department of the
Environment, a precursor of DETR, in 1992 and commissioned a major report that was
published in 1994 (Department of Environment, 1994). One of the principal
recommendations arising from the group was that planning permissions granted many
years ago to companies involved in mineral extraction (including peat) were to be
reviewed. This has happened under the Review of Old Minerals Permissions (RoMPs).
Peat extraction is now the subject of regular review by planning authorities, and since
1994 only two new permissions have been granted for peat extraction in the UK – both in
Scotland, and neither in an area of conservation importance (Item 18, Department of
Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1999a). Planning policies instigated also
included a target of 40% of the growing media and soil improver market in the UK to be
supplied by non-peat materials by 2005, following a recommendation made under
Mineral Planning Guidance Document 13 relating to peat provision in England and Wales
(Department of Environment, 1995).
The Peat Working Group was reconvened in 1997 to look at the effectiveness of
existing policies on extraction of peat, and to monitor the market for peat and alternative
materials in horticulture. Two major reports were published in 1999 and 2000
(Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1999a; EnvirosAspinwall and
ADAS, 2000). The Peat Working Group produced its second report in 1999 (Department
of Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1999b), with the principal recommendations
being to move extractions away from sites of conservation importance; to focus on
amateur (hobby) gardeners as the major users of peat in horticulture; and to encourage
retailers and producers to promote sales of peat-free products.
Finally, the DETR organized meetings on the use of peat and peat alternatives, and
during the late 1990s the Ministry of Agriculture funded and organized seminars at a local
level on the use of peat alternatives in growing media in various parts of the UK, and
these attracted much interest from professional growers.
Following the debate on peat in the House of Lords in 1990 (Hansard May 9,
1990; Carlile, 1997) further support for the campaign against peat has been expressed in
parliamentary debates during the decade, such as that of November 5, 1999 (Hansard,
1999), where the local MP for the constituency of Don Valley, which contains an area of
lowland raised mire, a small portion of which is being used for peat extraction, strongly
criticized the extraction and use of peat in horticulture.
One of the most significant government announcements in terms of peat use
(Hansard, 2000) came following a request from the European Union to extend the number
of sites of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) in the UK under the European
Commission’s Habitat Directive 92/43/EEC. One category felt to be under-represented
was ‘degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration’ and the governmental
body responsible for implementation of the UK Biodiversity Action plan, English Nature,
proposed additions to candidate Special Areas of Conservation including currently

108
worked peatland sites (English Nature, 2000). These were the Solway Mosses, Wedholme
Flow and Bolton Fell in the county of Cumbria; and Thorne and Hatfield Moors in South
Yorkshire. Collectively, these sites supply over 60% of the peat used in UK Horticulture.

Pressure Groups and Peat Use in the UK 1990-2000

The Peatlands Campaign Consortium (PCC), an alliance of environmental
organisations was formed in the early 1990s, has continued to lobby against the extraction
and use of peat in the UK. The Peatlands Forum, instigated by the PCC and attendant
pressure groups in the mid 1990s has not made any significant impact on peat use in the
UK and indeed its influence and frequency of meetings has declined in the last two years.
However, the PCC has welcomed the proposals that could result in the
government rescinding peat extraction on SACs , and indeed has suggested that measures
should be taken to stop peat extraction on all raised mires, and further, that a proposal
under the UK Biodiversity Action plan that the market for growing media and soil
improvers should be 90% peat free by 2010 should be implemented (PCC, 2000). The
consortium strongly recommends the targeting of amateur (hobby) gardeners in attempts
to promote peat alternatives. It also claims that composted products are commercially
successful in countries other than the UK, and infers that such products could be
promoted and used in the UK.
Two member organisations of the PCC have been especially active in calling for
an end to the use of peat in UK horticulture. Plantlife is an organisation that campaigns
for the conservation of wild plants, and strongly supports the proposed designation of the
principal sites of peat extraction in England as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs).
The Royal Society for Protection of Birds, a powerful lobby group with over 1m
members, has also strongly campaigned against the use of peat, again pointing out the
rarity of some of the wildlife on lowland peat bogs, and as may be expected highlighting
the importance of these habitats for bird species such as golden plovers, hen harriers and
nightjars. The RSPB has called for a levy on peat. (Royal Society for the Protection of
Birds, 1998), and latterly has lobbied members of the All Party Parliamentary Gardening
and Horticulture Group in the UK’s parliament (Rhydderch, 2001). Both Plantlife and the
RSPB, as well as other organisations allied to the PCC have been active through websites
and leaflet campaigns. After several years of marginal interest in peat affairs, Friends of
the Earth have recently appointed a campaigner on peat issues. Friends of the Earth have
carried out surveys of major retailers and garden centres of growing media and soil
improvers, and have ranked these according to their approach to peat use (Friends of the
Earth, 2001).
The tactics of some organisations and especially that of the RSPB have been
confrontational in nature, and they have not been averse to misrepresentation of facts,
such as claiming in some leaflets that the historic loss of peatlands in the UK has been
primarily due to horticultural activity. Forestry and agriculture have been by far the
greatest influences on loss of peat habitats in the UK.
One extremely significant development from the lobby groups has been to
persuade the National Trust, a highly respected and popular charity that owns and
maintains houses of historic interest and sites of natural beauty in England and Wales, to
ballot its members on the use of peat in the gardens of their properties. Members voted
overwhelmingly to ban the use of peat, and the trust has taken the decision to phase out
peat (National Trust, 2000). The volume of peat used in its gardens was comparatively
small, but the (1m+) members of the trust are now well aware of the peat debate and may
well be influenced to purchase peat-free materials. The National Trust, alone among
lobby groups, has trialled and produced its own peat-free growing medium, although it is
approximately twice the cost of growing media sold through major multiple retailers.

