FAQs

Producing peat-based substrates is simple, which is why it's so popular. Add the desired amount of fertilizer to the nutrient-poor peat, then adjust the pH of the acidic material with lime; that's it!

Replacing peat with alternatives usually involves complex mixtures of renewable materials, such as:

– Coco-peat

- Green waste compost (e.g., leaves, grass, bark, wood fibres...)

- Sphagnum moss and other bog plants like cattail or flake

– Biochar

- Sheep wool

- Mineral sources: perlite, vermiculite, sand

Regarding CO2 emissions, agriculture on drained peatlands currently has a very negative impact on our climate. The agricultural sector is responsible for more greenhouse gases than peat extraction. Nevertheless, peat extraction leads to higher incomes and environmental damage per hectare of land. As a result, peat extraction acts as a powerful economic incentive to keep peat bogs dry. It is essential that we remove all financial incentives that make it attractive to drain peatlands and keep them drained.

Agriculture and the substrate industry play a cat-and-mouse game here: the substrate industry points fingers at the agriculture sector for their more significant overall emissions, while the agriculture sector says that the real problem lies with the substrate industry, which causes more intense destruction with their open pit mining activities.

Yes, they do indeed exist in sufficient quantities (see this study by Thünen institute). However, the fact that they exist does not mean that they are readily available for the substrate industry. Two main stumbling blocks still exist:

- Competition from other industries, like the heavily subsidised biomass combustion.

- Lack of adequate composting facilities.

We often see a lamentable waste of biomass, e.g., growers who simply burn their green waste or sheep wool, which gets binned. If you see something like that, then get active and talk to people about the value of the material in their hands.

The answer is that it depends. Both coir-pith and peat are the only materials that can serve as substrates on their own, without the need for complex mixtures - except for a few special plants that grow in pure rock wool, perlite or even water! This underlines the positive properties of coir. But is cocopeat also more sustainable than peat? Let's look at the extremes, epitomized by the stories of 'Bad Coir' and 'Good Coir'.

'Bad Coir' includes clearing forests to create coconut plantations, possibly involving child labor in production. Extensive washing processes of the cocopeat result in excessive water use at harvest sites and a salt burden on waterways. Long-distance transport contributes to the ecological footprint of 'Bad Coir'.

In contrast, 'Good Coir,' a by-product of coconut production, is an example of a clean cascade system: we consume the nut, drink the milk, and use the fibers as material. The remaining coir is used in the substrate industry. Local environmental and social issues are closely monitored. The material is compressed for transport, which minimizes emissions. 'Good Coir' is washed and processed closer to the consumer in accordance with strict social and environmental standards.

A certification scheme, Responsibly Produced Coir is currently being set up, reminiscent of the established RPP (Responsibly' 'Produced' Peat) certification scheme. We hope this scheme will help shift the balance towards 'Good Coir.'

The argument that growing media are essential to green cities and that without these substrates, only hardening remains seems to be an evident fallacy of the horticultural sector and the peat lobby, which unfortunately reflects their limited view of urban greening. The suggestion that without growing media, our cities would automatically harden ignores the natural ability of wasteland to green spontaneously, without human intervention. Nature does not need human intervention to thrive. 

Even if we as humans want to have more influence on plant choice, it is still possible to green our cities without resorting to growing media. Choosing native plants that thrive naturally in the environment and are well adapted to the local soil provides a sustainable alternative. These plants can also be obtained free of charge as root material through initiatives such as meerbomen.

The argument that growing media are necessary only becomes more complex when attempting to place specific plants in unsuitable soils, such as an acid-loving plant in an alkaline soil. In this case, we would have to use substrates, but the argument is an economic and not an ecological one.

RPP is a scheme which aims at limiting peat extraction to formerly degraded peatlands. It also regulates the after-use of extracted peat bogs.

Regelingen zoals RPP kunnen inderdaad helpen om de schade van turfwinning te beperken if done well. If extraction sites are limited to those which are previously degraded, then the loss of biodiversity can be minimised.

However 1: the definition of RPP is quite open to allowing adaptation to local variations, e.g., " The aim will be rehabilitation to original natural conditions, as close as possible and practically feasible.” (LINK) Sounds nice, but this formulation leaves the door open to cheap but
ultimately damaging after-uses like afforestation (see IPCC report).

However 2: Psychologically, as a moral fig-leaf: Using 'responsibly' produced peat might feel like doing the right thing, so why even try to limit the use of peat?

We are getting signals that the relatively new RPP scheme is increasingly stringent. Its success ultimately depends on all players taking their responsibilities very seriously. 

We have European regulations protecting valuable habitats and the RPPscheme, which mandates site selection and after-use rules. So, where is the problem?

Peat extraction leads to a significant loss of biodiversity. Unfortunately, the existing rules are not followed well or written in a way that favours excessive and reckless extraction and environmentally inept restoration plans. Some examples:

In Latvia (Source): “The list of protected habitats in Latvia does not include raised bogs,” “landowners can drain without the obligation of following any pre-established safeguards,” “If peat extraction is proposed in a Natura 2000 site, a specific order must be applied (Cabinet Regulation No. 300 (19/04/2011). Peat extraction and/or extension of the existing peat extraction areas in Natura 2000 areas are possible only in very few exceptional cases (Gauja National Park, Pape Nature Park with ongoing peat extraction” “After-use of post-harvested peatlands can be as follows: re-naturalisation (restoration of mire or other type of wetland), creation of agricultural lands, afforestation, creation of water bodies for use in recreation” “many extracted peatlands are abandoned without re-cultivation.”

In Lithuania (Source): “conflicting situation due to different regulations, set in the laws of Protected sites and Forestry. For example, according to Forestry law, after clearing the vegetation in wetland, cleared site must be replanted within 3 years period (par.5) while law of Protected sites requires to keep such site open.” “Law on Land Reclamation (approved by Seimas on December 9, 1993, Resolution No. I-323) and all its versions does not mention peatlands” “protected sites are still appointed as sites for excavation” “only few cases of re-cultivation in completely extracted peatlands because most of peatlands are treated as ‘active’. However, abandoned peatlands remain in such status for years without any kind of restoration or further usage.” “Abandoned peatlands have no regulation.” “…hydrological regime may not be changed. It means the landuser is not allowed neither to drain it nor increase the water level.” “The methodology for re-cultivation is outdated, it provides guidance to revert post-mined site into water bodies”

GME, formerly known as EPGMA (European Peat and Growing Media Association), seeks to position itself as the advocate for all growing media producers. Minimizing the ecological impact of peat extraction is absolutely not central to their efforts. In fact; downplaying the ecological and climate damage caused by peat extraction is central to their activities. For example, documented on page 4 of this report. For this reason, we will continue to describe GME as a turf lobby unless the circumstances change.