Agriculture accounts for 19% of Scottish greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and is the third largest emitting sector. Reducing these emissions is critical. ClimateXChange designed and coordinated a programme of research and knowledge exchange that has transformed how the Scottish Government, farmers and the wider agriculture sector have identified ways to reduce emissions on the path to net zero by 2045.  

Through a series of influential reports, our work has driven innovative policy development and effective and practical engagement with the sector, providing a solid foundation for agricultural climate mitigation in Scotland. It has enabled and supported collaboration across the agricultural sector with a focus on the feasibility of a wide range of different emission reduction measures. 

Accessible and useable research 

Over the last two decades Scottish Government’s Strategic Research Programme has developed a robust and highly respected evidence base for emissions reduction in agriculture, measuring GHG reduction interventions by their cost-effectiveness (known as a marginal abatement cost curve (MACC)).  

While the MACC has been published in peer-reviewed journals and expert reports (including for the UK Climate Change Committee), it is highly technical analysis that is not easily accessible to non-technical policy and industry actors.  

Working closely with Scottish Government’s Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services (RESAS), ClimateXChange designed and coordinated a series of research projects that would provide accessible and useable research insights from the MACC for policymakers.  

Starting in 2021, our Marginal abatement cost curve for Scottish agriculture report (MACC report) set out an accessible assessment of the mitigation potential. It examined the difference between the emissions arising from agricultural activities before and after mitigation measures are implemented and the resulting GHG savings. The report updated estimates of practical cost-effectiveness for a selection of agricultural mitigation options and provided previously unavailable detail on specific measures that have the potential to reduce emissions from the sector.   

A second research project in 2023 – A scenario-based approach to emissions reduction targets in Scottish agriculture (Scenarios report) – examined those options in more detail while also drawing out challenges between UK-based methodologies and Scotland-specific data. 

CXC has continued to work on detailed research reports – covering specifics from reducing methane emissions in livestock to decarbonising mobile machinery – demonstrating the potential to drill into the detail of each measure. 

Engaging with farmers and the reality on farms 

Farmer-led groups were established by the Scottish Government in 2020 to develop advice and proposals for the Scottish Government on how to cut emissions and tackle climate change. Our reports provided clear and accessible interpretations of complex analysis. This ensured that these groups could make direct, time-critical use of information that would otherwise have been inaccessible to all but highly experienced economists. 

“The ClimateXChange work on the MACC for agriculture and related scenarios was essential in providing the baseline evidence we needed to assess the mitigation potential for emission reductions on farm. The combination of access to serious research expertise and the clear communication of the findings meant we could assess the measures with a wider range of internal and external stakeholders who are not expert economists.” 

Macroeconomist, Office of the Chief Economic Advisor, Scottish Government 

By presenting individual options in detail and with a wide audience – especially farmers – in mind, our MACC report supported subsequent discussions on practical actions that could realistically be applied on farm. As well as being cited in each of the farmer-led group sector reports and their supporting analysis, our report directly informed the development of a new approach to agricultural support payments.     

Supporting the Climate Change Plan and beyond 

The MACC and Scenarios reports have proved foundational for the agricultural emissions reductions proposed in the Climate Change Plan. Policymakers took measures outlined in the reports to the farmer-led groups as the starting point for their deliberations, and the groups’ reports in turn reference the CXC evidence. This feedback loop between research, stakeholder engagement, and policymaking has reinforced the credibility and uptake of the findings. 

The Climate Change Plan 2026-2040 cites the Scenarios report as the basis for estimating mitigation potential across the Agricultural Reform Programme. Drawing on input from farmer-led groups, stakeholders, and academic analyses to outline practical and technically feasible pathways for emissions reduction across Scotland’s farming systems, its insights fed directly into identifying which measures should be supported within the Programme.  This has directly informed the emissions calculation in the Climate Change Plan and what emissions reduction measures were selected for support based on their reduction potential and cost.  

“These reports were critical in informing the estimates of abatement that went into the Climate Change Plan. They are our most important sources of estimates, and it would have been impossible to prepare our contribution to the plans without them. In addition to the reports themselves we have hugely valued regular contact with the authors to talk things through and ensure our interpretations are up to date.” 

Senior economist, RESAS 

Potential measures to reduce emissions from agricultural machinery were identified in both the MACC report, the Scenarios report and specific research. These are cited in the Climate Change Plan as key evidence for the policy package to address agricultural combustion. 

Scottish Government colleagues, including the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, as well as farmers and academics have recognised the significant impact of CXC’s suite of research on agriculture’s pathway to net zero. Our work has been referenced extensively in Scottish Government policy documents and supporting published evidence – some of which are linked to below.  

Responding to continuing challenges 

Despite significant efforts across the sector, agricultural emissions remain largely unchanged. As other sectors cut their emissions this means agricultures share of overall emissions is increasing.  

Agriculture faces key challenges in reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the combination of biological processes in the production of a secure food supply, the lack of market-ready technologies and the capital investment required for change.  

Our work is continuing to drive policy development, sector engagement, innovation and further research, compounding our impact for years to come. Our research findings and approach to co-developing and co-delivering useable research outputs will continue to have impact for the lifetime of the Climate Change Plan and beyond.  

Related projects

Breeding for reduced methane emissions in livestock

Increasing low-carbon energy in Scottish agriculture through a whole systems approach

Decarbonisation of mobile agricultural machinery – an evidence review

Nutritional strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions

Related policy documents

Agricultural reform – list of measures

Pig Sector Farmer-Led Climate Change Group: climate change and greenhouse gas evidence

Arable Farmer-led Group: climate change evidence

Hill, Upland and Crofting Farmer-led Group: climate change evidence

Reducing emissions from agriculture – the role of new farm technologies

Dairy Farmer-led Group: climate change evidence

Greenhouse gas inventory: estimated arable emissions and their mitigation

A New Blueprint For Scotland’s Arable Sector

Research completed: March 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7488/era/7056

Executive summary

Aims

This report examines how Cross Compliance contributes to Scotland’s Vision for Agriculture, and whether introducing greater ambition will support Scotland in achieving its goals.

All farmers and crofters in Scotland who receive income support under the Basic Payment Scheme must observe Cross Compliance requirements, which are a set of rules that enforce laws around animal and plant health as well as sustainable agricultural practices. Cross Compliance requirements are set as Statutory Management Requirements (SMRs) and Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAECs). Breaches of these requirements can result in a penalty applied to the value of a business’s Basic Payment Scheme payment entitlement.

The report explores the differences between the Cross Compliance rules in Scotland and EU Member States with a conditionality policy, and analyses the strengths, weaknesses and macro-environmental considerations of three selected opportunities which could be implemented to better align with Scotland’s Vision for Agriculture. A conditionality policy in this context is a rule linking EU farm income support to farmers’ compliance with essential environmental, health, welfare, and land‑management standards.

Findings

We found that the contribution of Scottish Cross Compliance to the five outcomes of the Vision for Agriculture are uneven, with stronger alignment to environmental and animal welfare outcomes, and more limited support for thriving agricultural businesses and a just transition. There was limited evidence in the literature on the implementation and outcome of more ambitious Cross Compliance approaches.

We selected three Cross Compliance opportunities based on the evidence assessment and a set of criteria, and examined them in detail:

• Opportunity 1: Enhancement of buffer areas to be in line with best practice for maximum protection to nature and water pollution​
• Opportunity 2: Extension of management requirements to reduce soil erosion risk
• Opportunity 3: Incorporation of hedgerow maintenance requirements

We identified four overarching considerations relevant to any development of the current Cross Compliance rules to better deliver on the Vision’s outcomes:

• Balancing environmental ambition with profitability
• Developing a strong monitoring and evidence base, including robust data to justify changes and increase the acceptability of policy adjustments
• Co‑designing rules with farmers, crofters and land managers
• Increasing support, training and communication

Finally, the research emphasised the importance of considering any revisions to Cross Compliance within the wider Scottish agricultural policy framework. Increasing the ambition of Cross Compliance rules in Scotland to improve outcomes may create a gap between the EU conditionality requirements and the Scottish Cross Compliance system.

Conclusions

The opportunities studied here do not constitute an exhaustive list of possible improvements to deliver better economic, environmental and social outcomes, nor an indication of future policy changes to be applied to Cross Compliance rules in Scotland. There is clear potential to strengthen the Cross Compliance rules to support the outcomes of the Vision for Agriculture, but more evidence is needed to support any future changes, as well as holistic consideration of the wider agricultural and environmental policies.

Glossary / Abbreviations table

Introduction

Context

Scotland’s Vision for Agriculture is to be a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture (see Figure 1). Together with the accompanying Route Map^[1], it outlines policies aligned with national climate change^[2] and biodiversity^[3] targets in a post-Brexit context. As noted in the Agriculture and Rural Communities (ARC) Act^[4], the overarching objectives of agricultural policy in Scotland include:

1. the adoption and use of sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices,
2. the production of high-quality food,
3. the promotion and support of agricultural practices that protect and improve animal health and welfare,
4. the facilitation of on-farm nature restoration, climate mitigation and adaptation, and
5. enabling rural communities to thrive.

These five Strategic Outcomes have been developed to articulate and evidence what successful delivery of the ARC Act objectives would mean in practice for Scotland’s agriculture, rural communities and the rural economy.

Figure 1: Illustration of the five outcomes of the Scottish Vision for Agriculture

These objectives aim to create a framework that supports environmental and climate goals while ensuring the economic viability and sustainability of Scotland’s agricultural sector.

Cross Compliance

Cross Compliance is a set of rules comprising SMRs (Statutory Management Requirements) and GAECs (Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions). SMRs are enforced by separate sectorial law in Scotland and include regulations such as the requirements for animal identification. GAECs introduce protections of natural resources such as water, soils & carbon stocks and the minimum level of maintenance required. Therefore, they align closely with Scottish Government climate priorities. Through measures such as maintaining buffer strips, limiting soil erosion or regulating hedge trimming to protect biodiversity, GAECs help mitigate environmental degradation, support ecosystem services and align with several of Scotland’s broader goals of halting biodiversity loss and improving land and water health.

The Cross Compliance rules contribute to Scotland’s environmental targets by setting baseline standards for environmental protection, climate change, good agricultural condition of land, water quality, public health, animal and plant health and animal welfare. Farmers must adhere to these rules to receive support payments, through delivering actions such as buffer strips. Cross Compliance launched in 2005 when the UK was part of the European Union (EU), and Scottish Government has retained the Cross Compliance rules since the UK left the EU in 2020.

Since the UK’s withdrawal from the EU in 2020, Scotland is no longer bound to follow the set of conditionality rules known as “conditionality” included in the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP). This means that Scotland has the legal ability to review and revise Cross Compliance to better support national outcomes and to improve effectiveness. Through the review of GAECs in Scotland there is the potential to have far-reaching climate and biodiversity impacts as roughly 17,000 farmers across Scotland are currently required to meet GAECs requirements.

Aim of this project

This research examines how Cross Compliance contributes to Scotland’s Vision for Agriculture, and to understand whether introducing greater ambition (i.e. conditionality) will support Scotland in achieving its goals. There were three key aims:

1. Provide clarity and understanding of the current contribution of Scottish Cross Compliance to the five outcomes of the Vision for Agriculture,
2. identify the opportunities and barriers to developing the current set of Cross Compliance rules to better deliver on these outcomes, including from a practical implementation or economic perspective for farmers, crofters and land managers,
3. gather any specific lessons from comparable nations in the United Kingdom or the European Union from developments in Cross Compliance in other jurisdictions.

The analysis focusses on GAECS, because SMRs are embedded in separate Scottish Legislation, and therefore GAECs are more likely to be flexible in terms of scope. The research project does not present an analysis of the efficiency and relevance of the current set of Cross Compliance rules in Scotland, nor recommend changing them.

This project looks at the alignment between the Cross Compliance rules and the Vision for Agriculture, exploring differences between these rules in Scotland and other nations with a conditionality policy, and analysing the strengths, weaknesses and macro-environmental considerations of three selected opportunities which could be implemented in order to better align with Scotland’s Vision for Agriculture.

Selection of Cross Compliance opportunities

To select the Cross Compliance opportunities to be analysed for the potential to expand their ambition, a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA), and stakeholder engagement was undertaken.

Based on the findings, the contribution of the rules was mapped to the outcomes of the Vision for Agriculture, including identifying any evidence gaps, weaknesses and examples of other nations’ Cross Compliance rules showing greater ambition. Based on this assessment and stakeholder inputs, three opportunities were selected for further investigation. The methodological process followed for this project is illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: The five-step approach to develop the analysis of Cross Compliance opportunities

Assessment of the published evidence

We explored the role of Cross Compliance in Scotland within the context of the Scottish Government’s Vision for Agriculture.

A structured REA approach was used to ensure transparency and rigour. A search strategy protocol, including key search terms, inclusion criteria and example search strings was developed, reviewed and agreed by the Steering Group. Evidence was gathered systematically, with searches recorded with information on search date and search engine and string used. Sources were screened for relevance and robustness, and relevant evidence was then extracted and appraised to address the research questions and identify knowledge gaps. Appendix A provides further detail and examples on the search strategy developed.

Findings and information gaps

Research question 1:

What are the Cross Compliance requirements in Scotland, which environmental benefits and limitations do they provide and how do they contribute to the Scottish Government’s Vision for Agriculture?

A list of the SMR and GAEC requirements in Scotland was compiled (Table 1) and expert judgement was used to analyse alignment with the five outcomes of Scotland’s Vision for Agriculture, scored using Red-Amber-Green (RAG) rating system:

• ”Strong” indicates strong alignment with the outcome,
• “Partial/moderate” reflects partial or moderate alignment,
• “Negligible” signifies little to no contribution toward that outcome.

This assessment demonstrates that while Scotland’s current Cross Compliance requirements contribute meaningfully to several outcomes within the Vision for Agriculture—particularly in areas such as climate change—their overall impact is uneven. Notably, Outcomes 2 (Thriving Agricultural Businesses) and 5 (Support for a Just Transition) appear to be the least well-supported by existing standards. This is consistent with the intended purpose of Cross Compliance, which focuses on maintaining baseline environmental protections rather than supporting economic or social‑equity outcomes. Nonetheless, for the purposes of this research question- assessing the extent to which current Cross Compliance requirements align with the Vision for Agriculture – these findings point to clear opportunities to improve alignment, raise ambition, and address gaps in delivery.

Table 1: Contribution of Cross Compliance requirements to Scottish Governments’ Vision of Agriculture.

Environmental benefits of current Cross Compliance regulations

Information on the environmental benefits of Cross Compliance in Scotland is available in the literature, however available evidence on environmental limitations is limited and largely pre-2020. Based on interviews with the Scottish Government and its agencies, a study by Blackstock et al., 2018 found:

• Concerns that policy instruments that could address soil protection were not as well implemented as they could be (including under GAECs)
• There is scope to strengthen soil protection under the GAECs, and;
• There is potential for policy instruments, including GAECs, to deliver greater biodiversity outcomes if requirements were redesigned or implemented differently.

More recent analysis of the environmental limitations of Cross Compliance was not identified. In this context, ‘environmental limitations’ refers to areas where current Cross Compliance requirements may not fully address all environmental pressures, including emerging risks.

Table 2 presents a summary of the environmental benefits of GAECs (the study was focused on GAECs). A full list including the environmental benefits of SMRs is presented in Appendix B.

Table 2: Main environmental benefits associated with GAEC rules

Barriers to implementation

We also identified barriers which can limit the effectiveness of Cross Compliance as a tool for changing the management practises of farmers, crofters, and land managers in Scotland and more widely in the EU. These include:

• Administrative burden: The administrative burden of Cross Compliance, primarily the time and effort required both understand requirements and maintain/collate evidence to demonstrate compliance has been widely discussed and remains a major concern despite attempts by public authorities to reduce the burden. Minimising the administrative burden of Cross Compliance can increase the efficiency of agricultural policy. (El Benni et al., 2025)
• Lack of awareness and training: A lack of awareness around the environmental benefits of compliance indicates the need for a cultural shift within the farming sector. Improved training and communication could help build understanding of how Cross Compliance supports water quality, soil health, biodiversity, and long-term business sustainability. Emphasising the value of environmental protection as part of business resilience, not just for regulatory purposes, may encourage uptake (Blackstock et al., 2018)
• Fear of penalties and inspections: Some farmers and land managers expressed concerns over the risk of prosecution and fines, particularly due to the complexity of rules and fear of inadvertent non-compliance (MacLeod et al., 2008 and Blackstock et al., 2018). This apprehension around inspections can discourage engagement with compliance measures.
• Limited access to advice and guidance: Earlier studies (Baldock et al., 2013 and Bennett at al., 2006) highlighted challenges in accessing clear, practical guidance on Cross Compliance across both Scotland and the EU and suggested that existing support mechanisms were not always user-friendly or well-communicated. While current guidance is now clearly set out by Rural Payments and Services, farmers may still experience difficulties in navigating complex requirements or knowing where to look for further information.

Research question 2: Are there any other UK devolved administrations and/or EU Member States (MS) which have shown greater ambition beyond the basic Cross Compliance requirements?

A key challenge in exploring the second research question was the limited literature sources focussing specifically on Cross Compliance ambition. Many references concentrated on eco-schemes or agri-environment schemes, which, while related, fall outside the scope of this project. Among the sources addressing Cross Compliance directly, the emphasis was often on inspections, breaches, and the communication or interpretation of regulatory requirements rather than their ambition beyond the basic Cross Compliance requirements. ​

While some sources provided insights into how individual European Member States and other UK devolved administrations implement Cross Compliance, it was often unclear whether these examples represented the most ambitious approaches relative to other countries. In a few cases, sources suggested that certain countries go beyond the basic requirements; however, there was a lack of detailed information on how these enhanced measures were implemented, the outcomes achieved, and any barriers or lessons learned. Table 4 presents some examples. As previously indicated, these examples do not cover each GAEC individually, and it remains unclear whether they represent the most ambitious approaches across Member States. As such, the insights should be interpreted as indicative rather than comprehensive. The examples also largely draw on earlier CAP programming periods, given that comprehensive analysis of implementation and outcomes under the new CAP is less available.

Table 4: Examples of Cross Compliance rules in EU MS presented a wider scope than Scotland

Due to limited published evidence, we were unable to draw meaningful comparisons with other jurisdictions. The matrix developed and presented in Appendix C provides a high-level overview of EU GAECs that most closely align with the Scottish GAECs, highlights the countries implementing the greatest number of farm practices under these standards, and presents a selected Member State (based on similarity to Scotland climate and agriculture) to illustrate key farm practices and potential opportunities for development of existing GAEC requirements relevant to Scotland. These potential opportunities include:

• GAEC 1- Ploughing bans/restrictions
• GAEC 4- Summer cover crop; ban of ploughing grassland
• GAEC 5- low/no till; Presence of other unproductive areas and strips
• GAEC 6- Crop residues left on soil; biodiversity plan
• GAEC 7- Maintenance and conservation of field margins

The review of published evidence highlighted significant knowledge gaps, and the information available was largely high-level, meaning the insights gathered were not sufficient to identify clear opportunities for Scotland to address the five outcomes of the ‘Vision for Agriculture’ through the current Cross Compliance requirements.

Conclusion

The review of the published evidence found that Scotland’s Cross Compliance requirements align most strongly with environmental and animal welfare outcomes of the Vision for Agriculture but offer limited support for business resilience and a just transition. This is as expected given Cross Compliance’s environmental protection remit. While evidence of more ambitious approaches beyond the baseline was identified, this was generally high-level and often lacked detail on implementation or outcomes. As a result, whilst potential opportunities for Scotland do exist, the lack of detailed evidence makes it challenging to understand how these approaches could be used to enhance Cross Compliance in support of all five Vision outcomes.

Stakeholder engagement

The project engaged with stakeholders through a series of structured interviews and workshops to build on the findings of the REA. The first workshop presented the REA results and worked with expert stakeholders to provide Scottish context, helping to refine the research focus and develop a shortlist of Cross Compliance rules considered to have the greatest potential for positive impact.

The second workshop held with policy experts and the structured interviews focused on a deeper exploration of the selected Cross Compliance opportunities, identifying their strengths, weaknesses and the main macro-environmental factors to be considered, if a change in Cross Compliance rules was implemented.

The stakeholder engagement process involved first the development of a Stakeholder Engagement Plan, an Interview Guide and a Workshop Guide. We conducted 3 structured interviews with experts and then held the first workshop with industry representatives to identify the opportunities to be further analysed. We then conducted a second workshop with Scottish Government representatives and 4 structured interviews with experts to complement and refine our opportunity analysis.

The list of organisations which attended the workshops is presented in Appendix D and the main findings are presented in section 4.1.2.

