With the 29th of October fast approaching – the date of the Forest Certification Council of Latvia’s 11th International Conference* “Environment and Sustainable Forest and Land Management – Current Solutions” – here is an interview with Professor Normunds Stivriņš, one of the conference speakers, on peat, its extraction, alternatives, and political hypocrisy.
The world continues to talk about population growth and the logical necessity to provide these people with food. Is this fact being taken into account in European Union discussions regarding emissions and the restriction of peat extraction?
From time to time, I get the impression that we tend to forget where food comes from and how it is produced, as well as the fact that it must be grown, which means it requires a substrate. While we might plant tomatoes or pumpkins directly into the soil in a back garden, when we think on a larger scale—about providing the necessary food for a large number of people—we must take professional growers into account; in this case, precisely measurable and determinable results are essential: how much, where, and what we can grow.
When we talk about peat, most of the attention is currently focused on CO₂ emissions, without properly valuing what peat gives us as a substrate. The question of the strategic importance and role of peat is being highlighted in Sweden, Finland, and so on—essentially in all countries that extract peat and understand its significance. We must remember that in our country, peat is not burned (and if it is, it is done in very small volumes).
Recently, more and more researchers have been focusing their work on so-called life cycle analysis, which measures the impact of various substrates, their mixtures, and their components. A recent study evaluated 12 types of substrates (peat, wood fibre, coconut fibre, etc.) and concluded that if you only consider CO₂, there will certainly be a “leader” (for example, a mixture of peat and compost), but if you evaluate the impact on the environment (a specific substrate requires a certain watering regime, its extraction, and transportation), peat is by no means as “climate-unfriendly” as some would have us believe.
Speaking of potential peat alternatives, are they only being studied from the perspective of the environment or growth, or more broadly? For example, Latvia and coconut fibre, which must be transported a considerable distance to reach us; rock wool is linked to industrial production; compost—where to get it in the necessary volume? Do studies take into account the economic and practical aspect? Presumably, there exists an ideal substrate that is just as “ideally” expensive.
I agree, the question is quite complicated, like many issues today, including those regarding peat and substrates. At the moment, we are very used to peat; it is the fundamental basis upon which we carry out many calculations. New, potential substitute substrates show varying results—in some we can grow certain things, others, as you mentioned, are very expensive and yield equally expensive results, which makes one ask, for example, who could afford to buy vegetables grown in such expensive substrate.
The volumes of peat used on a daily basis are quite large, which is why we must think about the future. For example, in Finland, it is estimated that by 2040 it will be necessary to open 5,000–8,000 hectares of new active extraction areas to meet demand. The calculation shows that immediate replacement of peat is not possible and there are currently no alternatives. Let me remind you: we have some things, and we can grow some things (in alternative substrate), but this “something” is only a component of the substrate, not the base itself.
If it is decided not to extract peat at all, one must ask: how will we manage? I will repeat, we talk far too little about how much we grow and what we grow, and what the role and importance of peat substrate is in this process.
Do your colleagues, scientists who study processes related to the use of peat, collaborate with each other? For example, are you invited to participate by those who study food-related processes, environmental chemistry, or economics? The issue is interdisciplinary cooperation on food security and supply—what and how much does Northern Europe need?
I must say, there is no such data, and there has been no such synergy or cooperation to date. If we talk about what we need and how much, the relevant data is missing not only for individual sectors but also for national governments. Of course, there is also the technical question of how and where peat is classified, which has also not been harmonised between countries.
In my opinion, to answer your question, which is undoubtedly very significant, a broad circle of experts and concrete data is needed. Only by acknowledging the real situation are reasonable decisions possible. At the moment, unfortunately, it is like this: we do not know, but we guess or assume, and decisions are made based on hunches, assumptions, or even emotions. That is not how it should be!
Answering the first question, you mentioned a thesis that is now resonating quite widely—many people do not know where or how things originate, are made, or are grown. As a scientist and academic, do you feel that this problem, which is known, is becoming deeper as the years go by? Those who know discuss it more; those who do not know continue not to know.
Unfortunately, yes! As time passes, society has undeniably changed, interests have shifted, and so on. It is also necessary to collect data—where and what we are growing—and to create infographics based on this, explaining it starting from schools. This is to ensure the belief does not take hold that milk is created and originates in the shop.
How should we evaluate the idea that is also being voiced in relation to peat—that we only extract what we need for ourselves and do not export? Of course, forgetting the fact that some things on our table come from other countries, which are happy to use the substrate we produce for growing fruit or vegetables.
The fact that we do not export peat does not change another fact—we will continue to import products that are not produced here or do not grow here. In principle, a certain burden can be shifted to other countries in this way.
This could be termed a certain hypocrisy—the fact that we do not support the peat industry or shut it down does not change demand elsewhere in the world; therefore, the necessary material or raw material will come from elsewhere, for example via various detours from Russia. By closing down production in Latvia or another EU country, we will simultaneously support the development of the sector elsewhere, including in countries hostile to us. This is certainly not the goal, but it is not being thought through.
In the European Union, we have some of the strongest legislation regulating environmental issues; we pay equal attention to environmental, economic, and social issues. If we lack a certain industry, we allow the corresponding activities to develop elsewhere (in another country), where, very likely, there are no such strict regulations. That causes even greater harm.
For example, while coconut fibre was “considered” waste, everything was fine. As soon as it became a sought-after product, demand grew, and a certain level of marketing or propaganda was carried out to introduce such a substrate more widely in Europe. For this to happen, coconut palms are purposefully and widely planted, moving from a waste phase to deliberate planting. Palms are grown in large areas, and the environment in those countries is impacted by monocultures, processing, and labour. Monocultures are not environmentally friendly. Outside the European Union, we cannot track everything that we can within the EU. For example, in Europe, we do not allow the development of mineral extraction because we know that mining pollutes the environment significantly and we do not want that in Europe... but... we allow it to develop and pollute the environment elsewhere. This situation is worth looking at and evaluating more critically.
Could it be similar to the various plantations of high-demand crops in the equatorial and tropical regions? As soon as something “turns into” a popular and sought-after commodity, major problems begin.
That could be the case. As soon as we get used to a good or product, demand begins to grow. Habit promotes demand. In my opinion, we must be very careful when postulating that we are acting in the name of the climate, the environment, and people, and therefore exclude certain activities from our view. It must be emphasised that we are not stopping them, because the same thing will happen (continue) somewhere else in the world. Demand will exist, and it will grow.
The forestry sector has a similar situation—there is a desire to use more wood, yet at the same time its extraction (tree felling) should be reduced. We will fell less, but the demand for wood will not diminish; it will be obtained elsewhere, and therefore we will also import it. Our economy, support for local producers, and local people will disappear, while others will benefit.
In my opinion, a reasonable balance is needed between what we want, how we actually and practically live our lives, and how, what, and where things are produced.
* https://www.zemeunvalsts.lv/lmsp-11-starptautiska-konference-vide-un-ilgtspejiga-meza-un-zemes-1