Ending the sale of peat: consultation analysis

7. Impact on people using peat for fuel and on island communities

Using peat as a domestic fuel source was raised repeatedly throughout the consultation, both by the 55 respondents who indicated they use peat for fuel and by other respondents. To avoid repetition in this report, the key themes of this issue are detailed in this chapter.

While not all those who use peat for fuel live in island communities or have low incomes, many of the same themes were also evident in responses to Q25 and Q24, which asked respondents to outline impacts arising from the consultation on these groups. Analysis of responses to these questions is also included in this chapter.

Considerations for those using peat for fuel

The importance of peat as a fuel source

The need to use peat as an affordable and reliable heat source in remote rural areas, including the Hebrides, Shetland and Orkney, was highlighted by many individuals. Comments suggested these households relied on using peat e.g. peat is used as ‘a primary source of heating’, islanders have a ‘greater dependency on peat as a fuel’, or peat being ‘a necessity for a lot of people’.

Many described why peat was used or preferred as a fuel. Fuel poverty was a recurring theme, with many mentioning that people in remote and island communities were more likely to be in fuel poverty and to rely on the use of peat as an affordable heating source.

Alternative energy sources were considered difficult to source, use or cost more; gas and electricity are not always available in remote or off-grid areas, while coal and wood may be more expensive due to transport costs or be in limited supply. Others felt alternatives did exist and should be used, for instance, harnessing renewable energies such as wind, solar and wave power.

Poor insulation or quality of some houses combined with bad winter weather was raised by several. Capital costs of adapting older houses with new heating systems or better insulation were felt out of the reach for many householders using peat as a primary heating source, whilst some reported they are not connected to the mains gas grid.^[7].

“Properties are often old and hard to heat. Other means of heating properties will have a much higher ongoing cost as well as significant initial costs in upgrading the heating system, plumbing, tanks, etc.” - Individual

“Poor quality, poorly insulated housing needs reliable heat and therefore if use of peat was stopped it would be very expensive to find an alternative which is affordable on the Western Isles.” - Individual

Similarly, some noted that peat as fuel was helpful for remote and island communities during times of emergency. Examples of storms preventing ferry access to the Islands or causing power cuts were most frequently given. An unstable power supply, limited availability of alternatives and fuel poverty also meant some living on the Islands depended on peat throughout the year, either to top up other forms of fuel used or to act as a backup when power supplies are disrupted.

Potential impacts of a ban on peat sales

Given the challenges and higher costs associated with alternatives outlined above, many argued that a ban on peat sales for fuel, limiting the availability of peat for domestic use, could exacerbate fuel poverty.

“The poorest people in the Highland region will suffer the most if there is a ban on selling peat. Peat has not only been traditionally used to heat our homes for generations, but it still provides the most cost-efficient way to heat our homes due to how long and hot it burns in conjunction with coal. Removing the ability to buy peat for heating would devastate communities in the Highlands and put the lowest-income homes at risk of not being able to heat their homes due to the price of coal and wood. Peat offers a cheaper alternative to supplement coal and wood.” – Individual

“In general, most crofters live on a very limited budget and would find it hard to maintain their lifestyles without the use of peat for domestic heating purposes.” - Sandness and Walls Community Council

“Customers for our fuel peat are generally on lower incomes. Those that cannot afford to just put their central heating on whenever they feel like it. It is unfair to ban a fuel they rely on but to allow those that can afford malt whisky to still use peat. Large proportion of fuel peat users are rural dwellers who don't have access to town gas and have older, poorly insulated homes.” - Northern Peat & Moss Ltd

Some respondents, almost all individuals using peat for fuel, argued that switching to a peat-free alternative would be no better, and possibly worse, for the environment.

“Peat use is on my doorstep - everything else contributes massively to climate impact... My peat comes from less than a mile. It cooks my food, heats my house, heats my water, dries my clothes. It keeps me independent of the global system that is wrecking the planet.” - Individual

A few noted a ban would impact those in rural communities using peat for heating, though still felt it should proceed, with support offered to transition to other sources.

Cutting peat for own use

Retaining peat use amongst crofters or people cutting their own peat was advocated by many. However, these comments typically suggested respondents’ misunderstanding that a ban on all peat use was proposed rather than a ban on selling peat only.

Respondents highlighted that cutting and using peat for fuel in the Highlands and Islands was part of a ‘long-standing tradition’ and ‘as per our custom and culture’. In addition to cultural preservation, the practice was considered integral to some people’s lives, e.g. as an affordable fuel source or because crofters' homes were unsuitable for renovation. Suggestions of those who could be exempt from the use or sale of peat varied; for instance, those who cut their peat, those heating older domestic properties with solid fuel fires, those using peat for private domestic heating and those for whom there is no alternative fuel source.