Stakeholder Engagement research findings

In addition to supporting the identification of opportunities, stakeholders provided input on wider considerations on whether Cross Compliance could or should be evolved to better support the Vision for Agriculture.

• Lack of alignment of Cross Compliance with the Vision for Agriculture: Both the literature analysis and the stakeholder engagement identified that the Vision for Agriculture and the present GAECs are aligned largely on Outcome 3 (Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation) and to some extend to Outcome 4 (Nature Restoration). Some stakeholders highlighted that compliance with Cross Compliance rules allows the full payment of support schemes such as the Basic Payment Scheme or the Less Favoured Area Support Scheme, and in that regard plays a significant role in contributing to thriving rural communities (Outcome 2), by helping to maintain farm incomes. However, Cross Compliance was created with the intent to help maintaining baseline environmental protections, rather than supporting economic or social‑equity outcomes.
• The need to balance environmental ambition and business profitability, within a broader policy framework: Stakeholders repeatedly highlighted the importance of balancing environmental or social ambition with profitability and farmer’s buy-in. Increasing the level of requirements in the Cross Compliance rules presents some cross-cutting risks such as:
  1. competitiveness concerns for farmers, crofters and land managers if the enforcement of these rules imply investments, a reduction of productive land, are more labour-intensive, increase the administrative burden, etc.
  2. Reduced compliance and decrease in enforcement rates, if the rules are not well understood or deemed impractical. This could necessitate more frequent controls from enforcement authorities, that would place an additional burden on public finance.
  3. An increased number of farmers, crofters or land-managers deciding not to claim Basic Payments, and therefore no longer subject to GAECs, leaving greater gaps in environmental protection.

Several stakeholders stressed the need to consider GAECs within the broader Scottish agricultural policy framework, as Cross Compliance rules interact with other policy mechanisms such as Greening, Tier 2, Agri Environment Climate Scheme, Whole Farm Plan and wider environmental policies and regulations, in order to avoid disconnections and gaps.

• An increase of the environmental ambition of the current Cross Compliance rules could be achieved by introducing new requirements, strengthening the existing ones or by shifting some practices which are currently incentivised by other policy mechanisms such as the Agri-Environment Climate Scheme into the baseline requirements. Depending on the changes, some GAECs may be strengthened without major administrative or economic burden, whereas others may deliver better outcomes with some support through incentivised schemes.
• The involvement of Scottish farmers, crofters and land managers in a co-design process of the rules: The importance of adopting a multi-stakeholder approach to design policy instruments is widely recognised (Reed, M., 2008). Stakeholder participation increases the quality of environmental decisions, improves the legitimacy of the instruments and the likelihood of their adoption. Stakeholders emphasised the importance of engaging with the farming community and co-designing any changes in Cross Compliance rules to ensure practicality, increase buy-in and improve compliance and therefore effectiveness. Several ideas were mentioned, such as the possibility of involving farmers, crofters and land managers in monitoring and self-regulation to improve engagement or strengthen education and awareness by linking compliance to visible environmental outcomes.
• The need for support, training & communication: The importance of improved access to advice, training, and communication has been repeatedly highlighted during the stakeholder engagement activities. For example, soil poaching by livestock near watercourses is a relatively common breach, often due to lack of awareness or habitual livestock management. Training and advice are key to improve compliance, as cumulative impacts of small breaches are poorly understood by farmers.

Information gaps identified

Stakeholder interviews and workshops highlighted several additional research possibilities, which build on the information gaps identified in section 4.1.1. Further research, as detailed below, could improve understanding of how current Cross Compliance supports Scotland’s Vision for Agriculture. It could also indicate how greater ambition in Cross Compliance requirements could support Scotland achieve its goals.

• Strengthening monitoring and scientific evidence, with standardised collation between different farm visit and inspection teams. Stakeholders highlighted the importance of providing evidence-based elements to support any changes in the baseline of Cross Compliance requirements to increase their acceptability. However, the desk-based research performed in this project highlighted the current lack of robust monitoring and evaluation data on GAEC rules and their contribution to economic, environmental or social outcomes.
• A broader mapping of the interaction between the Cross Compliance requirements and the other following schemes included in the Scottish agricultural policy framework, as they related to support of Scotland’s Vision for Agriculture objectives:
  • Legal requirements which apply to farmers beyond Cross Compliance (e.g. the General Binding Rules in the Environmental Authorisations (Scotland) Regulations 2018),
  • The Whole Farm Plan
  • Greening
  • The Agri-Environment Climate Scheme
  • Farm assurance schemes in Scotland.
• A detailed assessment of comparable EU countries’ Cross Compliance guidelines, to understand real-world standards and practices and their contribution to goals aligned with Scotland’s Vision for Agriculture objectives. This could include a review of the post-2028 CAP proposal to replace enhanced conditionality with “protective practices”.

Selection of opportunities

Based on the results of the evidence assessment, we identified three opportunities for further investigation based on the following criteria:

• Does this opportunity address at least one outcome of the Vision for Agriculture?
• Has this opportunity been implemented elsewhere, to benefit from any lessons learnt?
• Is this opportunity already covered or partly covered by another Scottish Policy?
• Can this opportunity be monitored?

The GAECs selected for further analysis in the final stage of the project were:

• Opportunity 1: Enhancement of buffer areas to be in line with best practice for maximum protection to nature and water pollution​ (related to GAEC 1 – Buffer strips along watercourses)
• Opportunity 2: Extension of management requirements to reduce soil erosion risk (related to ​GAEC 5 – Minimum land management reflecting site specific conditions to limit erosion)
• Opportunity 3: Incorporation of hedgerow maintenance requirements (related to GAEC 7 – Retention of landscape features)

Cross Compliance opportunities analysis

This section covers an analysis of the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT), and a high-level assessment of the Political, Economic, Social, Technical, Legal and Environmental (PESTLE) factors associated with the shortlisted opportunities. This analysis was completed using Ricardo’s in house expertise and judgement and findings from the stakeholder engagement activities performed during this project. The full analysis for each opportunity is presented in SWOT and PESTLE tables in Appendix E.

Across all three opportunities, the analysis shows some cross-cutting findings: each option provides additional environmental benefits that contribute to the outcomes of Scotland’s Vision for Agriculture, particularly on climate action, nature restoration, and long‑term resilience. All measures strengthen protection of natural assets: buffer strips or areas improve water quality and riparian habitats; erosion‑focused rules safeguard soils and reduce flood risk; and hedgerow maintenance enhances habitat connectivity, carbon storage and shelter for livestock. These opportunities also support the delivery of stronger environmental standards and visibly demonstrate stewardship, meeting high public expectations.

However, this higher environmental ambition comes with challenges. Each opportunity presents greater management complexity, often requiring a more detailed appreciation of local environmental conditions, seasonal planning, or active maintenance. This raises the cognitive burden on farmers, crofters and land managers, especially where holdings have varied soils, slopes, or landscape features. A recurring theme is the need for substantial advisory support, training, and user‑friendly guidance to bridge knowledge gaps and ensure proportionate, practical rules. All options also increase monitoring and enforcement demands on government, particularly where requirements are context‑specific or condition‑based.

Economically, short‑term costs created by land taken out of production, changes in practice, or additional labour may be balanced by longer‑term productivity and resilience gains, such as reduced soil loss, improved water management, and healthier ecological networks. Politically, all three opportunities align well with current EU conditionality requirements but could be exposed to future divergence, as the EU sets out potential new changes for the future of conditionality. Social considerations also emerge across all opportunities, including the need to ensure fairness between upland and lowland systems, the risk of placing disproportionate demands on smaller farms and crofts, and the possibility of pushback if the rules are viewed as inflexible or overly demanding.

Overall, the common message is that the environmental case for improvement is strong, but successful implementation depends on clarity, flexibility, and well‑resourced support – ensuring that higher ambition complements, rather than compromises, the viability of agricultural businesses.

Opportunity 1: Enhancement of buffer areas to be in line with best practice for maximum protection to nature and water pollution

Opportunity description

This opportunity relates to GAEC 1, which covers buffer strips along watercourses^[5], among other practices to protect water against pollution. The requirements, which seek to restrict the storage, application of fertilisers and pesticides and cultivations along watercourses, cover the following:

• Application of manure/fertiliser at a certain distance from a water course or during certain conditions;
• Location of field heaps/storage of manure on holding at certain distances from water courses;
• Cultivation of land a certain distance from top of a bank (exemptions apply).

GAEC 1 was explored as a potential opportunity for improvement to further support and align with the aims of the Vision for Agriculture, particularly outcomes 3 and 4. The proposed opportunity covers an enhancement of buffer areas to increase protections to nature and reduce water pollution, by following best practices guidelines focusing on soil type, watercourse type, buffer strip width, buffer strip species composition, and buffer zone size, based on the REA results with examples from other countries.

Other countries, particularly those in the EU following conditionality rules, have set out various ranges and compositions of buffer zones. GAEC 4 in the EU conditionality rules refers to the establishment of buffer strips along water courses^[6]. For example, Ireland, which has similarities in cropping systems to Scotland, has a wider range of buffer zone distances (from 3-250m) for spreading organic fertiliser, and for the storage of farmyard manure (FYM) depending on the type of waterbody and cropping activity. In addition, some EU countries go above the basic GAEC requirements and include practices such as restricting certain crop species, or including specific soil management actions along watercourses.

Summary of the findings

The SWOT and PESTLE analysis identified the potential for strong environmental benefits through the enhancement of watercourse buffer areas. Wider and better‑designed buffer strips help reduce nutrient and soil runoff, which improves water quality and creates healthier habitats along watercourses. Adjusting buffer width, vegetation and management to local soil, slope and watercourse conditions makes them more effective, especially during heavy rainfall. This approach is in line with good practice across a number of EU Member States’ approaches and supports climate adaptation by reducing erosion, stabilising soils and improving soil carbon storage capacity.

However, the changes would make farm management more complex. Different buffer widths and management rules increase the amount of information farmers must keep track of and require greater knowledge of local soils and water systems. Smaller farms or crofts with a higher proportion of land adjacent to watercourses may lose more productive area, which could disproportionately affect their income and long‑term business viability. Regulators would also face higher monitoring demands, as they would need to check site‑specific requirements. In the short term, farmers may face a reduction of productive land and additional maintenance load, although over time the benefits – such as lower water treatment costs and reduced damage from erosion – could be significant.

Finally, farmers, crofters and land manager may push back, and compliance levels may suffer if the rules feel too complicated or punitive, especially without good advisory support.

The full analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats and wider macro-environmental factors is presented in Appendix E, section 8.1.

Opportunity 2: Extension of management requirements to reduce erosion risk

Opportunity description

This opportunity relates to GAEC 5, which currently covers minimum land management reflecting site specific conditions to limit erosion and aims to protect soil against erosion in certain situations. The requirements cover the following:

• Limit erosion from overgrazing or heavy poaching by livestock.
• Put in place measures to limit soil erosion if conditions prevent subsequent crop or cover from being sown (e.g., grubbing and sediment traps/fences)

GAEC 5 was explored as a potential opportunity for improvement to further support and align with the aims of the Vision for Agriculture, particularly outcome 3. The opportunity covers an inclusion of tillage restrictions on specific areas to reduce the risk of erosion.

For EU countries, GAEC 5 is broad and designed to “prevent soil erosion through relevant practices” and different Member States have specific variations on GAEC 5 rules. For example, Ireland includes tillage management rules for both arable and grassland areas:

• For grassland parcels, Ireland’s GAEC 5 mandates that there is no ploughing allowed between the 16^th of October and 30^th of November, and no ploughing on land with a ≥20% slope between the 1^st and 31^st of December.
• For arable land, there is no ploughing on land with a ≥15% slope between 1^st and 31^st of December; if arable land is ploughed between 1^st of July to the 30^th of November, farmers must sow a green cover within 14 days of ploughing.

In France, ploughing is prohibited downhill during the most sensitive periods (from 1^st of December to 15^th of February), specifically on plots located on slopes greater than 10%. While there are some exemptions, this greatly reduces soil erosion impacts in these fields.

Summary of the findings

Strengthening erosion‑risk management would bring clear environmental and climate benefits. Limiting tillage on steep or vulnerable land, or during high‑risk periods, helps reduce soil loss and prevents sediment reaching watercourses. These measures improve soil structure, support better water infiltration and reduce runoff, offering stronger protection during increasingly frequent heavy rainfall. Evidence from other countries shows that these targeted restrictions work well in practice and support long‑term soil health.

At the same time, this opportunity would add complexity for farmers. Erosion risk varies widely across Scotland, so rules may differ by field, slope or season. This means farmers may need to build additional knowledge about erosion risks and suitable management options and may have to adjust operations based on conditions each year. Some measures could also reduce flexibility in how land is managed, particularly where steep slopes or varied topography are involved, which may cause concern. The monitoring burden for Scottish Government would also increase due to the need to check more detailed and time‑sensitive requirements.

Short‑term costs may arise through changes to current practice, for example, fencing to protect sensitive areas or establishing ground cover more frequently. But over time, better soil management can deliver important economic benefits, including maintaining soil fertility, reducing remediation needs and preventing more serious erosion damage. As with the other opportunities, acceptance will depend on clear guidance, practical support, and rules that take account of different farm systems and landscapes.

The full analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats and wider macro-environmental factors is presented in Appendix E, section 8.2.

Opportunity 3: Incorporation of hedgerow maintenance requirements

Opportunity description

This opportunity relates to GAEC 7, which currently covers retention of landscape features to protect them. The current GAEC requires the following:

• Dry stone or flagstone dykes, turf and stone-faced banks, walls, hedges, ponds, watercourses or trees must not be removed or destroyed without consent.
• No hedges trimming or lopping of tree branches during the bird nesting and rearing season (there are some exemptions).
• No cultivation of land within two metres of the centre line of a hedge (exemptions apply)
• No application of fertilisers (organic manure, chemical or nitrogen) or pesticides within two metres of the centre line of a hedge (exemptions apply).

GAEC 7 was explored as a potential opportunity to incorporate hedgerow maintenance requirements in Scotland to further support and align with the aims of the Vision for Agriculture.

GAEC 7 in Scotland is equivalent to GAEC 8 in the EU^[7], which requires the maintenance of non-productive areas and landscape features, and the retention of landscape features, including hedgerows. As noted previously, other countries have variations on the rules, going further than the minimum requirement. For example, in France, hedges less than or equal to 10 metres wide must be managed for biodiversity, and a hedge may not have any discontinuity (“gap” or portion of the linear feature containing elements that do not meet the definition of a hedge) greater than 5 metres. In Ireland, there is a specific focus on invasive species control on landscape features and non-productive areas, and any replacement hedgerows must consist of traditional local species.

Summary of the findings

Introducing hedgerow maintenance requirements would provide a wide range of environmental, climate and landscape benefits. Well managed hedgerows improve biodiversity, support wildlife movement, store carbon and help reduce wind erosion and runoff. They also play an important role in farming systems by providing shelter for livestock and contributing to healthier soils and water. International experience shows that active management – such as planned cutting, gap filling and using appropriate species – greatly improves hedgerow condition and long‑term function.

However, moving from basic protection to active maintenance increases the workload and knowledge required of farmers. Hedgerows vary in age, type and condition, so it can be difficult to apply one set of rules that fits all situations. This means farmers may need new advice on cutting cycles, species selection and how to manage gaps, while inspectors may need to make more judgement‑based assessments of hedge condition. These factors make monitoring and enforcement more challenging and may increase costs for both farmers and government.

Although farmers could face new short‑term costs – such as replanting, gap filling and more regular maintenance – the potential longer‑term gains could be substantial, including reduced erosion, healthier ecosystems, and improved animal welfare through increased livestock shelter. Public support is likely to be high because hedgerows are visible features and strongly associated with a well‑managed rural environment.

The full analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats and wider macro-environmental factors is presented in Appendix E, section 8.3.

Conclusion

This project examined how Cross Compliance contributes to Scotland’s Vision for Agriculture, and whether introducing greater ambition will support Scotland in achieving its goals. We delivered an analysis of three selected opportunities of enhanced Cross Compliance rules. The selected opportunities do not constitute an exhaustive list of possible improvements to deliver better economic, environmental and social outcomes, nor an indication of future policy changes to be applied to Cross Compliance rules in Scotland.

Current Contribution of Cross Compliance to the Vision for Agriculture

Mapping the current Cross Compliance rules against the five outcomes of the Vision for Agriculture has clarified where Scotland already has a solid foundation (particularly for Outcomes 3 and 4), and where opportunities exist to strengthen alignment.

The project emphasised the importance of considering any revisions to Cross Compliance within the wider Scottish agricultural policy framework, given the interactions between Cross Compliance and mechanisms such as Greening, Tier 2 schemes, the Agri Environment Climate Scheme, Whole Farm Plans, and broader environmental policies and regulations.

Opportunities and barriers to enhanced Cross Compliance

Across the literature, stakeholder engagement, and the analysis of three selected opportunities, a set of cross-cutting themes have been identified.

Common strengths and opportunities

• Enhancing environmental ambition within Cross Compliance through wider buffer areas, strengthened erosion‑control measures, or more active hedgerow maintenance could deliver additional benefits for water quality, biodiversity, soil health, carbon storage, and climate resilience.
• Several improvements would allow for more targeted, locally tailored requirements rather than uniform rules, such as differentiating rules by soil type, slope, etc. Stakeholders noted that this approach is fairer, avoids placing disproportionate burdens on certain farms or crofts, and is likely to deliver better environmental outcomes as it directs effort to the places where risks are highest and benefits greatest.
• These environmental gains could also support long‑term business resilience, for example by reducing erosion damage, improving soil structure, and moderating the impacts of extreme weather.

Shared constraints and risks

• Increasing ambition introduces greater management complexity for farmers, crofters and land managers, and raises the risk of unintentional non‑compliance. For the Scottish Government, there is a risk of increased enforcement challenges where rules are highly site specific or qualitative.
• Stronger rules could lead to increased short‑term economic costs, such as reduced productive area or additional labour, and may create perceptions of competitive disadvantage.
• There is a consistent need for clear guidance, tailored training, advisory support, and co‑design with farmers, crofters and land managers to ensure rules are both practical and acceptable.

The analysis also highlighted the strong role for digital tools, remote sensing, mapping, and precision technologies to support targeting and monitoring. Overall, stakeholders emphasised that environmental ambition must be balanced with profitability, fairness, and proportionality, and must be considered alongside the suite of other policy instruments that also contribute to the Vision’s outcomes.

Lessons from Other Jurisdictions

This project gathered lessons from EU Member States on increasing the ambition of Cross Compliance rules. We identified examples of stronger or more specific requirements, which offered useful indications of possible directions for Scotland. However, the evidence base was high‑level, fragmented, and often outdated, with limited detail on implementation, enforcement, practical delivery, cost-effectiveness or observed outcomes. This makes it difficult to determine which international approaches are genuinely most effective, or most relevant to the Scottish context.

Key information gaps

The literature review found limited evidence on the implementation and outcome of more ambitious Cross Compliance approaches. The project identified several information gaps, limiting Scotland’s ability to make well‑evidenced decisions about increasing ambition within Cross Compliance.:

• Limited monitoring and evaluation data on how existing Cross Compliance requirements perform in practice, and on their contribution to environmental, economic or social outcomes.
• Lack of detailed implementation evidence from other countries, particularly on costs, compliance, enforcement, and effectiveness.
• Unclear interactions between Cross Compliance and other Scottish policy instruments such as Tier 2, Agri Environment Climate Scheme, Whole Farm Plans or Greening, making it difficult to assess the overall contribution to the Vision for Agriculture.
• Ambiguity around future EU conditionality developments, and how Scotland might seek to enhance the Cross Compliance ambition without creating unintended divergence between the EU conditionality and the Scottish Cross Compliance systems.

General considerations

The findings indicate that Scotland has clear opportunities to strengthen environmental outcomes through Cross Compliance. This project identified some overarching considerations for developing the current set of Cross Compliance rules to better deliver on the Vision’s outcomes:

• Balancing environmental ambition with competitiveness
• Developing a strong monitoring and evidence base, including robust data to justify changes and improve the acceptability of policy adjustments
• Co‑designing rules with farmers, crofters, and land managers
• Increasing support, training and communication

References

Baldock, D., Desbarats, J., Hart, K., Newman, S., and Scott, E. (2013) “Assessing Scotland’s Progress in the Environmental Agenda”. Institute for European Environment Policy: London.

Bennett, H., Osterburg, B., Nitsch, H., Kristensen, L., Primdahl, J. and Verschuur, G., 2006. Strengths and Weaknesses of Crosscompliance in the CAP. EuroChoices, 5(2), pp.50-57.