Response of the Peat Producers

Manufacturers of growing media and soil improvers in the UK are represented by
the Peat Producers Association, who have continued to resist pressures from

109
environmental lobbies about peat use (Shaw, 2000a). The PPA sees its role as developing
and marketing substrates that work to optimum efficacy, deliver these on time to their
customers at the lowest possible cost (PPA, 2001). The PPA have indicated that the
growing media/soil improver market in the UK is worth around £1.4 billion in 2000, and
supports around 90 000 jobs, mainly in retail outlets. They claim that the market is highly
competitive with pressures from overseas manufacturers and suppliers.
The PPA has indicated that the 8 800 hectares of intact raised mire in the UK is
safe from any threat of peat extraction, and of the remaining 60 000 hectares of raised
mire described of lesser conservation value only 5 000 hectares are used by the peat
industry. They also point out that under RoMPs peat extractions are subject to regular
review by planning authorities, and that after extraction areas are managed as nature
conservation sites. The PPA has welcomed the development of a Global Action Plan for
Peatlands regarding Wise Use, Conservation and Management by the Ramsar convention
(Shaw, 2000a).
The use of alternatives, particularly bark, as a replacement for peat as a soil
improver has been welcomed by the PPA, but they remain opposed to the use of
composted materials in growing media. This response is linked to the pressure to use
materials now being made available through recycling of waste arising through
implementation of Landfill taxes in the UK. The PPA point to the inherent variation in
quality and supply of these materials, suggesting that there is ‘no justification for treating
the UK horticulture industry as society’s dustbin’ (Shaw, 2000b).
Peat dilution is considered by the PPA to be a possible forward move to reducing
the quantity of peat used in growing media. Trials by member companies have shown that
for some purposes materials can be included in peat media to a volume of 20-25%
without adversely affecting plant performance (Turner, personal communication). The
PPA feel that products containing alternatives to peat be targeted at the amateur gardener
– something at least they have in common with environmental lobbyists!
As with the PCC member organisations, the PPA has its own highly professional
and attractive website. Individual members have sought to promote their viewpoints
through press releases and other forms of media. The Scotts Company for example, which
extracts peat from Thorne and Hatfield moors, has produced a CD Rom entitled ‘Peat –
Achieving a Balance’.

Responses of Retailers and Consumers

Multiple retailers in the UK have been targeted by pressure groups to reduce or
even halt sales of growing media and soil improvers based on peat. The public and
especially amateur (hobby) gardeners have not responded to the exhortations of the
environmental lobby, and indeed sales of peat-free products have declined in some stores.
The major home and garden multiple retailer in the UK, which has approximately 30% of
the growing media market in the UK – B&Q – reported that from 1994 to 1997 the
percentage of peat-free growing bags sold compared to peat-based declined from 19 to
9%.
However, B&Q have announced a more subtle approach to promote the use of
peat-free materials in its stores. B&Q is to require suppliers to clearly label the peat
content of their products, and has indicated that it intends to be 85% peat-free by 2006
and totally peat-free within ten years (Friends of the Earth, 2001). Nurseries supplying
peat to B&Q may need to meet these targets. However, in common with the PPA, B&Q
has indicated that a gradual change through peat dilution with alternatives is the logical
way to proceed.
The general public has so far in the UK shown no desire to go peat-free. Figure 1
shows the very small proportion of peat-free materials used by amateur gardeners
compared to peat-based products. Surveys carried out in both the early and late 1990s
have shown that consumer perception of the peat debate as an environmental issue is low
and that amateur gardeners still prefer to use peat-based growing media (Gardening from
Which, 2001; Rhydderch, 2001).