When asked about exemptions at Q15, only some respondents specifically commented on the sale of peat for fuel. Views were mixed, with half calling for a ban and half advocating exemption. One individual argued both for a ban and for private peat cutting rights to be rescinded, with processed biomass pellets distributed at similar prices as an alternative while heating systems and insulation are upgraded. Another queried whether paying someone to cut their peat if they became unwell would constitute a peat ‘sale’.

“I support peat being protected with some measures, i.e. no horticultural sales, however, I cannot support a peat sale ban that would mean people cannot heat their homes.” – Individual

“I agree with banning horticultural use, but very strongly disagree with a total ban. I see from my own experience that an all-out ban including fuel for crofting communities would be harmful and would make life impossible for some.” – Individual

Impacts on island communities and socio-economically disadvantaged areas

Q25. Might any outcomes arising from this consultation have any positive or negative impacts specific to island communities?

Almost half of respondents answered Q25. The most prevalent theme was that islanders using peat for fuel would be impacted, as outlined above. Other themes were that there would be no impact, discussion about the impact on the environment and economy of the islands, and that transitional support would be required.

No anticipated impacts

The second most prevalent theme was that the proposals would have no impact on island communities. Few gave detailed responses; singular comments included that there would be no different impact on Island residents compared to others living in Scotland or that any impacts should not deter the Scottish Government from implementing a ban.

Positive environmental impact

The main positive impact of a ban, mentioned by many respondents, was on the environment, notably improving the ecosystems and biodiversity of peatlands and mitigating the effects of climate change. For instance, some highlighted the risk of rising water levels around the Scottish Islands. Some also suggested there would be increased opportunities for eco-tourism or to maximise the use of peatlands for renewable energy production, aquaculture, flood protection and water purification. A few also highlighted environmental gains through reduced peat extraction or pollution from distilleries.

Negative economic impact

Potential economic losses were noted by many, notably in the whisky industry. Distillery closures and the loss of local jobs were the main considerations. A few also mentioned the loss of local income from peat extraction or of jobs in peat extraction. One suggested there might be economic benefits to Island communities if small-scale peat use for speciality products was retained at very local levels.

Transition support to offset impact

Many called for financial and other support to facilitate the transition away from peat, most notably for individuals. Suggestions included helping people on lower incomes heat their homes using low-carbon energy, awareness campaigns and providing grants for installing alternative heating systems. Some called for greater compensation to replace lost income for local peat extractors, to encourage tourism or to increase support for renewable energies, e.g. via grants for tidal wave generation or to consider the regulatory and pricing regime around locally generated renewable energies.

Other themes

Many respondents commented on the use of peat as a household resource and peat cutting as a traditional way of life amongst those living in remote parts of Scotland. Several also highlighted that the proposals should not impact cutting for personal use. Some cautioned that negative impacts should not detract from reducing peat use, given the environmental imperative. A few felt Islanders should be consulted for their views or that companies should offset their peat use by investing more in environmental initiatives.

Q24. Could any outcomes arising from this consultation have any positive or negative impacts on those on low incomes or in socio-economically disadvantaged areas?

Q24 was answered by 281 respondents, with a range of opposing views expressed. The most prevalent theme in comments was that there would be no impact to those on low incomes or in socio-economically disadvantaged areas. While many did not explain why, a few who provided greater detail did so in the context of horticulture. Potential increases to growing and gardening costs were highlighted by many as a concern. This included impacts on both hobby gardeners and crofters or people who grow their own food to counter increased living costs. Others thought a ban could benefit the economy by increasing the market for peat-free alternatives.

“Peat free alternatives from post-consumer waste are competitive with composts that contain peat.” – Individual

“Those on low incomes growing to supply food for their families should be considered if peat alternatives are expensive.” – Individual

Conversely, many respondents stated there would be an impact but did not explain why.

The second most prevalent theme was the negative impact of higher fuel costs on socio-economically disadvantaged areas. This has been discussed earlier in this chapter.

Many respondents argued that socio-economically disadvantaged areas would be more negatively impacted if climate change was not stopped. Respondents suggested that those with fewer resources and less money may be less resilient to changing environmental impacts.

“Peat extraction often occurs in relatively disadvantaged areas, but these areas could benefit from increased eco-tourism based around peatlands which would provide a more sustainable basis for the economy than peat extraction. Most extraction sites only operate for some of the year (fortunately!), so do not provide long-term employment. Living with the environmental degradation of peat extraction just perpetuates disadvantage.” - Individual