Blackstock K.L, Juarez-Bourke A, Maxwell J.L., Tindale S., Waylen K.A (2018) “Aligning Policy Instruments for Water, Soil and Biodiversity”, Report, James Hutton Institute, Aberdeen, 24pp

Code of good practice – DOs and DON’Ts Guide. (n.d.). Available at: https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/advice-and-guidance/2005/03/prevention-environmental-pollution-agricultural-activity-dos-donts-guide/documents/0009561-pdf/0009561-pdf/govscot%3Adocument/0009561.pdf

El Benni, N., Ritzel, C. and Mack, G., 2025. Why the Administrative Burden of Cross Compliance Matters. EuroChoices, 24(1), pp.14-19.

Environmental Pillar (2025) Environmental Pillar response to DAFM’s proposal on GAEC 2. [Online] Available at: Environmental Pillar response to DAFM’s proposal on GAEC 2

European Court of Auditors (2008) Is Cross Compliance an effective policy. [Online] Available at: untitled

European Parliament -Targeted CAP amendments on environmental conditionality (2024) Available at: Targeted CAP amendments on environmental conditionality

Farmer, M. and Swales, V (2004). The development and implementation of Cross Compliance in the EU 15: an analysis (p. 84). Institute for European Environmental Policy.

Farming for a better climate (n.d) -Regenerative Agriculture: Keeping soil covered- practical guide

Friends of the Earth Europe (2022) CAP Strategic Plans: Green Deal or No Deal? . [Online] Available at: FRI-22-Pac-UK6.pdf

Jongeneel, R. and Brouwer, F. (2007) Facilitating the CAP reform: Compliance and competitiveness of European agriculture. Specific Targeted Research or Innovation Project (STREP). Project no. SSPE-CT-2005-006489. [Online] Available at: CROSS COMPLIANCE Facilitating the CAP reform: Compliance and competitiveness of European agriculture Specific Targeted Research or Innovation Project (STREP) Integrating and Strengthening the European Research Area Deliverable 5: Mandatory standards in 7 EU countries and 3 non-EU countries Country Report Netherlands

Kristensen, L. and Primdahl, J. (2006). The Relationship Between Cross Compliance and Agri-environment Schemes Deliverable 13. [online] Available at: https://ieep.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/D13_Cross_compliance_and_agri-environment_schemes.pdf

MacLeod, Moxey, McBain, Bevan, Bell, Vosough Ahmadi and Evans. (2008) “Overview of costs and benefits associated with regulation in Scottish agriculture”. SAC Commercial Ltd, Pareto Consulting, Sue Evans Research

Reed, M. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation, Volume 141, Issue 10, Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014

RPS GAECS detailed guidance – Ruralpayments.org. (2025). Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions (GAECs). [online] Available at: https://www.ruralpayments.org/topics/inspections/all-inspections/Cross Compliance/detailed-guidance/good-agricultural-and-environmental-conditions/

SAC (2024) FARMING FOR NET ZERO: TRANSITIONING SCOTTISH AGRICULTURE available at WWF-Soil-Association-Net-Zero-Farming-Full-Report.pdf

Scot Government (2018). Prevention of environmental pollution from agricultural activity: guidance – gov.scot. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/prevention-environmental-pollution-agricultural-activity-guidance/pages/1/.

Scot Government (2025) Sustainable and regenerative agriculture: code of practice [Online] Section 2: Sustainable and Regenerative Measures – Sustainable and regenerative agriculture: code of practice – gov.scot 

SEPA (2009). Engineering in the Water Environment Good Practice Guide Riparian Vegetation Management. [online] Available at: https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/151010/wat_sg_44.pdf.

FAS (2025)- Understanding GAEC 7 and Cross Compliance On-Farm [Online] available: Understanding GAEC 7 and Cross Compliance On-Farm | Helping farmers in Scotland

Appendices

1. Search strategy

Key words and terms

Example search strings

Research question 1:

• TITLE-ABS-KEY “Scotland” AND “(“Cross Compliance” OR “GAEC” OR “SMR”) AND “environmental” (“benefits” OR “limitations”)
• TITLE-ABS-KEY “Scotland” AND (“Cross Compliance” OR “GAEC” OR “SMR”) AND current “environmental” (“weakness* OR “gaps” OR “limitations”)
• TITLE-ABS-KEY “Scotland” AND “(“Cross Compliance” OR “GAEC” OR “SMR”) AND (“implementation” OR “Delivery”) AND (“Barrier*” OR “Challenge*”) AND (“Farmer*” OR “Crofter*”)

Research question 2:

• TITLE-ABS-KEY (“European” OR “member state” OR “Defra” OR “Welsh Government” OR “Irish Government”) AND “ambition” AND “beyond” AND “Cross Compliance”
• TITLE-ABS-KEY “*” AND (“Implementation” OR “Delivery”) AND (“Outcomes” OR “findings”)

*name/detail of increased ambition requirement

Screening criteria

Literature was screened for information on the following inclusion criteria

• Cross Compliance environmental benefits and limitations (REA Section 1)
• Barriers to implementation of current Cross Compliance requirements for farmers and crofters (REA Section 1)
• Cross Compliance requirements contribution to the Scottish Government’s Vision for Agriculture (REA Section 1)
• Cross Compliance gaps or areas of current weakness related to environmental outcomes (REA Section 1)
• Countries which have shown/ are showing requirements with greater ambition beyond the basic Cross Compliance requirements (REA Section 2)
• How these requirements have been implemented, outcomes achieved, barriers to implementation, unexpected consequences and lesson learnt (REA Section 2)

1. Cross Compliance requirements and associated environmental benefits

1. Overview of GAEC Implementation in the EU: country-level practices and opportunities for Scotland

This table provides a high-level overview of EU GAECs that most closely align with the Scottish GAECs, highlights the countries implementing the highest number of farm practices under these standards, and presents a selected Member State (based on similarity to Scotland climate and agriculture) to illustrate key farm practices and potential opportunities relevant to Scotland.

1. List of organisations engaged in the workshops

The following organisations participated in the first workshop:

• NFU Scotland
• SAOS
• RSPB Scotland
• AHDB Scotland
• Nature Friendly Farming Network
• SAC Consulting
• Land Workers Alliance
• Rural Payments Agency England

The following organisations participated in the second workshop:

• Scottish Government
• Historic Environment Scotland
• SEPA
• RPID
• Crofting Commission
• Scottish Forestry
• NatureScot

1. SWOT and PESTLE analysis for the 3 selected opportunities

Opportunity 1: Enhancement of buffer areas for nature and water pollution

Opportunity 1 – SWOT analysis

Opportunity 1 – PESTLE analysis

Opportunity 2: Extension of management requirements to reduce erosion risk

Opportunity 2 – SWOT analysis

Opportunity 2 – PESTLE analysis

Opportunity 3: Incorporation of hedgerow maintenance requirements

Opportunity 3 – SWOT analysis

Opportunity 3 – PESTLE analysis

How to cite this publication:

Harpham, L , Peters, E, Decherf, C, Gill, D, Wood, C. (2026) How Cross Compliance contributes to Scotland’s Vision for Agriculture, ClimateXChange.

DOI https://doi.org/10.7488/era/7056

© The University of Edinburgh, 2026
Prepared by Ricardo on behalf of ClimateXChange, The University of Edinburgh. All rights reserved.

While every effort is made to ensure the information in this report is accurate as at the date of the report, no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors, omissions or misleading statements. The views expressed represent those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent those of the host institutions or funders.

This work was supported by the Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division of the Scottish Government (CoE – CXC).

ClimateXChange

Edinburgh Climate Change Institute

High School Yards

Edinburgh EH1 1LZ

+44 (0) 131 651 4783

info@climatexchange.org.uk

www.climatexchange.org.uk

1. 
   

   Agricultural Reform Route Map ↑

   
   
2. 
   

   Securing a green recovery on a path to net zero: climate change plan 2018–2032 – update – gov.scot ↑

   
   
3. 
   

   Supporting documents – Biodiversity strategy to 2045: tackling the nature emergency – draft – gov.scot ↑

   
   
4. 
   

   Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Act 2024 ↑

   
   
5. 
   

   Buffer strips along watercourses (GAEC 1) ↑

   
   
6. 
   

   Conditionality – Agriculture and rural development – European Commission ↑

   
   
7. 
   

   Conditionality – Agriculture and rural development – European Commission ↑

   
   
8. 
   

   SMRs 5–9 and 11–13 are not considered to be directly environmentally focused and have therefore been excluded from the table. ↑

   
   

Scotland’s Vision for Agriculture is to be a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture. The aims of the vision include producing high-quality food, protecting and improving animal health and welfare, facilitating the restoration of nature, climate mitigation and adaptation, and enabling rural communities to thrive. 

This report examines how Cross Compliance contributes to Scotland’s Vision for Agriculture, and whether introducing greater ambition will support Scotland in achieving its goals.  

The Cross Compliance requirements are a set of rules that enforce laws around animal and plant health as well as sustainable agricultural practices. All farmers and crofters in Scotland who receive income support under the Basic Payment Scheme must observe Cross Compliance requirements.  

The report explores the differences between the Cross Compliance rules in Scotland and EU Member States with a similar policy, and analyses the strengths, weaknesses and macro-environmental considerations of three opportunities which could be implemented to better align with Scotland’s Vision for Agriculture.  

Findings  

The researchers found that the contribution of Cross Compliance to the five outcomes of the Vision for Agriculture are uneven, with stronger alignment to environmental and animal welfare outcomes, and more limited support for thriving agricultural businesses and a just transition. There was limited evidence in the literature on the implementation and outcome of more ambitious Cross Compliance approaches. 

The authors identified four overarching considerations relevant to any development of the current rules to better deliver on the Vision’s outcomes:  

• Balancing environmental ambition with profitability 
• Developing a strong monitoring and evidence base, including robust data to justify changes and increase the acceptability of policy adjustments 
• Co designing rules with farmers, crofters and land managers 
• Increasing support, training and communication 

The research also emphasised the importance of considering any revisions to Cross Compliance within the wider Scottish agricultural policy framework. 

While this report is not an exhaustive analysis of possible improvements nor an indication of future policy changes, is does identify clear potential to strengthen the Cross Compliance rules to support the outcomes of the Vision for Agriculture. More evidence is needed as well as holistic consideration of the wider agricultural and environmental policies. 

For further information, please read the report. 

If you require the report in an alternative format, such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

Research completed: October 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7488/era/7009

Executive summary

Scotland’s peatlands store large amounts of carbon and play a key role in climate regulation and biodiversity conservation. However, extracting peat for use in horticultural growing media – materials used to grow plants in containers or controlled systems – damages these ecosystems and releases greenhouse gas emissions.

The Scottish Government has committed to ending the use of peat in horticulture, while recognising the sector’s economic importance. In 2024, potatoes, fruit and vegetables, and ornamental plants such as flowers and shrubs together contributed £831 million to Scottish crop output, representing over half of the total value.

This report assesses whether it is possible to move to peat-free growing materials in Scottish horticulture. It draws on published studies, industry reports and extensive engagement with the sector, including workshops and interviews with growers, growing media manufacturers, retailers and researchers. Stakeholders provided practical insight into how peat-free systems are working in practice, the challenges businesses face, and the solutions currently being trialled across the industry.

Key findings

• Scotland can achieve peat-free horticulture. Businesses across the horticulture sector are already using a range of alternative growing materials.
• The main challenge is system coordination. For a successful transition to peat free horticulture, infrastructure, standards, supply chains and technical growing practice are best aligned.
• Parts of the sector have already made progress. Retail growing media are now largely peat-free, while some tree growers and producers of ornamental plants have significantly reduced their use of peat
• Some growing approaches face greater challenges in a peat-free transition. Growers must test propagation systems and production of seed potatos and ericaceous crops – acid-loving plants such as blueberries – over a longer period to ensure peat-free methods work reliably.
• Cost, supply chain capacity and consistency of materials remain key barriers.
• With coordinated implementation and realistic timelines, Scotland has the resources and industry capability to support a peat-free transition.

Conclusions

This report finds that the principal challenge for Scotland’s peat-free transition is the coordination of infrastructure, standards, supply chains and technical growing practice – rather than a lack of alternatives or willingness in the sector.

Evidence from trials, real business use and stakeholder experience shows that growing without peat can be successful when materials are reliable, standards are clear, and the appropriate support is provided. Where these conditions are uncertain or developing, growers and manufacturers reported that technical uncertainty can translate into commercial risk.

The transition should therefore be understood as a process of system redesign rather than simple material substitution. With coordinated implementation and investment, and continued collaboration across the sector, Scotland can phase out horticultural peat while keeping plant growing productive and reliable.

Overall, the evidence indicates that Scotland can achieve transition to a peat-free horticulture sector. Scotland has the resources, industry capability and emerging technical knowledge needed to support this transition. The pace of this change will depend on clear policy direction, realistic timescales, and continued support for infrastructure, standards, and shared trials.

Glossary

Context for transition to peat-free horticulture

4.1 Research purpose

The Scottish Government has committed to phasing out the use of peat in horticulture. This commitment is reflected in policy measures including National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) (Scottish Government, 2023a) and the consultation Ending the Sale of Peat in Scotland (Scottish Government, 2023b), which together restrict new commercial peat extraction licences and set out the basis for stakeholder engagement on the transition. Scottish Ministers have also written to UK counterparts to advocate for coordinated UK-wide legislation and a clear roadmap for ending horticultural peat use, underscoring inter-governmental support for a structured transition (Scottish Government, 2026).

This research (October 2024 to September 2025; Appendix A) examined the transition to peat-free growing media from a Scottish perspective and focussed on:

• The level of confidence in available peat alternatives, including their performance, supply reliability, sustainability and cost.
• The preparedness of the horticulture sector to reduce and eliminate peat use.
• The main barriers to transition across Scottish horticulture.
• Challenges associated with peat-dependent crops and growth stages, particularly ericaceous plants and propagation.
• The scope for industry collaboration through coordinated grower trials.
• The role and practicality of peat-free standards.
• The overall feasibility of a sector-wide transition.

Background

Peat emerged as a key growing media component in UK horticulture in the 1970s, having first been commercialised as a constituent in loam-based media for container planting in the 1930s (Alexander et al., 2008; Prasad et al., 2024; Waller, 2012). Its combination of high water-holding capacity, good air porosity and structural stability ensures optimal conditions for healthy root development, while its low bulk density and friable texture make it easy to handle (Schmilewski, 2008). The inherently low nutrient content of peat allows growers to tailor treatments to suit specific crops, making it a versatile growing medium (National Institute of Agricultural Botany, 2024). Traditionally peat has been regarded as free from pathogens, pests, and weed seeds both at point of extraction and during controlled production. Its processing and grading are considered straightforward, and its pricing has historically been highly competitive (Barrett et al., 2016), making it a preferred choice in both professional and amateur horticulture.

Peatlands play a crucial role in carbon sequestration but, when degraded, become significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 2021). Analysis by The Wildlife Trusts (2022) estimates that up to 31 million tonnes of carbon dioxide have been released since 1990 as a result of peat extraction for UK horticulture. Although peatlands cover only about 3-4% of the Earth’s land surface, they store more carbon than any other terrestrial ecosystem, holding roughly twice as much as all the world’s forest biomass combined (United Nations Environment Programme, 2022).

Around 20% (c.1.8 million hectares) of Scotland’s land area is peatland (Bruneau and Johnson, 2014). Approximately 80% of UK peatlands are degraded, the majority located in Scotland, with 90% of raised bogs and 70% of blanket bogs in damaged condition (NatureScot, 2015). Although only around 1,000 hectares (0.05%) are harvested annually for horticulture – producing roughly 270,000 m³ of peat (Scottish Government, 2025, pers. comm.) – extraction disproportionately affects lowland raised bogs, one of the most threatened peatland habitats (UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, n.d.). Peat extracted in Scotland accounted for 18% of the total volume used in UK growing media in 2022 (Horticultural Trades Association, 2022a).

Concerns about the carbon emissions and biodiversity loss resulting from peat extraction were first raised in the 1980s and 1990s (Waller, 2012), prompting the formation of the Peat Working Group in 1992 and the introduction of stricter harvesting regulations. The UK Government’s first formal reduction goal appeared in Minerals Planning Guidance 13 (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 1995), which aimed for 40% of growing media materials in England to be non-peat by 2005 (Alexander et al., 2008). This trajectory was reinforced in the 2011 Natural Environment White Paper (The Natural Choice), which set voluntary targets to phase out peat use in amateur gardening by 2020 and in professional horticulture by 2030 (HM Government, 2011).

Subsequent national and UK policy has sought to progress this transition. The phasing out of peat-based horticultural products is a devolved matter, with each nation developing its own approach within the context of an intended UK-wide ban. In England, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2023) previously set out a series of proposed phase-out dates under the former UK Government, including a statutory ban on the retail sale of peat-based products for amateur use by 2024, a phased reduction for professional growers by 2026, and a full prohibition by 2030. The current UK Government has reiterated its intention to legislate for a ban on the sale of peat and peat-containing products, although implementation remains contingent on parliamentary time and no specific timetable has yet been confirmed (Defra, 2025a). A Private Members’ Bill seeking to give legislative effect to a ban in England and Wales has been introduced to the UK Parliament and is awaiting a second reading (UK Parliament, 2025).

In Scotland, the Government has committed to ending the sale of peat-based horticultural products. The 2021–22 Programme for Government (Scottish Government, 2021) included a pledge to develop and consult on a ban as part of a wider strategy to transition away from peat. This commitment was progressed in February 2023 through a public consultation seeking stakeholder views on prohibiting sales, initially in the retail market and subsequently for professional growers (Scottish Government, 2023b).

Current use of peat in the horticulture industry

Figures released by the HTA (2022) and Defra (2025b) reveal that total peat use in UK horticulture declined slowly between 2011 and 2019, remaining close to 2 million m³ per year (Figure 1). In 2020, peat use increased temporarily, coinciding with a surge in home gardening and plant production during national COVID-19 lockdowns (White et al., 2021). From 2021 onwards, peat use fell rapidly; total volumes declined by around two-thirds between 2020 and 2023, associated with a sharp reduction in retail peat use; professional peat use also declined, but at a slower pace. By 2023, retail and professional use had converged at similar levels, each accounting for around half of remaining peat consumption.

Figure 1: Total peat usage across retail and professional sectors 2011-2023 (Defra, 2025b; HTA, 2022)

Between 2011 and 2023, the retail horticulture sector consistently used more growing media than the professional sector, typically between two and four times as much (Figure 2). Retail volumes fluctuated, but remained high overall, at 2.34 million m³ in 2023, compared with 0.81 million m³ used by professional growers. This reflects the much larger scale of the consumer growing-media market relative to commercial plant production. This highlights an important dynamic in the transition to peat-free media. Although the retail sector has reduced its peat use more rapidly, it remains the largest user of growing media overall. As a result, changes in the composition of retail products continue to exert a strong influence on total peat demand.

Figure 2: Total growing media usage across retail and professional sectors 2011-2023 (Defra, 2025b; HTA, 2022)

What are the alternatives to horticultural peat in growing media?

Current alternatives

Ongoing research and commercial trials have led to the development of several viable alternatives to peat, either individually or through the blending of more than one constituent material. Table 1 summarises a range of materials currently used, trialled, or proposed as alternatives to peat in horticultural growing media. It provides a high-level overview of each material’s origin, current level of commercial adoption, and primary functional role within growing-media blends.

The table is intended as an orientation tool for policymakers and practitioners, supported by full SWOT and detailed analyses of performance, constraints and sustainability considerations presented in Appendix F and Appendix G respectively. Currently, the most widely adopted materials across both professional and amateur horticultural sectors are wood fibre, coir and composted bark (Defra, 2025b; HTA, 2022).

Table 1: Overview of alternatives

Widespread commercial adoption

Across the UK and Scottish horticultural sectors, a range of peat alternatives are now in widespread commercial use, reflecting rapid diversification of the growing media market since the early 2010s. Wood fibre, composted bark, coir, composted green waste and loam form the core constituents of many current retail and professional blends, although their relative importance differs markedly between sectors. Wood fibre, composted bark and coir underpin both professional and retail formulations, whereas composted green waste is used predominantly in the retail market, with very limited penetration into professional growing systems. Each of these components contributes distinct physical and chemical properties, allowing manufacturers to engineer bespoke mixes tailored to specific crop needs and end markets. Most commercial products therefore rely on combinations of these materials, as no single component replicates the balance of air porosity, water-holding capacity and stability traditionally provided by peat (Gruda, 2019; Peano et al, 2012).

Limited or early commercial adoption

While a range of emerging or regionally available feedstocks (e.g. bracken, sheep wool, anaerobic digestate, biochar, spent mushroom compost and reclaimed peat) have been explored in peat-free media formulation, the published evidence base on their performance, quality variability and commercial feasibility remains relatively sparse. Many assessments are preliminary, often confined to small-scale trials or expert commentary rather than coordinated multi-site studies. Further research is therefore required to clarify where these materials may be deployed most effectively and at what scale (Calisti et al., 2023; Johnson and Di Gioia, 2023; Kennard, 2020; Medina et al., 2009; Pitman and Webber, 2013).