110
Current Perspectives of the Peat Debate in the UK
Attempts by environmental lobbies to change the buying habits of the British
public with respect to peat alternatives have not yet been successful. The lobbies have
been more successful through their approaches to government and latterly to multiple
retailers of growing media. The designation of SACs and the possibility of prohibition of
peat extraction on these may have a more marked effect on the production and
constituents of growing media in the UK than any pressures brought by lobbyists in the
last ten years – although these groups have seized on the opportunity provided by these
proposals to further their case against peat use. The Peat Producers Association is clearly
concerned by these proposals to designate worked peatland areas as Special Areas of
Conservation.
Proposals have also been made that producers of growing media may examine
other potential sources of peat in the UK, particularly from forested areas. The idea has
been raised that peat for use in horticulture should be obtained from so-called archaic
sources – peatland currently used for agricultural or forestry purposes, rather than from
raised mires. However, much of the agricultural peatland in the UK is highly productive,
and persuading owners/farmers of such land to move to peat extraction may be difficult. It
is more likely that import substitution may result, with peat being sourced from for
example the Baltic States.
Reductions in the supply of peat from UK sources may stimulate further work on
alternative materials as growing media constituents. As in other European countries, there
is a considerable impetus to use composted materials in growing media, but as elsewhere,
there are problems with the consistency and supply of such materials. Such materials may
have a role in peat dilution, but are never likely to constitute more than 20-25% of a
growing medium. Other materials such as bark and timber waste are used in peat-free
media but there are currently insufficient quantities needed to replace the 3.44m cubic
metres of peat used in growing media in the UK (Turner, personal communication).
Nevertheless, if peat extraction is prohibited on current sites, and importation
substitution proves difficult and/or unreliable, use of alternatives in growing media may
develop rather more rapidly in the early years of the millennium within the UK.

Literature Cited
Aspinwall and Company Ltd. 1994. Peat-based and alternative products in the gardening
and landscape markets. Pub. UK Department of the Environment.
Bragg, N. 1990. Peat and its Alternatives. Horticultural Development Council, UK.
Carlile, W.R. 1997. The Effects of the Environment Lobby on the Selection and Use of
Growing Media in the UK. Acta Hort. p.580.
Department of Environment. 1994. Report of the Working Group on Peat and Related
Matters.
Department of Environment. 1995. Mineral Planning Guidance Note 13. Guidelines for
Peat Provision in England including the place of alternative materials.
Department of Environment. Transport and the Regions. 1999a. Report of the Peat
Working Group and Related Matters.
Department of Environment. Transport and the Regions. 1999b. Monitoring and
Assessment of peat and alternative products for growing media and soil improvers in
the UK. Results for 1996 and 1997.
Department of Environment. Transport and the Regions. 2000. Report on the DETR
Seminar on ‘Opportunities for and constraints on the use of Peat Alternatives as
Growing Media.’
English Nature. 2000. website at http://www.english-nature.org.uk/news/story.asp?ID=13
EnvirosAspinwall and the ADAS. 2000. Monitoring and Assessment of Peat and
Alternative Products for Growing Media and Soil Improvers in the UK (1996-1999).
Published by the UK DETR.
Friends of the Earth. 2001. Press release 16 April at
http://www.foe.co.uk/pubsinfo/infoteam/pressrel/2001/200104160001.html

111
Gardening from Which. 2001. January.
Hansard. 1990. (Proceedings of the UK House of Commons) 9 May 1990.
Hansard. 1999. (Proceedings of the UK House of Commons) 5 November 1999. p.4-11.
National Trust for England and Wales. 2000. Annual Report.
Peat Producers Association. 2001. website at http://www.peatproducers.co.uk/
Peatlands Campaign Consortium. 2000. Comments by the Peatlands Campaign
Consortium on the DETR Peat Working Group Report.
Royal Society for Protection of Birds. 1998. RSPB briefing on a peat levy.
Rhydderch, R. 2001. Green lobby’s voice grows in peat debate. Horticulture Week,
March 22. p.16.
Shaw, A. 2000a. Peat Campaigns – Fair Business or Exaggeration. Peatlands International
2000(1)10-13.
Shaw, A. 2000b. Balancing the needs of conservation and commerce. Peat Producers
Association press release.

112
Figures

4.0

Quantity (millions of cubic metres) 3.5

3.0

2.5
Peat
2.0
Peat -free
1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
1988 1993 1996 1998 1999

Fig. 1. Volumes of peat and other materials used in growing media in the UK 1988-1999.
Data from the Peat Producers Association website and EnvirosAspinwall and
ADAS (2000). Monitoring and Assessment of Peat and Alternative Products for
Growing Media and Soil Improvers in the UK (1996-1999). Published by the UK
DETR.

2.5
Quantity (millions of cubic metres)

1.5
Peat
Peat-free
1

0.5

0
Amateur Local Landscaping Professional
Gardening Authorities Horticulture

Fig. 2. Market share of peat and peat-free materials used for growing media in the UK
1999. Adapted from EnvirosAspinwall and the Agricultural Development and
Advisory Service (2000). Monitoring and Assessment of Peat and Alternative
Products for Growing Media and Soil Improvers in the UK (1996-1999).
Published by the UK DETR.

113