Although several of these materials demonstrate technical promise in specific contexts, uptake remains constrained by factors including supply consistency, variability in quality, sustainability considerations, regulatory requirements and the need for additional processing. In interviews, manufacturers of professional growing media consistently described these materials as “promising but peripheral”, noting that they are typically incorporated through pilot collaborations, niche retail products or experimental blends rather than forming part of core formulations.

No current commercial market in Scottish horticulture

A further group of materials is not yet established at commercial scale within UK professional growing media markets but is attracting interest in the context of longer-term peat-free strategies. These include composted heather, rice husk ash, marine sediment, hemp fibre and farmed Sphagnum. Rather than offering immediate substitutes, these materials represent prospective feedstocks that could contribute to future supply diversification and reduced dependence on imported substrates.

Several of these materials present theoretical or demonstrated advantages in specific contexts, including regional resource availability, circular-economy potential, carbon storage capacity and favourable structural properties. For example, cultivation of Sphagnum biomass through paludiculture systems has been investigated as a renewable peat substitute (Gaudig et al., 2017; Wichtmann et al., 2016), while rice husk ash and marine sediment have been assessed in blended substrates in controlled horticultural trials (Mattei et al., 2017; Omar et al., 2023). However, evidence of large-scale agronomic performance, supply-chain logistics and quality standardisation remains limited across most materials. Published studies are typically experimental, pilot-scale or regionally specific, and few materials have yet been widely validated under recognised horticultural quality standards such as PAS 100 or the Responsible Sourcing Scheme.

Stakeholder interviews characterised these options as high-potential but low-readiness, with further work required to clarify processing requirements, certification pathways, performance consistency and economic viability before widespread commercial uptake could occur. As Scotland progresses its transition away from peat, the future role of such materials will depend on continued research, market development and regulatory alignment rather than immediate substitution potential.

Mineral components and functional additives in peat-free media

The transition to peat-free growing media has prompted a more deliberate combination of organic and mineral components to maintain the structural and functional properties required for reliable plant growth. Mineral additives such as perlite, vermiculite and clay pumice are central to this task. Each offers specific physical benefits that provide structure and buffering capacity, and can be used to improve drainage, air holding capacity, nutrient retention and physical stability. These materials are increasingly important for standardising performance and reducing variability in peat-free formulations.

Alongside mineral additives, manufacturers and researchers have turned to supplements to strengthen the performance of peat-free media. These include biostimulants and wetting agents (surfactants). Biostimulants – including algae extracts, beneficial bacteria, fungal inoculants and mineral salts – are believed to enhance natural plant processes, promoting more efficient uptake of water and nutrients (Kisvarga et al., 2022). Wetting agents, available in liquid or granular form, improve water absorption and distribution within the media, helping to reduce runoff and water waste. Although many wetting agents are derived from synthetic chemicals, more sustainable alternatives are emerging. RHS peat-free trials have reported significant benefits from biostimulant use (RHS, 2025, pers. comm), and some growing media suppliers are now incorporating these into their professional peat-free formulations.

Media blending

It is widely recognised that there is no “silver bullet” replacement for peat (Koseoglu et al., 2021). Peat uniquely combines high porosity, water-holding capacity, structural stability and low inherent fertility, allowing growers to exercise precise control over nutrition and acidity (pH). Alternative constituents typically provide some, but not all, of these properties in isolation. As a result, the academic literature consistently emphasises that effective peat-free substrates must be formulated through blending multiple components, selected to balance water retention, drainage, nutrient availability and physical stability according to crop type and production system (Gruda and Bragg, 2020; Schmilewski, 2008). International reviews of growing-media systems note that blending is unavoidable, as no individual material replicates peat’s multifunctionality (Bragg and Alexander, 2019). This conclusion is reinforced by recent European analyses, which show that while bio-based resources such as wood fibre, composted bark, composted green waste and coir are available at scale, each presents technical or logistical limitations that must be addressed through careful combination and optimisation (Hirschler et al., 2022).

Tailoring mixes to specific crop needs

Evidence from stakeholder engagement across Scotland indicates that growers and growing media manufacturers who have successfully reduced peat typically rely on formulations combining wood fibre, composted bark, coir and – particularly for retail mixes – composted green waste. Manufacturers have refined these mixes through tailored approaches to wood fibre processing, coir buffering, and bark composting to improve consistency and performance.

European research identifies clear technical thresholds for peat-free material – typically up to 40% wood fibre, 50% composted bark, or 40% composted green waste – beyond which plant growth and substrate structure decline (Blok et al., 2021; Raviv, 2013). These findings underline that peat-free horticulture is not a simple substitution exercise, but one that depends on optimised blends informed by research, collaborative trials and coordinated supply-chain development. Diversification of materials improves performance and resilience, reducing exposure to single-stream supply risks and reflecting wider European recommendations to mobilise bio-based resources while maintaining quality and consistency (Gruda & Bragg, 2020; Hirschler et al., 2022; Schmilewski, 2014).

The transition to peat-free growing media frequently necessitates adjustments to irrigation and nutrient regimes, particularly in nurseries managing diverse crops under shared irrigation systems where substrate water and nutrient dynamics differ. Stakeholders emphasised the importance of tailoring media to specific crops and growth stages, with individual nurseries often requiring fine-textured propagation media alongside coarser, more water-retentive mixes for container-grown plants. As a result, growers commonly source multiple blends from different suppliers. This approach supports crop performance and operational flexibility, but has implications for procurement, consistency and supply-chain coordination.

While research demonstrates that peat-free growing media can support successful plant growth across a wide range of crops, outcomes are contingent on effective management of irrigation, nutrient supply and physical properties through optimised blending. Continued refinement, supported by targeted trials, collaboration and knowledge exchange, will be critical to broadening adoption and strengthening confidence in the performance of peat-free formulations (Bek et al., 2020; Hirschler et al., 2022; Koseoglu et al., 2021; Royal Horticultural Society, 2023; Sradnik et al., 2023). Appendix H presents an industry-led case study demonstrating how blended peat-free and peat-reduced growing media can be designed to meet crop performance requirements using widely available materials.

Sustainability of alternatives

It is essential that the sustainability of alternatives is clearly understood. This can be assessed through three complementary approaches:

1. Environmental assessment: This approach quantifies the environmental footprint of peat alternatives by analysing carbon emissions, energy use, water consumption and end-of-life impacts (Hospido et al., 2010). Studies assessing substitutes such as coir highlight that environmental outcomes vary depending on production methods, transport distances and assessment boundaries, underscoring the need for careful interpretation of life-cycle results (Peano et al., 2012; Toboso-Chavero et al., 2021).
2. Social sustainability: This dimension considers labour conditions, health implications and workplace safety within raw material supply chains. Sahu et al. (2019) identified significant health risks among workers involved in coir production, many of whom were women lacking adequate personal protective equipment (PPE), while Peano et al. (2012) highlighted occupational health risks associated with the processing of composted green waste.
3. Responsible Sourcing Scheme (RSS): The Responsible Sourcing Scheme for growing media is an industry-led framework that assesses the environmental and ethical performance of growing media products through a transparent scoring system covering energy use, water use, social compliance, habitat and biodiversity, pollution, renewability and resource-use efficiency. By providing clear ratings and independent auditing, the RSS supports informed decision-making by manufacturers, retailers and growers about the environmental impacts of growing media mixes and encourages continuous improvement in material sourcing (Responsible Sourcing Scheme, n.d.).

Environmental assessment

The assessment summarised in Table 2 provides a high-level overview of the environmental sustainability of sixteen potential alternatives to peat used in horticultural growing media. It draws on published life-cycle assessments (LCAs), industry reports, peer-reviewed literature and stakeholder interviews, supplemented with Scotland-specific evidence where available. Key sources include Gabryś and Fryczkowska (2022), Gruda (2019), Hashemi et al. (2024), Hirschler et al. (2022), Litterick et al. (2019), Peano et al. (2012), Stichnothe (2022), and Toboso-Chavero et al. (2021). Each material is assessed across four sustainability dimensions:

1. Emissions during production: Based on available LCAs, including direct fossil fuel use and indirect biogenic carbon release. Where quantitative data are reported, emissions are expressed as kg CO₂e per tonne (or per m³ for peat), with ranges reflecting methodological variation and uncertainty.
2. Transport emissions: Differentiating between locally sourced materials with short supply chains and imported feedstocks associated with long-haul transport.
3. Risk of offshoring impacts: A qualitative assessment of whether peat substitution may displace carbon or environmental burdens to other regions (e.g. imported coir or Baltic peat).
4. Scottish availability: The extent to which materials can realistically be sourced within Scotland, informing circular-economy potential, transport emissions and exposure to offshored impacts.

The qualitative ratings used in Table 2 (Low, Moderate and High) are intended to support comparative interpretation rather than provide precise measurements. Relative to other peat alternatives, a Low rating indicates lower production emissions, limited processing requirements and/or short supply chains based on available evidence. Moderate ratings reflect higher energy inputs, greater processing or transport requirements, or mixed evidence across impact categories. High ratings indicate materials that consistently show higher emissions, longer supply chains or greater risks of offshoring environmental impacts. Full quantitative data, assumptions and sources underpinning these classifications are provided in Appendix I. Table 2 should therefore be read as a comparative overview, highlighting broad patterns in environmental performance across material groups rather than precise rankings between individual material.

Table 2: Summary environmental assessment of peat alternatives used in horticultural growing media

Overall, the assessment indicates that environmental performance is strongly influenced by material provenance, processing intensity and supply-chain geography. Transport and offshoring ratings are based on indicative UK and European sourcing assumptions; however, actual impacts will vary depending on specific supply routes, processing locations and logistics. Across all assessed dimensions, locally sourced woody materials, particularly wood fibre and composted bark, consistently demonstrate more favourable environmental profiles than peat and imported alternatives, reflecting low production emissions, short supply chains and high Scottish availability.

Among waste-derived materials, anaerobic digestate performs favourably across all sustainability dimensions, reflecting its status as a locally available by-product with low marginal emissions and strong alignment with circular-economy objectives. Composted green waste similarly shows favourable environmental performance, with emissions largely confined to processing activities. Other locally available materials, including composted bracken and sheep’s wool, demonstrate promising circular-economy potential but remain constrained by limited life-cycle evidence and uncertainty around scalability. Biochar presents potential benefits as a carbon-stable amendment; however, its overall sustainability signal remains context-dependent, varying with feedstock type, energy inputs and the scale of domestic processing capacity.

Materials requiring primary extraction or intensive processing, such as loam and marine sediment, show more mixed environmental profiles. While both benefit from relatively short transport distances, their circular-economy potential is limited by extraction impacts, energy requirements and, in the case of marine sediment, contamination risks and evidence gaps around horticultural suitability at scale. In contrast, imported agricultural by-products, particularly coir and rice husk ash, consistently present higher transport emissions and greater risks of offshoring environmental impacts, limiting their sustainability within a Scottish context despite the widespread use of coir as a peat substitute.

Finally, materials that retain a direct link to peat extraction, including reclaimed peat and spent mushroom compost, offer only partial or transitional environmental benefits. While reclaimed peat avoids new extraction and spent mushroom compost is waste-derived with low additional emissions – and may become inherently peat-free as mushroom production transitions away from peat – both currently remain constrained in their ability to support long-term peatland protection and a fully peat-free growing-media transition (for full SWOT analysis please see Table 24 in Appendix F).

Social sustainability of alternatives

Social sustainability in peat-free growing media encompasses labour conditions, occupational health and safety, and the distribution of social impacts across domestic and international supply chains. While the environmental case for peat substitution is well established, the social implications of alternative materials are more variable and, in some cases, less visible. Addressing these issues is critical to ensuring that the transition to peat-free horticulture does not externalise social risks onto workers or communities elsewhere. Table 32 in Appendix J sets out key social sustainability considerations.

Social sustainability is highest where supply chains are domestic, formalised and regulated, with well-characterised and controllable occupational risks (e.g. anaerobic digestate (AD), wood fibre, loam, spent mushroom compost (SMC)). Moderate–high ratings reflect generally regulated contexts moderated by seasonal labour, dust or bioaerosol exposure, agrochemical inputs or emerging-sector uncertainty (e.g. wool, farmed Sphagnum, composted green waste (CGW)). Moderate ratings capture identifiable exposure risks or regulatory complexity (e.g. hemp, marine sediment). Lower ratings arise where informal labour structures, persistent health concerns or structural sustainability conflicts externalise social risk (e.g. coir, reclaimed peat, rice husk ash).

Responsible Sourcing Scheme (RSS) calculator

Published in August 2024, Guidance Notes: Responsible Sourcing Scheme for Growing Media established an industry-led framework for assessing the sustainability of growing media ingredients. The Responsible Sourcing Scheme (RSS) evaluates key input materials used in horticulture against multiple environmental and social criteria to support more informed decision-making by growers, retailers and consumers. Scores are based on manufacturer data that is subject to independent auditing to enhance transparency and credibility. A detailed summary of the RSS methodology and scoring system is provided in Appendix K.

While the scheme incorporates measures related to carbon and climate within criteria such as energy use and pollution, it does not directly quantify greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or carbon sequestration in the manner of a full lifecycle assessment. Instead, climate-relevant impacts are inferred through proxy indicators such as fossil fuel consumption, transport inputs and other resource use measures. Methane and nitrous oxide are acknowledged within the broader framework but are not systematically modelled as discrete climate impact outputs.

As a result, the RSS provides a structured, transparent and multi-criteria tool for comparing the relative sustainability of growing media ingredients, but its treatment of carbon and climate impacts is indirect and not comprehensive. This has implications where peat-reduction policy is closely linked to quantified carbon outcomes, especially when comparing materials with differing biogenic carbon dynamics or soil carbon effects.

Positioning the RSS alongside more detailed climate-accounting approaches highlights the trade-offs between usability and precision: the scheme’s graded index supports practical sourcing decisions and market signalling, whereas lifecycle-based carbon inventories offer deeper quantification of climate footprints for research and policy evaluation.

Industry perspectives on environmental sustainability

Stakeholder engagement confirmed that environmental performance remains central to the rationale for peat reduction, though interpretations of “sustainability” varied considerably in practice. Manufacturers and growers emphasised carbon reduction, circular-economy principles and local sourcing as core sustainability strategies.

Several participants highlighted closed-loop systems and renewable energy use, including compost production powered by food-waste-derived biogas and investment in carbon-capture technologies. Others prioritised regional sourcing to reduce transport emissions, with some growers deliberately avoiding imported coir in favour of domestic forestry residues. Resource diversification was also identified as a key strategy, with interest in utilising biomass streams such as bracken and wool to support circular supply chains and reduce reliance on imports.

However, stakeholders also cautioned against environmental trade-offs and “hidden carbon costs,” particularly in relation to long-distance transport of coir and continued reliance on imported peat. Concerns were also raised about contamination in green-waste compost and the need for robust quality assurance to maintain product performance and consumer confidence.

Knowledge gaps in sustainability assessment of alternatives

Although multiple frameworks exist to assess the sustainability of peat-free growing media – including Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), social risk analysis and the Responsible Sourcing Scheme (RSS) – there remain significant methodological and evidential gaps. These gaps affect the comparability, transparency and policy relevance of sustainability claims associated with peat alternatives. More detailed explanation of these gaps is given in Appendix L.

Availability of alternatives

Overview

The transition to peat-free growing media depends on reliable access to alternative materials at sufficient scale and consistent quality. Availability is determined by domestic resource capacity, competition from other sectors, processing infrastructure, and the feasibility of imports. In Scotland, forestry and agricultural by-products provide a strong resource base, however, meeting national demand will require addressing technical, logistical and regulatory constraints.

Established inputs such as wood fibre, composted bark, green waste and imported coir already underpin much of the UK market. Alongside these, several materials remain at limited or developmental stages, including bracken, wool, heather residues, anaerobic digestate, biochar and farmed Sphagnum. Evaluating their role requires consideration of market scale, processing capacity and their contribution to displacing remaining peat use. At UK level, peat consumption has fallen substantially in recent years, however, further substitution depends on the reliable supply and optimisation of the principal alternative materials. Appendix M provides a quantitative comparison of the four most widely adopted alternatives relative to remaining UK peat demand, indicating their current market volumes and the constraints that may limit further expansion. In summary:

• Wood fibre and composted bark represent the most significant near-term substitutes, constrained by bioenergy competition and processing capacity.
• Composted green waste provides meaningful volume but depends on consistent quality assurance to manage contamination risks.
• Bracken and low-grade sheep wool offer renewable, locally available feedstocks with potential for niche or supplementary use, though operational and regulatory barriers remain.
• Loam, digestate fibre and biochar are unlikely to provide large-scale substitution, serving primarily additive or specialist functions.
• Emerging materials – including farmed Sphagnum, heather residues, hemp and marine sediments – show longer-term or localised potential but are not currently scalable.
• Imported materials such as coir and rice husk ash can supplement domestic supply but introduce carbon and supply-chain vulnerabilities.

Overall, achieving national peat replacement will require coordinated expansion of domestic processing capacity, improved resource recovery systems and targeted innovation to scale viable alternatives.

Global context of the supply chain of raw materials

The availability of alternative raw materials is shaped not only by technical suitability but by competing industrial demands and wider geopolitical dynamics. Supply-chain pressures are experienced differently across the sector: growers report direct exposure to trade, availability and logistical constraints, whereas manufacturers more commonly emphasise regulatory consistency, feedstock certification and contamination standards (Litterick et al., 2019).These structural dynamics influence the reliability, scalability and long-term resilience of Scotland’s peat-free transition.

Assessment of key alternatives indicates three broad patterns of exposure:

• Domestic materials, including wood fibre, composted bark and composted green waste, are subject to limited geopolitical risk but face strong internal competition from bioenergy, construction and agricultural markets (Koseoglu and Roberts, 2025). Availability is therefore closely linked to forestry outputs, waste-management systems and energy policy.
• Import-dependent materials, notably coir and rice husk ash, are exposed to global market volatility, shipping costs and potential export controls, increasing supply uncertainty for Scottish growers (Koseoglu and Roberts, 2025). These materials remain sensitive to geopolitical developments and international trade conditions.
• Emerging or under-utilised Scottish resources, such as bracken, heather residues, anaerobic digestate fibre and sheep wool, carry minimal geopolitical exposure but depend on regulatory alignment, processing infrastructure and land-management incentives to become viable at commercial scale (Gaudig et al., 2017; Hill, 2022; Pitman and Webber, 2013).

Taken together, these findings indicate that material security depends less on absolute resource availability and more on cross-sector competition, infrastructure capacity and regulatory coherence within Scotland and the wider UK. A detailed material-by-material assessment of competing uses and geopolitical exposure is provided in Appendix N.

Biosecurity in peat-free growing media production

Biosecurity is a critical consideration in peat-free horticulture, as contaminated growing media can introduce plant pathogens and threaten crop health (Elliot et al., 2023; Frederickson-Matika et al., 2024; Litterick et al., 2025; Vandecasteele et al., 2018). Scotland’s transition away from peat brings renewed attention to these risks, particularly given the increased use of organic and recycled inputs. Key challenges are summarised in Appendix O and include:

• Pathogen risk in organic substrates: Organic and recycled materials may harbour plant pathogens, underscoring the need for clearly defined sanitisation protocols and plant-health-specific quality standards (Elliot et al., 2023; Vandecasteele et al., 2018).
• Limited plant-health coverage in certification schemes: Existing accreditation frameworks primarily address human-health and contamination thresholds, with limited explicit provision for plant-pathogen risk (Elliot et al., 2023).
• Traceability and import assurance considerations: Effective risk management depends on consistent material tracking, proportionate import controls and clear guidance on waste reuse and disposal (Elliot et al., 2023; Litterick et al., 2025).
• Variation in substrate risk profiles: Biosecurity risk differs between materials. Green waste composts certified under BSI PAS 100 are generally considered moderate risk, as the standard focuses on human-health criteria rather than plant-pathogen assurance. Heat-treated wood fibre and composted bark are typically regarded as lower risk. Virgin peat has historically been considered comparatively low risk due to limited microbial activity; however, detections of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. melonis and Rhizoctonia spp. have been reported (Frederickson-Matika, 2024; Litterick et al., 2025).

Evidence indicates a lack of sector-wide standardisation in sanitisation regimes, particularly regarding time, temperature and moisture thresholds – an issue most pronounced among smaller producers (Litterick et al., 2025). While peat has often been regarded as comparatively low risk due to limited biological activity, studies have demonstrated that peat-based substrates can support the survival and proliferation of plant pathogens where contamination occurs (Benavent-Celma et al., 2023; James, 2005).

Systematic, comparative surveillance of baseline pathogen loads across peat and peat-free media however remains limited (Müller et al., 2025). Current evidence therefore does not support a definitive conclusion that peat-free substrates inherently present greater biosecurity risk than peat. Rather, risk appears to be influenced by processing controls, quality assurance systems and supply-chain management. Achieving equivalent assurance across materials depends on transparent quality control, consistent testing and clearly defined sanitisation standards (Elliot et al., 2023). Biosecurity considerations therefore form one component of the broader technical, environmental and supply-chain assessment required when evaluating peat alternatives and designing resilient media blends for Scottish horticulture (Müller et al., 2025).

The economics of peat-free growing media

Recent analysis (Koseoglu & Roberts, 2025) and stakeholder engagement indicate that cost remains a significant barrier to peat-free transition. Of the 18 grower interviews analysed in Phase 2 of this research, 16 (89%) reported increased growing media costs following transition to peat-free or peat-reduced mixes. Reported increases most commonly fell within a range of approximately 10-40% when comparing like-for-like volumes of peat-free media with previously purchased peat-based mixes. Some growers cited substantially higher differentials, including instances where price was reported to have doubled. These figures reflect grower-reported purchase prices rather than standardised per-unit market comparisons. These stakeholder-reported increases are broadly consistent with findings from a UK-wide Royal Horticultural Society (2023) survey, which identified a 15–25% higher average cost for peat-free compared with peat-reduced growing media among responding businesses (n=35).

Cost impacts appear to vary across sectors, with ornamental, forestry, fruit and vegetable, and potato mini-tuber growers all reporting upward pressure, though the magnitude differed according to crop type, blend formulation and procurement arrangements. In some cases, growers indicated that transition would not have been economically viable without external financial support. Despite the consistency of reported cost increases, there remains limited peer-reviewed research directly comparing peat and peat-free media under equivalent production conditions, highlighting a gap in systematically collected cost data.

Material cost differentials

Stakeholder interviews and recent supply-chain analysis identify relative cost differences between major peat-free constituents (Table 3). Manufacturers indicated that composted bark and wood fibre are currently among the more cost-competitive peat-free components. Stakeholder-reported pricing suggested composted bark was below some peat-blended media, while wood fibre was moderately higher. In contrast, coir-based mixes were consistently described as substantially more expensive, with reported cost increases of 30-50% attributed to washing, buffering and international freight. Hirschler and Osterburg (2025), and Koseoglu and Roberts (2025) similarly identify coir as among the more expensive peat-free constituents, reflecting its processing requirements and transport intensity.

Composted green waste feedstocks are often available at relatively low bulk prices within the recycling sector. However, higher bulk density and additional processing requirements (e.g. screening, drying and quality control) contribute to final blended media costs, making simple raw price comparisons with peat imprecise (Koseoglu and Roberts, 2025). Digestate-based composts were reported at intermediate price points, reflecting maturation and handling requirements despite waste-derived feedstocks. A comparative cost analysis in a commercial plant nursery context found that compost derived from anaerobic digestion could present cost advantages relative to peat when assessed on a lifecycle cost basis, including labour and handling impacts (Restrepo et al., 2013).

For materials that do not yet have an established place in the UK growing media market (e.g. hemp fibre, marine sediment, rice husk ash, farmed Sphagnum and composted heather), reliable cost data are largely unavailable. These materials are typically produced at pilot scale, are regionally specific, or are not yet integrated into established supply chains. As a result, pricing information is either unpublished, commercially confidential, or highly context-dependent. This makes direct comparison with peat or mainstream alternatives difficult at present.

Table 3: Relative cost differences and cost drivers for widely adopted peat-free constituents

* Relative positions reflect stakeholder and literature evidence rather than fixed market pricing.

Independent market analysis in Germany found that peat-free growing media cost on average approximately 21% more than peat-containing products at retail, although prices for individual growing-media components did not differ consistently. This suggests that mix formulation, processing and market structure contribute to observed price differentials (Hirschler & Osterburg, 2025). It is important to note that growing media component prices are subject to fluctuation due to factors including energy costs, freight rates, exchange rates, seasonal demand and regulatory changes. For this reason, the table above presents relative cost positions and principal cost drivers rather than fixed price estimates.

Ancillary production costs

Growers emphasised that cost increases extend beyond media purchase prices. Transition to peat-free substrates often requires adjustments to irrigation regimes, fertiliser strategies and handling systems. Several growers reported increased labour inputs associated with altered media structure, including more frequent tray filling adjustments and manual interventions. One nursery estimated overall production costs increased by 25-30% following transition, reflecting nutrient and labour inputs rather than media costs alone. Larger producers reported that economies of scale, in-house blending and automation mitigated some cost increases. In contrast, smaller nurseries and independent growers, with lower purchasing power and limited mechanisation, reported sharper per-unit impacts.

Supply-chain and structural cost drivers

Analysis by Koseoglu and Roberts (2025) identifies several structural factors that influence the cost profile of peat-free growing media. These drivers extend beyond the headline price of individual constituents and reflect broader supply-chain characteristics.

Transport dynamics are a key consideration. Many peat alternatives differ from peat in bulk density and compressibility, affecting transport efficiency and haulage costs per usable volume. Modern supply-chain analyses and industry assessments identify transport configuration, logistics and processing requirements as significant structural contributors to cost outcomes (Hirschler and Osterburg, 2025; Koseoglu et al., 2021; Vandecasteele et al., 2018).

Processing requirements also contribute to overall cost. Producing horticulture-grade compost involves screening, grading and quality assurance steps that increase handling and infrastructure demands. Tightened contamination thresholds—particularly relating to plastics—require investment in improved screening systems and covered storage (Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 2025; Waste and Resources Action Programme, 2016). For imported materials such as coir, additional washing, buffering and long-distance freight introduce further logistical and processing inputs. In parallel, production systems historically designed for fine, flowable peat may require modification to accommodate more fibrous or structurally variable substrates, requiring operational adjustments and transitional capital investment.

Taken together, these system-level factors mean that cost outcomes are shaped not only by raw material choice but also by infrastructure capacity, logistics configuration and scale of operation. Larger manufacturers may absorb some pressures through in-house blending and automation, whereas smaller operators can experience proportionately higher impacts. Evidence suggests that some of these cost differences may reduce over time as domestic recycling and processing capacity expands and supply chains mature (Koseoglu & Roberts, 2025). However, in the short to medium term, these factors continue to influence the economic conditions under which peat-free media are produced and adopted.

Conclusions – alternative growing media

Section 5 demonstrates that peat-free growing media is now a technically viable but systemically complex transition. There is no single “drop-in” substitute for peat. Instead, successful peat-free production depends on carefully optimised blends that combine materials with complementary physical, chemical and biological properties. Wood fibre, composted bark, composted green waste (retail) and coir currently underpin most UK formulations, with other materials contributing additive, niche or developmental roles.

Evidence from stakeholder engagement and technical literature indicates that peat-free growing media must be formulated to achieve a reliable air–water balance, with crop and stage-specific adjustments driven primarily by particle-size distribution, container geometry and irrigation regime rather than a fixed recipe. Pore-size distribution governs performance: finer fractions increase water retention but may reduce aeration, while coarser fractions increase air-filled porosity and drainage. As crops move from propagation into larger containers, mixes are refined to reflect changing rooting volume and structural demand. In plugs and trays, short substrate columns retain proportionally more water and can limit air-filled porosity, while propagation substrates are typically maintained at low nutrient and soluble salt levels to avoid inhibiting germination or early root development. For ericaceous crops, maintaining a suitably low pH remains a critical constraint shaping constituent choice and limiting pH-raising inputs.

Across sustainability dimensions, performance varies primarily by provenance and processing intensity. Locally sourced woody materials and domestic organic by-products generally demonstrate more favourable environmental and social profiles, reflecting shorter supply chains, lower transport emissions and regulated labour conditions. Import-dependent materials, particularly coir and rice husk ash, remain technically effective but introduce higher transport emissions and greater risk of offshoring environmental and social impacts. Emerging materials – including farmed Sphagnum, bracken, wool and hemp – show promise in circular-economy terms but require further validation, scaling and certification before widespread deployment.

Availability is shaped less by theoretical resource abundance and more by infrastructure capacity, cross-sector competition and regulatory coherence. Forestry residues and organic waste streams provide Scotland with a strong domestic resource base, yet scaling substitution depends on investment in processing, contamination control, quality assurance and logistics. Biosecurity assurance, particularly for recycled and organic substrates, remains a critical component of system resilience.

Economic evidence confirms that cost remains a material barrier. Most growers report increased media expenditure following transition, typically in the range of 10-40%, with additional operational costs associated with irrigation, nutrition and handling adjustments. Structural supply-chain factors – including processing intensity, bulk density, transport efficiency and scale of operation – play a significant role in shaping final cost outcomes. While some cost differentials may reduce as supply chains mature, short-to medium-term pressures remain.

Taken together, the evidence indicates that Scotland’s peat-free transition will depend on coordinated expansion of domestic processing capacity, optimisation of blended formulations, strengthened quality and biosecurity standards, and continued innovation to diversify supply. Peat substitution is achievable, but it is best understood as a process of system redesign rather than simple material replacement. Table 4 summarises the relative performance of each component, drawing together the sustainability, supply, cost, and horticultural suitability metrics discussed in this section. Peat is included as a baseline for comparison; although technically reliable and historically cost-competitive, its extraction is incompatible with Scotland’s long-term peatland protection and climate objectives

Table 4: Overall summary of peat alternatives

Table 5: Compact key for Table 4. Ratings reflect stakeholder evidence and published studies within a Scottish context.

Note: ‘Moderately higher’ costs typically fall within 10-40% above peat where evidence exists.

Feasibility of alternatives in Scotland

Sector context and current transition status

Horticulture in Scotland sits within the broader agricultural sector and, for the purposes of this research, encompasses ornamentals, trees for forestry and woodland creation, fruit and vegetables, and potato mini-tubers. The analysis also considers growing media manufacturers and retailers, reflecting the central role of substrate supply in peat reduction.

In 2024, potatoes, vegetables, fruit, and flowers and nursery stock together contributed an estimated £831.4 million to Scotland’s crop output, accounting for 54.5% of the total (Scottish Government, 2025b) (Figure 3). Nurseries producing plants for forestry and woodland creation generated approximately £19 million in turnover in the same year (Scottish Forestry, 2024). In the UK, household expenditure on growing media was estimated at £790 million in 2023 (Oxford Economics, 2024), underscoring the scale of the growing media market and its relevance to peat-free transition.

Figure 3: Output value Scottish potatoes and horticultural sectors, 2024 (Scottish Government, 2025b) Values represent farm output at current prices. Potatoes includes seed, ware and early potato production. Combined output from potatoes and horticultural crops accounted for approximately 54.5% of total Scottish crop output value in 2024 (Scottish Government, 2025b)

To complement published evidence, detailed interviews were conducted with 18 professional growers during Phase 2 of the research, with a further four growers engaged through stakeholder workshops in Phase 1 (total n = 22). Growers were selected to achieve broad representation across the sector, including variation in crop type, business size, and geographic location (including areas beyond the central belt (Appendix D)). This sampling approach aimed to capture a robust range of operational experiences and perspectives on peat-free feasibility.

Current transition status of Scottish growers

Across the professional growers interviewed, most remain in a peat-reduced phase rather than fully peat-free production. Peat continues to underpin commercial systems, although varying degrees of substitution with materials such as wood fibre, coir and composted bark were reported.

Ornamentals

All ornamental nurseries interviewed continue to use peat to some extent. Typical blends contain 50-70% peat for main crops, with wood fibre and coir serving as the principal alternatives. Propagation remains heavily reliant on peat-based media, often incorporating mineral components to modify drainage and structure. One micro-scale nursery reported fully peat-free production of herbaceous plants and grasses; however, they were unable to source trees, shrubs or aquatic plants that had not been propagated in peat, limiting their ability to eliminate peat entirely from their supply chain.

Trees for forestry and woodland

Among tree growers supplying forestry and woodland creation projects, two operate fully peat-free systems, while one uses a peat-reduced mix but could not specify the peat proportion at the time of interview. However, challenges remain: one peat-free grower was considering reverting to a 40% peat mix to mitigate crop losses, and another reintroduced a small proportion of peat in 2024 to address stalling growth in two species. In addition, externally sourced tree seed is sometimes stratified in peat prior to delivery, preventing complete removal of peat from the production chain.

Fruit

Fruit growers have made substantial progress toward peat-free production but expressed concern about reliance on coir as a primary substrate. Blueberries remain a notable exception due to their requirement for acidic growing conditions and are typically cultivated in a 50:50 peat-coir blend. Growers reported reluctance to reduce peat content further, citing potential risks to yield and fruit quality associated with substrate pH stability.

Mushrooms

Mushroom growers have also advanced toward peat-free production, with both businesses interviewed harvesting and marketing peat-free crops. However, transition remains at an early stage. Increased costs, reduced yields and smaller fruiting bodies were reported. As a result, both growers currently operate mixed production systems, combining peat-free and 100% peat-based substrates to maintain market supply while reducing overall peat use.

Potato mini-tubers

All surveyed potato mini-tuber growers have reduced peat use, operating at approximately 60–85% peat content. All three source media from the same manufacturer and supplement mixes with coir and wood fibre. Nevertheless, growers expressed caution about further reductions until high-performing alternative substrates are validated through trialling.

Scottish grower-led trials and experimentation

Despite continued reliance on peat overall, growers demonstrated a clear willingness to undertake on-site trials to advance peat-free production. These ranged from informal business-led experimentation to structured collaborations with researchers and growing-media manufacturers.

All eight interviewed ornamental growers had undertaken or were currently conducting trials, as were two of the three forestry tree producers. In the fruit sector, one large cooperative is trialling both novel materials and established peat substitutes as part of efforts to reduce reliance on coir as a primary substrate. All three mini-tuber producers reported engagement in internal or externally supported trials. Although both mushroom growers are already marketing peat-free crops, they described themselves as being in an ongoing learning phase, with further experimentation under way. Trial durations typically spanned one to three growing seasons, reflecting crop-specific requirements and the early stage of sector-wide transition. Trial length was frequently constrained by staff capacity and, in some cases, by cost.

Outcomes were mixed and highly crop-specific. Bedding plants, herbs, perennials and grasses generally performed well in peat-free blends incorporating wood fibre and coir. In contrast, ericaceous species and propagation-stage crops often exhibited reduced germination rates or weaker root establishment. Some growers reported that mixes containing more than 50% alternative materials were associated with reduced vigour or nutrient imbalance. Several also noted that successful transition required adjustments to irrigation and fertiliser regimes; however, these adaptations were not always implemented due to labour constraints and additional input costs. This suggests that performance outcomes depend as much on cultural and management adaptation as on substrate composition.

Despite variable results, growers consistently viewed trialling as essential to building technical confidence and practical experience. Smaller and more specialised nurseries reported greater flexibility in experimenting with new blends, whereas larger operations expressed caution due to the financial risk associated with large-scale crop loss. Encouragingly, a growing number of businesses have achieved marketable crops in fully peat-free media and continue to refine blends annually in collaboration with manufacturers. This iterative, grower-led experimentation reflects an emerging culture of innovation, even as challenges relating to media consistency, water management and cost remain.

Grower motivations for trialling and transition were shaped by a combination of anticipatory, market-driven and value-based factors. Many described experimentation as preparation for anticipated legislation, seeking to position themselves ahead of a potential peat ban. Others cited customer and supply-chain pressures, particularly from local authorities and retail groups requesting peat-free products. A smaller number framed transition as principle-led, aligned with internal sustainability commitments. Some growers also anticipated reputational or market advantages, although several reported that these had yet to translate into measurable commercial returns.

Current barriers

Barriers for professional growers

Stakeholder engagement identified a consistent set of barriers constraining professional growers’ transition to peat-free production. These span financial, technical, regulatory and structural dimensions and affect businesses across scales and sectors. A detailed account is provided in Appendix P. Overall, these findings align with published research highlighting the economic and technical complexity of peat substitution (Bek et al., 2020; Koseoglu and Roberts, 2025).

Cost and resource pressures were the most frequently cited constraint. Peat-free and peat-reduced media were cited as typically 30-40% more expensive than peat-based products, reflecting higher freight, processing and input costs. While local authorities and retailers increasingly request peat-free plants, growers reported limited willingness within the supply chain to absorb higher prices. Rising fertiliser costs and increased water demand further compound financial pressures. Transition may also require capital investment in storage, handling and irrigation systems, and in some cases new machinery to accommodate bulkier or less uniform substrates.

Technical compatibility and consistency present additional challenges. Peat-free blends, particularly those containing high proportions of wood fibre, were reported to clog or compact unevenly in automated filling and transplanting equipment. Variability between batches – linked to raw-material sourcing or processing – was frequently cited as undermining crop consistency and confidence in performance. Some growers also reported reduced structural stability in wood-based substrates over longer production cycles.

Labour and productivity impacts were widely noted. Peat-free mixes often require closer monitoring, more frequent irrigation and adjustments to nutrient regimes. In some cases, crops such as lavender required up to an additional month to reach marketable size. These factors increase labour inputs and extend production timelines, creating particular strain for smaller nurseries operating on narrow margins.

Skills and knowledge gaps continue to impede progress. Several growers reported limited understanding of substrate composition and management requirements, contributing to inconsistent irrigation and feeding practices. Training provision in production horticulture was described as limited within Scotland, restricting access to specialist technical support.

Representation and communication barriers were also identified. Some participants felt underrepresented within existing trade bodies and disconnected from UK-wide initiatives. Membership costs, limited regional engagement and a perceived emphasis on retail rather than commercial production were cited as factors limiting participation.

Business scale and geography shape adaptive capacity. Smaller and more remote nurseries face higher transport costs, minimum-order constraints and restricted supplier choice. Without the purchasing power to commission bespoke blends, many rely on generic formulations that may not be optimised for their crop range or local climatic conditions.

Finally, biosecurity and regulatory requirements introduce additional complexity. Plant-health rules governing cross-border trade and the use of certain organic materials can limit access to suitable peat-free substrates. For example, UK-Northern Ireland trade arrangements restrict the re-entry of certain wood-fibre media, while PAS 100-certified composts are considered unsuitable for some crops, such as raspberries, due to pathogen risk. In contrast, some growers rely on alternative assurance schemes, such as Dutch RHP certification, which apply more specific controls for horticultural growing media.

Barriers for media manufacturers

Published evidence on barriers specific to manufacturers remains limited. However, stakeholder engagement and sector reports consistently identify material supply, infrastructure capacity, input quality, economic viability, and policy clarity as key constraints to scaling peat-free growing media production in Scotland and the wider UK. While demand for alternatives such as wood fibre, bark, coir, and composted green waste continues to increase, feedstock reliability, processing capacity, and regulatory certainty have not developed at the same pace. A detailed account of these barriers is provided in Appendix Q.

Material supply constraints were identified as a primary challenge. Although domestic bark arisings from UK forestry and sawmilling are substantial in aggregate volume, only a proportion consistently meets the quality, particle size, and phytosanitary standards required for professional growing media. Competition for suitable bark from other sectors e.g. bioenergy, further limits availability and contributes to price volatility. Wood fibre supply is subject to similar pressures, with processing capacity constrained and feedstocks dependent on forestry outputs and wider industrial market cycles. As a result, reliance on imported alternatives – particularly coir – reflects both quality specifications and cross-sector competition, rather than absolute domestic scarcity. Tightening biosecurity requirements for bark imports add further cost and logistical complexity.

Infrastructure and logistics limitations compound these constraints. Stakeholders highlighted that even where raw materials are available, UK capacity for grading, maturation, blending, and quality control remains insufficient to ensure consistent, high-quality substrates at scale. Materials such as digestate fibre require specialised processing and extended stabilisation periods, while the bulk density and storage requirements of wood fibre and composted materials increase capital and transport costs. Both the Growing Media Taskforce (2022) and Office for the Internal Market (2023) identify infrastructure investment as critical to achieving reliable, scalable peat-free production.

Input quality and standards were also cited as significant barriers. Manufacturers report variability in wood fibre and composted materials arising from differences in source material, processing methods, and contamination levels. Green waste contamination – including plastics and persistent herbicide residues – continues to undermine confidence in recycled inputs. The absence of harmonised grading systems and clearly defined technical standards was described as a structural gap in the sector. The reformed Growing Media Association (Bragg, N., 2025, pers. comm.; HortWeek, 2025a) is developing new technical frameworks; however, stakeholders emphasised that coordinated research, independent trials, and transparent performance data are required to validate materials and support wider adoption.

Economic constraints further limit supply chain resilience. Transitioning away from peat has increased production costs, driven by new machinery requirements, higher storage needs, and increased transport expenditure. Wood fibre processing may require capital investment of £500k–£2 million per facility (Growing Media Taskforce, 2022), while expanding processing capacity for peat-free inputs such as coir may require investment of approximately £0.8–£1.2 million per plant (Office for the Internal Market, 2023). Heavier alternatives such as composted green waste incur substantially higher transport costs because of their greater bulk density, historically estimated at up to around 90% higher than peat on a per-volume basis (English Nature and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, 2002).

Policy uncertainty was identified as a cross-cutting barrier. Manufacturers reported that the absence of clear, harmonised timelines for peat restrictions across UK nations constrains long-term planning and discourages capital investment in infrastructure and equipment.

Barriers for plant retailers

Plant retailers play a key intermediary role in the transition to peat-free horticulture, linking consumers, growers, wholesalers and manufacturers. However, they face intersecting supply chain, economic, behavioural and policy barriers that constrain both the availability and uptake of peat-free products. Around half of retail plant businesses surveyed by the Scottish Government (2023b) expected to be negatively affected by a peat ban, underscoring the sector’s exposure to transition risks. Appendix R provides further detail.

Supply chain and infrastructure constraints were identified as a primary concern. Limited domestic processing capacity and inconsistent availability of peat-free growing media restrict the ability of some retailers to offer a fully peat-free product range. Larger businesses reported that shortages during peak trading periods could intensify competition for available volumes, potentially disadvantaging smaller outlets with less purchasing power (Office for the Internal Market, 2023). Storage and handling requirements present additional pressures. Peat-free media performance in storage varies by formulation, and trade guidance indicates that prolonged storage of bagged peat-free compost can lead to quality deterioration. Dry, covered storage and faster stock turnover are therefore recommended, potentially increasing space, handling and cost demands – particularly for smaller retailers.

Economic pressures further constrain progress. Peat-free growing media were reported by stakeholders to be approximately 30-40% more expensive than peat-based equivalents, with several retailers indicating that they absorb part of this differential to maintain competitive pricing. Smaller independent businesses, lacking the purchasing leverage of national chains, may be particularly exposed to input price volatility. Consumer price sensitivity reinforces these pressures: affordability remains a primary reason cited for continued peat use (Koseoglu and Roberts, 2025). In some cases, imported peat-based products remain cheaper than domestically produced peat-free alternatives, creating competitive imbalance within the retail market.

Quality and consistency concerns were also raised. Retailers reported variability in nutrient balance, pH, moisture retention and contamination within peat-free products. Trials conducted by the Stockbridge Technology Centre (HortWeek, 2025b) identified variability in the performance of retail media samples. Inconsistent product performance can generate negative customer feedback, reduce repeat purchases and undermine confidence. Retailers also noted that some peat-free plants may require more attentive irrigation management, increasing display maintenance demands.

Cultural and consumer barriers compound these practical challenges. Although surveys indicate that many consumers express a preference for peat-free options, this is not consistently reflected in purchasing behaviour (Dahlin et al., 2019; Office for the Internal Market, 2023). Retailers described a gap between environmental intention and consumer action, with some customers remaining sceptical regarding peat-free compost performance or perceiving it as less reliable. While experienced or sustainability-motivated gardeners often adapt successfully to peat-free systems, general awareness of best practice remains limited. Time constraints during peak seasonal trading reduce opportunities for customer education, though collaborative initiatives involving retailers, growers and manufacturers seek to address this through outreach and guidance materials (Horticultural Trades Association, n.d.).

Policy and standards gaps were identified as an additional barrier. Retailers reported that the absence of a unified certification or labelling framework for peat-free media allows wide variation in quality and environmental claims, complicating procurement decisions and consumer communication. Regulatory divergence between domestic and international markets was also highlighted: imported plants grown in peat are not currently subject to equivalent restrictions, potentially creating competitive imbalance. Clearer labelling, consistent enforcement and harmonised standards were identified as measures that could strengthen market confidence and support transition.

Sector and crop specific barriers

The transition to peat-free production is not uniform across horticulture; certain crop groups and production systems present distinct and heightened barriers, examined in greater detail in Appendix S.

Ericaceous crops – including rhododendrons, heathers and blueberries – are technically challenging to produce without peat due to their adaptation to acidic, low-nutrient soil conditions. Commercial grower monitoring in the UK identifies acid-loving ericaceous crops among those most difficult to transition away from peat (Koseoglu and Roberts, 2025). Growers cautioned that a rapid or inflexible ban could reduce plant diversity and limit the availability of specialist cultivars. These concerns are economically significant: Scotland is a major contributor to the UK berry sector, which generated an estimated £624 million in Gross Value Added (GVA) in 2023, with blueberries one of the four principal berry crops alongside strawberries, raspberries and blackberries (HortiDaily, 2025).

Experimental evidence in ericaceous systems indicates that peat-free components such as coir can support plant growth in bark-based substrates, although performance, nutrient dynamics and pH stability remain highly formulation- and management-dependent and must be considered alongside wider sustainability considerations (Kingston et al., 2020; Scagel, 2003). Industry trials have also reported encouraging results: a recent commercial peat-free trial of Inkarho rhododendrons demonstrated that well-formulated peat-free mixes can achieve satisfactory growth and quality under nursery conditions (HortWeek, 2025d).

Potato mini-tuber production – a foundational stage of the UK seed potato industry – presents distinct structural and biosecurity constraints. Scotland accounts for approximately 75% of Great Britain’s certified seed potato area, positioning it as a cornerstone of the UK seed potato supply chain (Thomson, 2024).The sector contributes substantially to the rural economy and underpins both domestic ware production and export markets. Production operates under stringent certification and plant health regimes, overseen by statutory authorities, to maintain Scotland’s high-health status and minimise the risk of pathogen introduction and spread (Scottish Government, n.d.). Within this tightly regulated context, growers are highly risk-averse to changes that could compromise crop uniformity, traceability or disease status.

Research demonstrates that substrate physical properties are critical determinants of tuber number, size uniformity and overall crop performance in controlled mini-tuber systems (McGrann et al., 2020). Variability in alternative substrates can therefore affect operational reliability in a production model where consistency is paramount. Growers reported concerns regarding handling characteristics and perceived biosecurity risks associated with unfamiliar peat-free media. While definitive evidence linking peat-free substrates to increased pathogen transmission remains limited, recent analysis highlights uncertainty around the provenance, processing and sanitisation of some peat-free constituents, reinforcing caution in high-value seed systems (Litterick et al., 2025). Higher substrate costs and limited downstream market demand for peat-free seed production were also cited as barriers, particularly within a specialised sector with limited leverage over input suppliers.

Propagation represents one of the most technically sensitive stages in peat-free cultivation across multiple crop types. Successful germination and early root development depend on tightly controlled substrate physical properties, including moisture retention, aeration, structural stability and nutrient buffering (Gruda, 2019; Schmilewski, 2008). Evidence from both academic studies and industry trials indicates that variability in peat-free constituents – particularly wood fibre and compost-based materials – can affect water dynamics and nutrient availability during early growth stages, increasing management sensitivity (Koseoglu and Roberts, 2025; Litterick et al., 2025). These challenges are especially pronounced in fine-seeded crops and pressed block systems, where structural cohesion and uniform moisture distribution are critical.

Peat-based plugs and liners remain widely used within UK propagation supply chains, and a substantial proportion of young plants are sourced from overseas production systems that continue to rely on peat-containing media (Office for the Internal Market, 2023). This constrains short-term full substitution at nursery level, even where domestic growers are transitioning. Targeted research into peat-free blocking systems highlights the technical complexity involved: trials in vegetable propagation have demonstrated that achieving sufficient block strength, stability during handling and consistent water distribution requires careful optimisation of fibre composition and processing (Eyre et al., 2022). Practical on-farm evaluations similarly report variability in cohesion and transplant performance in peat-free blocks, reinforcing the need for further refinement (Walker and Litterick, 2024). Ongoing research programmes, including work led by Coventry University (2023) aim to address these structural and performance constraints; however, growers emphasise the need for coordinated commercial-scale trials, clearer regulatory alignment and targeted investment to reduce technical and financial risk.

Evidence of viability in peat-free systems

Although significant technical and structural barriers persist in certain sectors, evidence from both stakeholder experience and published research indicates that peat-free production is already functioning effectively across a range of horticultural systems.

Peer-reviewed studies demonstrate that well-formulated peat-free substrates can achieve plant growth and quality comparable to peat-based media in ornamental and edible crops, provided irrigation and nutrient regimes are appropriately adapted (Gruda, 2019; Maher et al., 2008; Schmilewski, 2008). Recent UK-based trials similarly report satisfactory performance in container-grown systems following refinement of fertilisation and water management practices (Litterick et al., 2025; Royal Horticultural Society, 2024).

Performance outcomes appear to vary by crop type and production duration. Short-cycle crops, including bedding plants, grasses and herbaceous perennials, were widely regarded by stakeholders as comparatively lower-risk during transition, although successful establishment following planting may depend on appropriate irrigation management. Limited growing time in the substrate reduces exposure to longer-term structural degradation or pH drift, and rapid turnover minimises financial risk associated with media experimentation. Substrates incorporating bark or wood fibre typically exhibit higher air-filled porosity and improved drainage relative to peat (Gruda, 2019); for species adapted to well-drained conditions, including alpines and certain Mediterranean-origin plants, growers reported equivalent or improved performance under peat-free regimes.

Beyond agronomic outcomes, several businesses identified reputational and market alignment benefits. Growing public concern regarding peatland degradation and climate impacts has increased scrutiny of peat use in horticulture (Scottish Government, 2023b). Early adoption of peat-free systems was described by some growers as strengthening environmental credentials and supporting brand differentiation.

These findings indicate that transition feasibility is uneven across crop types and production systems. While long-cycle and mechanically intensive systems face greater constraints, many ornamental and short-cycle crops are already being produced successfully without peat. This heterogeneity reinforces the need for proportionate, sector-specific transition strategies.

What might support a successful transition for the horticultural industry in Scotland?

Standards for growing media

Evidence of need: confidence, consistency and risk

Stakeholder engagement, consultation responses and published research identify variability in peat-free growing media as a structural barrier to transition. Across professional horticulture, retail and supply chains, there was broad agreement that legislative restriction alone is unlikely to deliver reliable substitution without strengthened quality assurance (see Appendix T for more detail).

Responses to the “Ending the sale of peat in Scotland” consultation (Scottish Government, 2023b) linked inconsistent crop performance to variability in raw materials, processing standards and quality control; similar concerns were raised in England and Wales (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 2022). One growing media organisation reported mortality rates of up to 30% in lime-sensitive species when raised on poorly buffered substrates, illustrating the commercial consequences of inadequate formulation or testing.

Published literature supports these findings. Alternative materials such as wood fibre, composted bark and coir can perform comparably to peat but require careful processing and formulation to ensure consistent physical and chemical properties (Gruda, 2019; Schmilewski, 2008). Variability in particle size distribution, salinity, pH buffering capacity and biological activity is particularly consequential in propagation systems, where tolerance for error is low (Gruda, 2019). Recent UK research has further highlighted calls for clearer national sanitisation standards and routine pathogen testing within a formal quality framework (Litterick et al., 2025).

While PAS 100 provides quality benchmarks for composted materials (Waste and Resources Action Programme, 2016), no harmonised UK-wide standard governs the full range of peat-free constituents or finished-product performance.

Sector specific requirements

Although support for strengthened standards was consistent, stakeholder requirements vary according to crop sensitivity, production system and biosecurity exposure. Table 6 summarises sector-specific risk profiles and corresponding standardisation needs.

Table 6: Sector-specific standardisation requirements to support peat-free transition

Ornamental nurseries emphasised reliability in propagation and plug production. As one large tree and shrub nursery stated, “One bad load of compost can set you back a season – if the roots don’t take, you’ve lost that crop window.” Participants called for defined thresholds relating to particle size distribution, structural stability and microbiological status.

Soft fruit producers, many of whom have adopted coir-based systems, expressed concern regarding variability in buffering and salinity management. “Coir works for us, but only if it’s treated right,” noted one grower. Standards ensuring consistent processing and transparent sourcing were viewed as essential.

Potato mini-tuber systems adopted a more precautionary position, emphasising biosecurity and sterility as non-negotiable. Stakeholders questioned whether a single generic standard would adequately reflect pathogen sensitivity thresholds in high-risk systems.

Growing media manufacturers advocated segmentation between amateur and professional markets, reflecting tighter performance tolerances in commercial propagation and mechanised systems.

These perspectives indicate that any standards framework must accommodate differentiated performance thresholds rather than assume uniform risk tolerance across sectors.

Implementation models and pathways

Stakeholders identified both international reference models and emerging UK initiatives that could inform implementation. Several participants pointed to the Dutch RHP certification scheme as an example of structured quality assurance. RHP certifies raw materials and finished growing media products against defined and regularly updated quality standards covering physical, chemical and biological parameterrs – including water uptake, air content, pH, electrical conductivity and nutrient status – applied across the production chain. Stakeholders emphasised that the scheme’s value lies in its combination of technical thresholds, traceability and independent verification. As one ornamental grower observed, certification provides “a baseline – if it’s certified, you know what you’re working with.”

Workshop discussions outlined practical components of a potential UK-aligned pathway:

• Establish defined parameter bands for key constituents and finished products, including contaminant and microbiological thresholds.
• Require batch-level testing and documented growth trials, subject to third-party audit.
• Differentiate standards between amateur and professional markets.
• Introduce a recognisable certification mark linked to transparent compliance criteria.
• Implement structured monitoring to assess the impact of standards on peat reduction rates.

Industry coordination is advancing. The regrouped Growing Media Association has initiated development of a PAS-style specification drawing on PAS 100 and PAS 110 (HortWeek, 2025a). According to stakeholders, the draft includes chemical, physical and microbiological testing parameters, defined target ranges and documented growth testing, with independent audit and corrective timelines.

Governance implications

Interview evidence indicates that stakeholder confidence is closely linked to the credibility and coordination of any standards framework. Voluntary guidance alone was widely viewed as insufficient; independent oversight and transparent verification were considered central to supporting trust in peat-free media.

Participants stressed the importance of UK-wide alignment to avoid market fragmentation, while ensuring Scottish priorities are reflected in emerging PAS-style developments. Structured knowledge exchange – including dissemination of certified product data and crop-specific guidance for high-risk systems – was identified as an important complementary measure.

Overall, stakeholder evidence suggests that effective standards will depend not only on technical specification, but on governance clarity, coordination across administrations and credible independent verification. Standards were therefore framed as an enabling mechanism within the wider peat-free transition, rather than an end point in themselves.

Growing trials

In this context, a horticultural growing trial refers to a structured comparison of alternative growing media under commercial production conditions, typically assessing crop performance, physical and chemical substrate properties, and operational compatibility over defined crop cycles.

National trial activity and capacity constraints

Evidence from stakeholder engagement and national initiatives indicates broad recognition that structured trials are essential to reducing technical risk in peat-free transition. However, commercial growers reported significant constraints in conducting robust trials independently, citing limitations in time, staffing and data-logging capacity. Several interviewees described running meaningful comparative trials as “almost a full-time job,” noting reliance on in-house agronomy rather than external research support.

The need for structured trial support has been shaped in part by the long-standing policy trajectory toward peat reduction. In 2011, the UK Government set a voluntary target to phase out peat use in professional horticulture by 2030 (HM Government, 2011). Stakeholders emphasised that pursuing this transition without coordinated trial programmes increases commercial exposure. Participants expressed willingness to trial alternative media where external agronomic expertise, supervision and data analysis were available, highlighting the importance of partnership models rather than isolated experimentation.

Views differed regarding optimal trial design. Some growers favoured on-site trials, arguing that microclimatic conditions, irrigation systems and machinery compatibility are highly site-specific. Others supported centralised research-led trials, citing benefits such as biosecurity control and methodological consistency. Across sectors, however, there was agreement that trials must be conducted at commercially meaningful scale; small-plot experiments were widely considered insufficient to influence decision-making.

Several UK initiatives provide relevant models. The AHDB-ADAS CP138 project combined predictive modelling with on-site grower demonstrations, identifying both opportunities and constraints in peat substitution (Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, 2019). More recently, the Royal Horticultural Society’s Transition to Peat-Free Fellowship (launched in 2022) represents the largest coordinated UK trial programme to date. The five-year project partners the RHS, Defra and commercial media suppliers with multiple nurseries to test peat-free formulations across diverse crop groups, including ericaceous and other traditionally sensitive plants. Interim findings indicate that peat-free media can perform comparably to peat under standard irrigation regimes in several nursery settings, with final results expected in 2027 (Royal Horticultural Society, 2024; n.d.).

Priority crops and technical evidence gaps

Stakeholder engagement identified specific crop categories where technical uncertainty remains high and where targeted, crop-specific trials were viewed as a priority.

Ericaceous ornamentals (including rhododendrons, azaleas and heathers) were frequently cited. While short-term trials have demonstrated encouraging performance in peat-free systems (HortWeek, 2025d), growers expressed uncertainty regarding long-term pH stability and nutrient buffering over extended production cycles.

Propagation systems emerged as a consistent priority. Stakeholders emphasised the need for focused trials on plug plants and growing blocks, where physical cohesion and moisture stability are critical to mechanical transplanting and uniform root development. As one specialist noted, peat substitutes must be sufficiently cohesive to support blocking systems without crumbling during handling.

Potato mini-tuber production, however, was identified as a distinct and higher-risk category requiring targeted investigation. Given Scotland’s central role in certified seed potato production and the sector’s stringent biosecurity and traceability requirements, growers described substrate reliability and pathogen control as non-negotiable. Research demonstrates that substrate physical properties directly influence tuber number, size uniformity and crop performance in controlled systems (McGrann et al., 2020). Stakeholders therefore emphasised the need for dedicated commercial-scale trials to evaluate peat-free media under certified mini-tuber production conditions.

Several niche crops adapted to Scottish conditions – including short-lived perennials such as Meconopsis – were also flagged as requiring bespoke trial design, particularly where moisture sensitivity is pronounced. More broadly, stakeholders emphasised that priority should be given to crop systems that remain dependent on specific physical and chemical properties traditionally provided by peat. Ongoing national initiatives are testing a number of these sensitive groups, including carnivorous plants.

Support mechanisms and coordination considerations

Stakeholder engagement highlighted that future Scottish trial activity should build on existing UK initiatives rather than duplicate them. Several participants suggested formal Scottish participation within established programmes – for example, extending the Royal Horticultural Society’s peat-free trial network to include Scottish-coordinated sites – to ensure representation of local climatic and production conditions.

Interviewees emphasised that trial participation requires structured support. Suggested mechanisms included financial assistance for host nurseries, provision of agronomic expertise to design and monitor experiments, and training in data collection and analysis. Some growers proposed a “trial facilitator” model, whereby an industry-funded agronomist supports multiple nurseries with experimental setup and data logging, reducing individual administrative burden.

Clear dissemination of findings was repeatedly identified as essential. While national initiatives have produced reports and resources, stakeholders expressed concern that results are not always easily comparable across crop types and systems. Participants suggested that a coordinated Scottish knowledge platform could consolidate certified trial data, case studies and technical guidance.

Key stakeholder-identified actions include:

• Embed commercial-scale trials within existing UK frameworks, ensuring Scottish sites are included where relevant to capture regional conditions.
• Provide technical and financial support for host nurseries, including access to agronomic expertise and structured data collection.
• Prioritise crop systems identified as high risk, including ericaceous species, propagation and potato mini-tubers.
• Facilitate peer-to-peer learning, through field demonstrations, workshops and structured mentoring between early adopters and other growers.

Across interviews, stakeholders characterised the current constraint less as unwillingness to transition, and more as residual uncertainty in specific systems. Structured, collaborative trials were viewed as mechanisms to generate transferable evidence under commercial conditions. Trial outcomes were also viewed as providing an empirical foundation for the refinement of future growing media standards.

Enabling conditions for industry transition

While standards (Section 7.1) and structured trials (Section 7.2) address technical uncertainty and product consistency, stakeholder engagement identified a broader set of enabling conditions that influence the pace and stability of peat-free transition. These relate to financial exposure, feedstock availability, regulatory frameworks and knowledge infrastructure. Progress in these areas was viewed as necessary to enable sustained commercial uptake.

Financial and infrastructure considerations

Stakeholders emphasised that transition carries both capital and operational cost implications. Survey evidence from UK growers suggests that fully peat-free growing media may cost approximately 15-25% more per cubic metre than peat-reduced alternatives (Royal Horticultural Society, 2023), although reported differentials vary by crop type and contract structure. Additional costs may arise from equipment modification, irrigation adjustments, storage infrastructure and staff training. Several participants indicated that targeted, time-limited financial mechanisms – including capital grants, transitional funding or co-funded research participation – could reduce early-adopter risk in sectors operating under tight margins (Royal Horticultural Society, 2023). These suggestions were framed as short-term adjustment support during market transition rather than long-term subsidy dependence.

Feedstock competition was identified as a structural consideration. Participants noted increasing demand for wood-based materials across sectors, particularly between growing media manufacturers and biomass energy producers. Formal analysis of peat-policy impacts has similarly reported cross-sector competition for wood residues used in biomass fuel production (Office for the Internal Market, 2023). UK biomass market data indicate that the country is a major importer and consumer of wood pellets for electricity and renewable heat generation (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, 2023), indicating that demand from the energy sector may influence the availability and pricing of wood residues and by-products used in peat-free growing media formulations.

Regulatory and supply chain constraints

Access to suitable alternative feedstocks is influenced by waste classification systems, contamination thresholds and approval processes. Stakeholders reported that regulatory complexity can delay or deter the use of secondary materials, including anaerobic digestate and recycled wood products, limiting domestic diversification of inputs.

In parallel, concerns were raised regarding contamination in green waste streams, particularly where contractual clauses permit low levels of non-organic material. Variability in compost quality affects manufacturer confidence and restricts its suitability for sensitive applications. Stakeholders suggested that clearer guidance, proportionate review of waste classifications and strengthened enforcement of contamination standards could improve supply reliability, subject to environmental safeguards.

These issues highlight that peat-free transition is not solely a matter of product reformulation, but also of regulatory coherence and supply chain infrastructure.

Knowledge, education and applied research gaps

Beyond crop-specific trials, stakeholders identified broader knowledge gaps affecting implementation. These include:

• Limited long-term, Scotland-specific performance data across diverse crop systems.
• Incomplete quantification of transition costs across different production scales.
• Insufficient applied guidance on irrigation, fertiliser regimes and storage management for peat-free media.
• Uneven access to structured training and peer-to-peer knowledge exchange.

While research is ongoing at UK level, participants emphasised the importance of accessible, crop-specific best-practice guidance and coordinated dissemination mechanisms. Structured knowledge exchange was viewed as complementary to standards and trials, enabling technical learning to translate into operational confidence.

Coordination and policy coherence

Across interviews and survey evidence, stakeholders framed peat-free transition as a system-level adjustment rather than a single technical substitution. Standards, trials, feedstock supply, infrastructure investment and training were described as interdependent components of a stable transition pathway.

Effective coordination across administrations and sectors was therefore viewed as important not only for regulatory clarity, but for maintaining supply-chain confidence and market competitiveness during adjustment. Stakeholders did not characterise the primary constraint as unwillingness to transition, but rather as exposure to uneven implementation conditions across crops and supply chains.

In this context, government’s role was framed as enabling coherence across these domains – ensuring that technical progress, market signals and regulatory frameworks operate in alignment. Stakeholders therefore characterised successful transition not as a question of technical feasibility, but of coordinated implementation across the wider horticultural system.

Feasibility and sequencing of transition in Scotland

The evidence presented in Sections 5-7 shows that peat-free growing media are already working in parts of Scottish horticulture. Many ornamental crops, short-cycle plants and some forestry systems are being produced successfully in peat-free or significantly peat-reduced substrates. However, full removal of peat across all sectors will take time and will not progress at the same pace in every crop group. Feasibility is therefore not a single question. It depends on three main factors:

• Time needed for manufacturers to expand reliable supply of alternatives.
• Time needed for growers to test and validate new mixes under commercial conditions.
• Degree of policy alignment across the UK.

Taken together, these factors suggest that transition is achievable, but that sequencing and coordination will be critical.

Infrastructure and validation lead time

Media manufacturers require time to increase processing capacity for key materials such as wood fibre and composted bark. Installing new refiners, dryers and screening equipment can take two to three years. Expanding production of high-quality compost with consistently low contamination may take three to five years, particularly where additional quality controls are needed. Emerging materials, such as farmed Sphagnum, are likely to require longer development periods before they can contribute at commercial scale (c.5-10 years).

Growers also need time. Most businesses test new growing media over several seasons before adopting them fully. This reflects biological cycles rather than reluctance to change. Crops must be assessed for germination, root development, growth rate, yield and long-term health. For short-cycle ornamental crops, two to three growing seasons may be sufficient. For longer-cycle crops such as shrubs, trees, blueberries and some fruit crops, growers commonly require five years or more to confirm reliable performance.

High-biosecurity systems, particularly potato mini-tuber production, present the longest adaptation horizon. These systems operate under strict certification requirements and low tolerance for variation in substrate performance. Growers reported that multi-year validation would be essential before complete peat removal could be considered. In these sectors, shorter timelines were viewed as commercially high risk.

These lead times are therefore driven by infrastructure investment cycles and biological validation requirements, rather than by lack of technical potential.

Variation across crop systems

The transition does not affect all sectors equally. Retail growing media is already largely peat-free, and many ornamental producers have significantly reduced peat use. In the soft fruit sector, most Scottish berry production (with the exception of blueberries) is already peat-free, typically using coir-based systems. This shows that peat-free production can work at commercial scale. However, coir is imported and associated with transport emissions and wider environmental impacts. It is a functional alternative to peat, but not an environmentally neutral one.

In contrast, ericaceous crops, blueberries and other acid-demanding species remain more dependent on peat due to pH stability and nutrient-buffering requirements. While peat-free systems are being trialled, long-term performance under commercial conditions requires further validation.

Propagation systems, including plugs and pressed growing blocks also present technical sensitivity. These systems depend on precise moisture retention, particle size and structural cohesion. Although progress is being made, growers emphasised the need for continued trialling and refinement.

This unevenness suggests that a single, uniform timetable may not reflect sector realities. A phased approach that recognises crop-specific constraints would better align with the evidence presented in earlier sections.

UK alignment and competitive considerations

Several stakeholders raised concerns about moving significantly ahead of the rest of the UK. If peat-grown plants or peat-based growing media remain available in other nations, Scottish producers could face higher production costs while competing in shared markets. In addition, young plants and plugs are often sourced from outside Scotland, and in some cases from overseas production systems that continue to use peat. Without UK-wide alignment, full removal of peat at nursery level may be constrained by upstream supply chains. These issues do not undermine the case for transition. However, they highlight the importance of policy coordination and clarity to avoid unintended competitive disadvantage or carbon displacement.

Indicative phasing

Based on stakeholder evidence and the technical analysis presented earlier in this report, a broadly phased pattern of transition can be identified:

• Retail and amateur markets are closest to full peat removal.
• Mainstream professional crops, including many ornamentals and forestry plants, are capable of substantial further reduction in the medium term, subject to continued infrastructure expansion and trial validation.
• High-sensitivity systems, including potato mini-tubers, certain propagation systems and ericaceous crops, are likely to require longer validation periods before complete peat substitution is commercially secure.

These phases are indicative rather than prescriptive. The precise pace of change will depend on infrastructure investment, research outcomes, standards development and UK policy alignment.

Indicative time horizons by sector

Stakeholder evidence provides a clearer picture of the likely time required for different parts of the industry to transition fully away from peat. Figure 4 illustrates how these sector-specific timelines translate into indicative transition windows from 2026 onwards. These estimates reflect infrastructure lead times, crop testing cycles and normal equipment replacement schedules. They are indicative and based on reported industry experience rather than fixed commitments.

Growing media manufacturers

Manufacturers highlighted that expansion of domestic processing capacity cannot occur immediately. The following timelines reflect capital investment cycles and regulatory approval processes. They relate only to those materials for which stakeholders provided specific evidence on infrastructure lead times during engagement. Not all alternative materials assessed elsewhere in this report were discussed in comparable detail in relation to scaling timelines.

• Wood fibre and composted bark: typically 2-3 years to install additional refining, drying and screening equipment. Availability of horticultural-grade fine bark remains a constraint.
• Composted green waste: 3-5 years to establish consistently low-contamination, PAS-100 compliant production lines at scale.
• Digestate-derived materials: 3-4 years of further research, pilot work and process refinement to manage ammonium levels and ensure consistent product quality.
• Coir: supply chains are established but remain import-dependent and subject to quality variability.
• Farmed Sphagnum: stakeholders suggested 5-10 years before commercial-scale volumes could realistically be available in Scotland, subject to cost, sterilisation and land-use considerations.

Grower sub-sectors

Time needed for adoption varies significantly by crop type and production system.

• Retail and amateur markets: largely peat-free already; remaining transition expected within 1-2 years based on current trends.
• Ornamental growers: small growers reported that 2-3 growing seasons may suffice. Larger operations anticipate 5-10 years where machinery modification or infrastructure redesign is required.
• Tree growers for forestry and woodland: smaller producers indicated rapid adaptation is possible if suitable substrates are available; larger nurseries suggested 3–5 years to trial mixes under site-specific conditions.
• Fruit and vegetable growers: Strawberries and raspberries are largely peat-free already (coir-based systems). Blueberries and other longer-cycle fruit crops require extended validation, often beyond 5 years. Vegetable growers commonly cited around 5 years as a realistic planning horizon, subject to secure material supply.
• Potato mini-tuber growers: the most cautious sector. Stakeholders suggested that full conversion of facilities could require up to 10 years, reflecting biosecurity requirements, multi-season validation and certification constraints.
• Ericaceous crops: stakeholders indicated that longer timelines are likely, potentially within the 5–10 year horizon identified for high-sensitivity systems, reflecting ongoing challenges in achieving stable low-pH, peat-free systems at scale.

Overall pattern

Taken together, stakeholder evidence suggests a broadly phased trajectory beginning around 2026:

• Short term (1-2 years): Retail markets and low-risk systems complete transition.
• Medium term (3-5 years): Mainstream professional crops achieve substantial reduction, supported by expanded processing capacity and validated blends.
• Longer term (5-10 years): High-sensitivity and high-biosecurity systems transition once multi-year evidence confirms performance and reliability.

These time horizons are contingent on infrastructure expansion, standards development, coordinated trials and UK policy alignment. Timeframes are indicative and assume transition commencing in 2026.

Figure 4: Indicative stakeholder-informed timelines for peat-free transition across grower sub-sectors. Teal bars indicate the earliest feasible transition window reported by stakeholders. Grey extensions show potential additional time required where technical or infrastructure constraints persist. Timelines are illustrative planning horizons rather than forecasts of when peat use will cease.

Conditions for effective transition

Across all sectors, stakeholders consistently emphasised that successful transition depends on coordinated implementation rather than isolated action.

Key enabling conditions include:

• Clear and consistent quality standards for peat-free media;
• Structured, commercially meaningful growing trials;
• Reliable domestic processing capacity;
• Access to technical guidance and workforce training;
• Clarity and alignment of policy across the UK.

Where these conditions are in place, evidence suggests that peat-free production can operate effectively. Where they are absent, technical uncertainty and commercial risk increase.

Overall, the feasibility of transition in Scotland is therefore best understood as a question of sequencing and coordination rather than of technical possibility. The industry has demonstrated willingness to adapt. The remaining challenge lies in aligning infrastructure, standards, research and policy to support consistent and economically stable implementation.

Conclusions

This research examined the technical, environmental, social and economic evidence on alternatives to horticultural peat in Scotlandthrough a literature review, workshops and 46 stakeholder interviews.

No single material fully replicates peat, which has a unique mix of physical, chemical and biological properties. However, stakeholder evidence consistently shows that well formulated blends – notably those based on wood fibre, composted bark and coir – already support commercial production, while others show strong development potential.

Some types of growing, particularly soft fruit production, rely on imported materials. This increases transport emissions and can create supply-chain risks, which may affect long-term environmental and economic resilience. The main challenge is therefore not a lack of alternatives, but ensuring consistent performance through effective blending of materials, suitable infrastructure, clear quality standards and adapted crop management. Across the UK, the supply of leading alternatives exceeds remaining peat use. Wood fibre alone could replace current peat use. However, a reliable supply depends on having enough processing capacity, clear grading standards and the ability to manage competition from other sectors for raw materials, as well as effective transport systems. Supply therefore depends less on whether raw materials exist, and more on investment, quality control, and coordination across the market. In the longer term, Scotland could improve environmental performance and strengthen supply security by reducing its reliance on imported materials.Different parts of the sector can move away from peat at different speeds. Retail growing media and many ornamental growers have made substantial progress in reducing peat use. Soft fruit growers operate successfully using coir-based systems for most crops, with the exception of blueberries. In contrast, some systems are more difficult to change, including ericaceous (acid-loving) crops, potato mini-tubers, and certain propagation systems. These systems face distinct challenges. Potato mini-tuber production operates under strict biosecurity (plant health) and certification requirements. Ericaceous crops require stable low-pH conditions across growing cycles. Propagation systems depend on highly controlled moisture balance and media structure during early growth stages. These differences reflect that the transition involves adapting production systems, not simply replacing one material with another. Stakeholders did not indicate resistance to change, but highlighted commercial risks where performance is uncertain.

The success of a peat-free transition depends on careful planning and realistic timing. It takes time to develop infrastructure– typically 2-5 years for core materials and longer for emerging alternatives such as farmed Sphagnum. Crop production cycles and the need to test over several seasons can take additional time – up to 5–10 years for large or sensitive systems. A single timeline for the whole sector would not reflect these differences, so a phased approach based on evidence and experience is more practical.

Overall, the evidence indicates that Scotland can move to peat-free growing. The speed of change will depend not on technical limits but on strong coordination, clear policy direction and building confidence through standards and collaboration. With the right planning, investment and alignment across the sector, Scotland can phase out peat while maintaining production and a reliable supply. The transition also offers an opportunity to protect peatlands, strengthen local recycling and reuse of materials, and support a more resilient and sustainable horticulture sector.

Next Steps

• Stakeholder feedback highlights several key factors that will affect the pace and success of a peat-free transition across the Scottish horticulture sector.Clear transition planning: The sector requires a phased transition timeline based on evidence. Different parts of the industry need different amounts of time to adapt. Policy coherence across UK administrations would help reduce competitive distortion and investment uncertainty.
• Domestic processing capacity: The UK needs more investment in facilities to process alternative materials, including bark grading, compost quality assurance, and blending infrastructure. Increasing domestic capacity may help ensure steady supply and reduce price volatility.
• Quality assurance and biosecurity standards: The UK could develop consistent frameworks for peat-free growing media, similar to PAS 100 – the UK quality standard for compost. Frameworks should cover how materials are processed, limits on contaminants, tracking of sources, and plant-health safeguards. Clear standards could improve consistency and build trust among growers.
• Coordinated commercial-scale trials: The industry requires multi-season trials to test peat-free materials in high-sensitivity sectors such as ericaceous crops, propagation systems and potato mini-tuber production. This will help generate reliable evidence of performance.
• Market signals and procurement: Stronger demand signals will encourage businesses to invest. This could include public-sector procurement and sustainability-linked sourcing approaches. Visible, long-term demand could help companies plan and expand production.
• Technical guidance and workforce support: Growers would benefit from better access to training and practical advice. This includes support on adapting irrigation, nutrition, and handling techniques suited to peat-free systems.

References

Abad, M., Fornes, F., Carrión, C., and Noguera, V. (2005) Physical Properties of Various Coconut Coir Dusts Compared to Peat, HortScience, 40(7), DOI: 10.21273/HORTSCI.40.7.2138

Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (2014) Developing alternatives to peat in casing materials from mushroom production. Available at: https://projectbluearchive.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/Research%20Papers/Horticulture/M%20060_Report_Annual_2014.pdf (Accessed: 7 October 2025).

Agriculture and Horticulture Development (2019) CP138: Transition to responsibly sourced growing media use within UK Horticulture. Available at: https://horticulture.ahdb.org.uk/cp-138-transition-to-responsibly-sourced-growing-media-use-within-uk-horticulture#:~:text=financial%20cost,20%20year%20timeframe%20and%20beyond (Accessed 26 October 2025).

Anbarasu, M., Gurusamy, A., and Saravanan, S. (2024) Properties of different graded coir pith by Keen-Raczkowski box and Brunauer-Emmett-Teller analysis, Journal of Environmental Biology, 45(3), pp. 357-362.

Ahmad, M., Upamali Rajapaksha, A., Lim, J.E., Zhang, M., Bolan, N., Mohan, D., Vithanage, M., Lee, S.S., Sik Ok, Y. (2014) Biochar as a sorbent for contaminant management in soil and water: A review, Chemosphere, 99, pp. 19-33.

Alexander, P.D., Bragg, N.C., Meade, R., Padelopoulos, G. and Watts, O. (2008) Peat in horticulture and conservation: the UK response to a changing world, Mires and Peat, 3, article 8. DOI: 10.19189/001c.128260.

Alburquerque, J.A., de la Fuente, C., Ferrer-Costa, A., Carrasco, L., Cegarra, J., Abad, M. and Bernal, M.P. (2012) Assessment of the fertiliser potential of digestates from farm and agroindustrial residues, Biomass and Bioenergy, 40, pp. 181-189. 

Ali, S.N., Aziz, A.A., Kasim, N.N., Tajuddin, S.A., Omar, N.F., and Nasirun, N. (2023) Assessing the effect of biochar addition in growing medium on plant growth performance of Bok Choy (Brassica rappa subsp. Chinensis) using sustainable soilless agriculture system, International Journal of Innovation and Industrial Revolution, 5(13), pp. 104-118.

Amaducci, S., Scordia, D., Liu, F.H., Zhang, Q., Guo, H., Testa, G. and Cosentino, S.L. (2015) Key cultivation techniques for hemp in Europe and China, Industrial Crops and Products, 68, pp. 2–16. 

Anaerobic Digestion and Bioresources Association (2025) ADBA Policy & Market Report. Available at: https://adbioresources.org/resources/reports/ (Accessed: 11 February 2026).

Aspray, T.J., and Tompkins, D. (2019) Plastic in food waste at compost sites. Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Available at: https://www.r-e-a.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/compost_input_quality_report.pdf (Accessed: 23 January 2026).

Baran, A., Tarnawski, M. and Urbaniak, M (2019) As assessment of bottom sediment as a source of plant nutrients and an agent for improving soil properties, Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 18 (8), pp. 1647-1656.

Barrett, G.E., Alexander, P.D., Robinson, J.S. and Bragg, N.C. (2016) Achieving environmentally sustainable growing media for soilless plant cultivation – A review, Scientia Horticulturae, 212, pp. 220-234.

Bek, D., Lennartsson-Turner, M., Lanari, N., Conroy, J. and Evans, A. (2020) Transitioning towards peat-free horticulture in the UK: an assessment of policy, progress, opportunities and barriers. Available at: https://pureportal.coventry.ac.uk/en/publications/transitioning-to-peat-free-horticulture-in-the-uk-an-assessment-o (Accessed: 7 October 2025).

Benavent-Celma, C., McLaggan, D., van West, P., and Woodward, S. (2023) Survival of Phytophthora cryptogea and Phytophthora cactorum in Commercial Potting Substrates for Eucalyptus globulus Plants, Agriculture, 13(3), 581. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13030581

Beretta, D. and Ripamonti, M. (2021) Evaluation of wood fibre as component of substrates for container nursery crops, Acta Horticulturae, 1305, pp. 77-82.

Blok, C., Eveleens, B. and van Winkel, A. (2021) Growing media for food and quality of life in the period 2020–2050, Acta Horticulturae, 1305, pp. 341-355. 

Bragg, N. and Alexander, P. (2019) A review of the challenges facing horticultural researchers as they move toward sustainable growing media, Acta Horticulturae, 1266, pp. 7-14.

Bruneau, P., and Johnson, S., (2014) Scotland’s peatland – definitions & information resources. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No 701. Available at: SNH Commissioned https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2025-06/naturescot-commissioned-report-701.pdf(Accessed 6 October 2025).

Bulrush (2023) Frequently asked questions on the use of peat-free substrate mixes. Available at: https://www.bulrush.co.uk/media/BUL-peatfree-FAQs.pdf (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

Caballero Mejia, C.C., Brand, M.H. and Lubell-Brand, J.D. (2025) Hemp hurd fiber as a substitute for peat in container production of petunia and geranium, HortScience, 60(8), pp. 1251-1259. 

Carlile, W.R., Cattivello, C. and Zaccheo, P. (2015) Organic growing media: constituents and properties, Vadose Zone Journal, 14(6), pp. 1-13. 

Carus, M. (2017) The European Hemp Industry: Cultivation, processing and applications for fibres, shivs, seeds and flowers, European Industrial Hemp Association. Available at: https://eiha.org/media/2017/12/17-03_European_Hemp_Industry.pdf (Accessed: 24 January 2026).

Calisti, R., Regni, L., Pezzolla, D., Cucina, M., Gigliotti, G., and Proietti, P. (2023) Evaluating Compost from Digestate as a Peat Substitute in Nursery for Olive and Hazelnut Trees, Sustainability, 15(1), 282. DOI: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/1/282?

Chambers, J. (1996) Peat for purists, The Horticulturist, 5(3), pp. 11-12.

Chartered Institute of Horticulture (2025) Horticulture sector unites to boost peat-free gardening. Available at: https://www.horticulture.org.uk/news/horticulture-sector-unites-to-boost-peat-free-gardening/ (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

Chen, J., Jin, C., Sun, S., Yang, D., He, Y., Gan, P., Gerald Nalume, W., Ma, Y., He, W. and Li, G. (2023) Recognising the challenges of composting: critical strategies for control, recycling, and valorisation of nitrogen loss, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 198, 107172. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107172 (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

Chrysargyris, A., Tzortzakis, N., Prasad, M. and Menexes, G. (2020) Biochar type, ratio and nutrient levels in growing media affect seedling production and plant performance, Agronomy, 10(9), 1421. DOI: 10.3390/agronomy10091421

Dahlin, J., Beuthner, C., Halbherr, V., Kurz, P., Nelles, M. and Herbes, C. (2019) Sustainable compost and potting soil marketing: private gardener preferences, Journal of Cleaner Production, 208, pp. 1603-1612.

da Silva Alves, L., Tolardo, G., Caitano, C.E.C., Vieira Júnior, W.G., Gomes Freitas, P.N. and Cunha Zied, D. (2024) Use of spent mushroom substrate for cherry tomato seedlings; a potential alternative to peat in horticulture, Biological Agriculture & Horticulture, 40(2), pp. 127-140.

Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (2023) Biomass Strategy. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/biomass-strategy (Accessed: 20 February 2026).

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1995) Minerals Planning Guidance 13: Guidelines for peat provision in England. Available at: https://cumbria.gov.uk/elibrary/Content/Internet/538/755/1929/17716/17720/17723/42130142912.pdf (Accessed: 6 October 2025).

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2021) Sheep and goats: health regulations. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/monitoring-prevention-and-control-of-disease-in-sheep-and-goats (Accessed: 10 February 2026).

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2022) Ending the retail sale of peat in horticulture in England and Wales. Available at: https://consult.defra.gov.uk/soils-and-peatlands/endingtheretailsaleofpeatinhorticulture/ (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2023) Media reporting on the peat-ban for the professional Horticulture sector. Available at: https://deframedia.blog.gov.uk/2023/03/24/media-reporting-on-peat-ban-for-the-professional-horticulture-sector/ (Accessed: 7 October 2025).

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2025a) Environmental Improvement Plan 2025. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/environmental-improvement-plan-2025 (Accessed: 12 March 2026).

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2025b) Research and analysis: Peat usage in growing media production. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/peat-usage-in-growing-media-production (Accessed: 7 October 2025).

Dias, G.C., Machado, R.M., Alves-Pereira, I., Ferreira, R.A. and Gruda, N.S. (2025) Potential of Pine Bark to Replace Perlite in Coir-Based Substrates: Effects on Nutrient Uptake, Growth and Phytochemicals in Lettuce Under Two Salinity Levels, Plants, 14(16), 2577. DOI: 10.3390/plants14162577

Domeño, I., Irigoyen, I. and Muro, J. (2009) Evolution of organic matter and drainages in wood fibre and coconut fibre substrates, Scientia Horticulturae, 122(2) pp. 269-274.

Drax (2025) Support mechanism for Drax Power Station. Available at: https://www.drax.com/support-mechanism-for-dps/ (Accessed: 7 October 2025).

Elliot, M., Green, S., Litterick, A. and Yeomans, A. (2023) Identifying the plant health risks associated with plant waste disposal and peat-free growing media. Plant Health Centre. Available at: https://www.planthealthcentre.scot/sites/www.planthealthcentre.scot/files/2023-03/PHC2021_02%20Plant_waste_disposal_Policy_Summary.pdf (Accessed: 7 October 2025).

English Nature and Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (2002) Peatering Out: towards a sustainable UK growing media industry. Available at: https://doczz.net/doc/8281851/peatering-out—towards-a-sustainable-uk-growing-media (Accessed: 7 October 2025).

Environment Agency (2025) Compost from waste: resource framework. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/compost-from-waste-resource-framework#when-the-final-product-is-not-considered-waste (Accessed: 23 January 2026).

Environmental Standards Scotland (2024) Scotland’s soils should be protected in law. Available at: https://environmentalstandards.scot/keep-up-to-date/scotlands-soils-should-be-protected-in-law/? (Accessed: 25 January 2026).

European Supermarket Magazine (2024) Sainsbury’s Launches Peat-Free Mushrooms. Available at: https://www.esmmagazine.com/fresh-produce/sainsburys-launches-peat-free-mushrooms-274729 (Accessed: 31 January 2026).

Evans, M.R., Konduru, S. and Stamps, R.H. (1996) Source variation in physical and chemical properties of coconut coir dust, HortScience, 31, pp. 965-967.

Eyre, C., Watson, A., Whiteside, C., and Seymour, P. (2022) Vegetable Propagation: Grower-led peat reduction and replacement demonstration trials 2021. Available at: https://projectbluearchive.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/Research%20Papers/Horticulture/FV464a_Veg%20prop%20Final%20Report_2022.pdf (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

Federal Ministry for the Environment, Climate Action, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (2013) Ordinance on the Recovery of Bio-Waste on Land used for Agricultural, Silvicultural and Horticultural Purposes. Available at: https://www.bundesumweltministerium.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Abfallwirtschaft/bioabfv_engl_bf.pdf (Accessed: 23 January 2026).

Ferrans, L., Schmieder, F., Mugwira, R., Marques, M. and Hogland, W. (2022) Dredged sediments as a plant-growing substrate: estimation of health risk index, Science of the Total Environment, 846, 157463. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157463

Fielding,D., Pakeman, R.J., Newey, S., and Smith, S.W. (2025) The impact of moorland cutting and prescribed burning on early changes in above-ground carbon stocks, plant litter decomposition and soil properties, British Ecological Society: Ecological Solutions and Evidence, 6(3), 70112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.70112.

Food and Environment Research Agency (2024) UK Best Practice Guidance: Bracken Management. Available at: https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2024-06/introduction-bracken.pdf (Accessed: 10 February 2026).

Forestry Commission (2021) Export wood, wood products and bark from Great Britain: How to export certain types of regulated wood, wood products and bark from Great Britain to the world. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/export-wood-wood-products-and-bark-from-great-britain (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

Forest Research (2025) Forestry Statistics. Available at: https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/publications/forestry-statistics/forestry-statistics-2025/ (Accessed: 11 February 2026).

Fratini, C., Anselmi, S., and Renzi, M. (2025) Dredge Sediment as an Opportunity: A Comprehensive and Updated Review of Beneficial Uses in Marine, River, and Lagoon Eco-Systems, Environments, 12(6), 200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/environments12060200

Frederickson-Matika, D., Schiffer-Forsyth, K., Hedley, P.E., Cock, P.J.A. and Green, S. (2024) Detection of oomycete pathogens in UK peat-free growing media and implications for plant health, Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology, 100(2), pp. 272-283. 

Gabryś, T. and Fryczkowska, B. (2022) Using Sheep’s Wool as an Additive to the Growing Medium and its Impact on Plant Development on the Example of Chlorophytum comosum, Journal of Ecological Engineering, 23(6), pp. 205-212. 

Gahlert, F., Prager, A., Schulz, J., Krebs, M., Gaudig, G. and Joosten, H. (2012) Sphagnum Propagules from Spores: First Experiences, in Proceedings of the 14th International Peat Congress. Stockholm: International Peat Society. Available at: https://www.moorwissen.de/files/doc/publikationen/Gahlert%20et%20al.%20%282012%29%20Sphagnum%20propagules%20from%20spores.pdf (Accessed: 9 October 2025).

Gardner, M., Reed, S., and Davidson, M. (2020) Assessment of Worker Exposure to Occupational Organic Dust in a Hemp Processing Facility, Annals of Work Exposures and Health, 64(7), pp. 745-753.

Ganesan, K., Rajagopal, K., and Thangavel, R. (2008) Rice husk ash blended cement: Assessment of optimal level of replacement for strength and permeability properties of concrete, Construction and Building Materials, 22(8), pp. 1675-1683.

Gaudig, G., Fengler, F., Krebs, M., Prager, A., Schulz, J., Wichmann, S., & Joosten, H. (2014) Sphagnum Farming in Germany – a Review of Progress, Mires and Peat, 13, 08. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19189/001c.129422

Gaudig, G., Krebs, M., Prager, A., and Wichmann, S. (2017) Sphagnum farming From Species Selection to the Production of Growing Media: A Review, Mires and Peat, 20, Article 13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19189/MaP.2018.OMB.340

Gitea, M.A., Borza, I.M., Domuta, C.G., Gitea, D., Rosan, C.A., Vicas, S.I. and Pasca, M.B. (2024) A Sustainable Approach Based on Sheep Wool Mulch and soil Conditioner for Prunus domestica (Stanley Variety) Trees Aimed at Increasing Fruit Quality and Productivity in Drought Conditions, Sustainability, 16(17), 7287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177287

Godwin, R.J., White, D.R., Dickin, E.T., Kaczorowska-Dolowy, M., Millington, W.A., Pope, E.K. and Misiewicz, P.A. (2022) The effects of traffic management systems on the yield and economics of crops grown in deep, shallow and zero tilled sandy loam soil over eight years, Soil and Tillage Research, 223, 105465. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2022.105465

Growing Kent and Medway (2025) Mushroom Crop Waste and Valorisation: The potential of mushrooms by-products for a biobased circular economy. Available at: https://www.growingkentandmedway.com/reports/ (Accessed: 31 January 2026).

Growing Media Taskforce (2022) Response to the Defra consultation: Ending the retail sale of peat in horticulture in England and Wales. Available at: https://hta.org.uk/media/jhfdycfh/growing-media-taskforce-horticultural-peat-consultation-response-2.pdf (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

Gruda, N. and Schnitzler, W.H. (2004) Suitability of wood fiber substrate for production of vegetable transplants: I. Physical properties of wood fiber substrates, Scientia Horticulturae, 100 (1-4), pp. 309-322.

Gruda, N.S. (2019) Increasing sustainability of growing media constituents, Agronomy, 9(6), 298. DOI: 0.3390/agronomy9060298

Gruda, N. and Bragg, N. (2020) Developments in alternative organic materials for growing media in soilless culture systems, in Gruda, N.S. (ed.) Advances in horticultural soilless culture. London: Burleigh Dodds/Taylor & Francis.

Gwenzi, W. (2025) Potential environmental and human health risks of biochar systems: a call for comprehensive health risk assessments, Biochar for Environmental Remediation, pp. 433-445.

Habeeb, G.A., and Mahmud, H. (2010) Study on properties of rice husk ash and its use as cement replacement material, Materials Research, 13(2), pp. 185-190.

Hashemi, F., Mogensen, L., van der Werf, H.M., Cederberg, C. and Knudsen, M.T. (2024) Organic food has lower environmental impacts per area unit and similar climate impacts per mass unit compared to conventional, Communications Earth & Environment, 5, 250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01415-6

Health and Safety Executive (2022) Wood Dust: Controlling the Risks. Available at: https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/wis23.htm (Accessed: 11 February 2026).

Herfort, S., Pflanz, K., Larsen, M-S., Mertscgun, T. and Grüneberg, H. (2023) Influence of Sheep’s Wool Vegetation Mats on the Plant Growth of Perennials, Horticulturae, 9(3), 384. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae9030384

Hill, J. (2022) Wool you look at that? Sheep wool pellets as fertilizer in container-grown crops. MSc thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Available at: https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/17669/3/hill-j-20220413.pdf (Accessed: 8 October 2025).

Hirschler, O., Osterburg, B., Weimar, H., Glasenapp, S. and Ohmes, M.-F. (2022) Peat replacement in horticultural growing media: availability of bio-based alternatives. Thünen Working Paper 190. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363334205_Peat_replacement_in_horticultural_growing_media_Availability_of_bio-based_alternative_materials (Accessed: 7 October 2025).

Hirschler, O. and Osterburg, B. (2025) Achieving peat-free hobby gardening for climate mitigation in Germany: Insights into prices of growing media constituents, potting soils and policy options, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 220, 108330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108330

HM Government (2011) The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-natural-choice-securing-the-value-of-nature (Accessed: 12 March 2026).

HortiDaily (2025) British berry industry faces rising costs and retail pressures. Available at: https://www.hortidaily.com/article/9732410/british-berry-industry-faces-rising-costs-and-retail-pressures/ (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

HortNews (2025) Latest HTA grower workshop boosts learning and knowledge on peat-free. Available at: https://hortnews.com/latest-hta-grower-workshop-boosts-learning-and-knowledge-on-peat-free/ (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

Horticultural Trades Association (2022a) Growing Media Monitor Report: Trends in the composition of UK growing media supplied 2011-2022. Available at: https://hta.org.uk/growingmediamonitor (Accessed: 9 October 2025).

Horticultural Trades Association (2022b) Horticulture skills shortage to impact garden supply chain. Available at: https://hta.org.uk/news/horticulture-skills-shortage-to-impact-garden-supply-chain (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

Horticultural Trades Association (n.d.) Horticulture industry launches nationwide projects to grow customer knowledge on peat-free gardening. Available at: https://hta.org.uk/news-events-current-issues/news/horticulture-industry-launches-nationwide-projects-to-grow-customer-knowledge-on-peat-free-gardening (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

HortWeek (2025a) VIDEO: GMA chief on new growing media quality standard. Available at: https://www.hortweek.com/video-gma-chief-speaks-new-growing-media-peat-peat-free-quality-standard-gma-reforms/retail/article/1932816 (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

HortWeek (2025b) Research finds that peat-frees have considerable variability. Available at: https://www.hortweek.com/research-finds-peat-frees-considerable-variability/retail/article/1905658 (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

HortWeek (2025c) Top 100 garden centre products: EPOS data March 2025. Available at: https://www.hortweek.com/top-100-garden-centre-products-epos-data-march-2025/retail/article/1911655 (Accessed: 9 October 2025).

HortWeek (2025d) Rhododendron peat-free trial deemed a success. Available at: https://www.hortweek.com/rhododendron-peat-free-trial-deemed-success/ornamentals/article/1934146 (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

Hospido, A., Carballa, M., Moreira, M., Omil, F., Lema, J.M. and Feijoo, G. (2010) Environmental assessment of anaerobically digested sludge reuse in agriculture: potential impacts of emerging micropollutants, Water Research, 44(10), pp. 3225–3233. 

Hossain, M.T., Zaman, M., Sakib, S., and Ikhtiar Mahmud, S.M. (2024) Hazard Assessment of Rice Husk Ash Generated from Rice Mills in Bangladesh and Way Forward to Overcome or Adopt the Hazards, IOP Science, 1305, 012016. DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/1305/1/012016

House of Lords Library (2022) In Focus: The UK’s horticultural sector. Available at: https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/the-uks-horticultural-sector/ (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

International Coconut Community (2023) Market Review of Coconut Fiber: March 2023. Available at: https://coconutcommunity.org/page-statistics/market-review/market-review-of-coconut-fiber-march-2023 (Accessed: 11 February 2026).

International Labour Organization (2024) Assessment of the realization of the fundamental right to a safe and healthy working environment in the coconut sector in Sri Lanka: Analytical Summary. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/publications/assessment-realization-fundamental-right-safe-and-healthy-working-0 (Accessed: 10 February 2026).

International Renewable Energy Agency (2024) Renewable Energy and Jobs Annual Review 2024, International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi, and International Labour Organization, Geneva.

International Union for Conservation of Nature (2014) Briefing Note no.6: Commercial peat extraction. Available at: https://live-twt-d8-iucn.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/2024-03/Briefing%206%20Commercial%20peat%20extraction.pdf (Accessed: 9 October 2025).

International Union for Conservation of Nature UK Peatland Programme (2018) UK Peatland Strategy: 2018-2040. Available at: https://www.iucn-uk-peatlandprogramme.org/uk-strategy (Accessed: 10 February 2026).

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (2021) Issues Brief: Peatlands and Climate Change. Available at: https://iucn.org/resources/issues-brief/peatlands-and-climate-change (Accessed: 9 October 2025).

James, R.L. (2005) Fusarium populations within peat-based growing media: USDA Forest Service Nursery Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Nursery disease notes. Northern Region, USDA Forest Service: Forest Health Protection. Available at: https://rngr.net/publications/seed-and-seedling-diseases-in-the-western-us/fusarium-populations-within-peat-based-growing-media-usda-forest-service-nursery-coeur-dalene-idaho (Accessed: 13 February 2026).

Jobin, P., Caron, J. and Rochefort, L. (2014) Developing new potting mixes with Sphagnum fibers, Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 94(5), pp. 585-593. 

Johnson, T. and Di Gioia, F. (2023) Spent mushroom compost as an alternative to peat-based soilless media for greenhouse potted basil production, Acta Horticulturae, 1426, pp. 317-324.

Kaur, G. and Kander, R. (2023) The Sustainability of Industrial Hemp: A Literature Review of Its Economic, Environmental, and Social Sustainability, Sustainability, 15(8), 6457. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086457

Kennard, B. (2020) Sustainable Uses of Bracken & Wool in the Black Mountains Area: Feasibility Study. Black Mountains Land Use Partnership: Managing Resources Sustainably in the Black Mountains Sustainable Management Scheme Project. Available at: https://www.blackmountains.wales/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Sustainable-Use-Report.pdf (Accessed: 15 February 2026).

Kingston, P., Scagel, C., Bryla, D., and Strik, B. (2020) Influence of perlite in peat- and coir-based media on vegetative growth and mineral nutrition of highbush blueberry, HortScience, 55(5), pp. 658-663.

Kisvarga, S., Farkas, D., Boronkay, G., Neményi, A. and Orlóci, L. (2022) Effects of Biostimulants in Horticulture, with Emphasis on Ornamental Plant Production, Agronomy, 12(5), 1043. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12051043

Komorowska, M., Niemiec, M., Sikora, J., Gródek-Szostak, Z., Gurgulu, H., Chowaniak, M., Atilgan, A. and Neuberger, P. (2023) Evaluation of Sheep Wool as a Substrate for Hydroponic Cucumber Cultivation, Agriculture, 13(3), 554. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13030554

Koseoglu, N., Roberts, M., and Bacigalupo, A. (2021) Understanding the barriers and opportunities for eliminating peat from the growing media mixes from the perspective of different supply side stakeholders. The James Hutton Institute. Available at: https://www.hutton.ac.uk/sites/default/files/files/publications/Understanding-Barriers-Opportunities-Peat-Growing-Media-Supply-Side.pdf (Accessed: 13 October 2025).

Koseoglu, N. and Roberts, M. (2025) Supply Chain Dynamics of Moving from Peat-Based to Peat-Free Horticulture, Sustainability, 17(13), 6159. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su17136159

Lavoie, J., Dunkerley, C.J., Kosatsky, T., and Dufresne, A. (2006) Exposure to aerosolized bacteria and fungi among collectors of commercial, mixed residential, recyclable and compostable waste, Science of the Total Environment, 370(1), pp. 23-28.

Legislation.gov.uk (2013) Scottish Statutory Instruments: The Animal By-Products (Enforcement) (Scotland) Regulations 2013, No. 307. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2013/307/introduction/made (Accessed: 11 February 2026).

Lehmann, J. and Joseph, S. (2015) Biochar for Environmental Management: Science, Technology and Implementation. Second Edition. London, Routledge.

Leiber-Sauheitl, K., Bohne, H. and Böttcher, J. (2021) First Steps toward a Test Procedure to Identify Peat Substitutes for Growing Media by Means of Chemical, Physical, and Biological Material Characteristics, Horticulturae, 7, 164. DOI: 10.3390/horticulturae7070164

Li, M., Ning, W-P., Gao, T-T., Fazry, S., Othman, B.A., Najm, A.A.K., and Law, D. (2024) Rice husk ash based growing media impact on cucumber and melon growth and quality, Scientific Reports, 14, 5147. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-55622-4.

Litterick, A., Bell, J., Sellars, A. and Carfrae, J. (2019) Rapid Evidence Assessment of the Alternatives to Horticultural Peat in Scotland. Edinburgh: ClimateXChange. Available at: https://www.climatexchange.org.uk/projects/alternatives-to-horticultural-peat-in-scotland/ (Accessed: 6 October 2025).

Litterick, A.M., Holmes, S., Frederickson-Matika, D.E. and Green, S. (2025) How safe are peat-free growing media?, Plants, People, Planet, 7(6), pp. 1684-1699.

Lu, W., Sibley, J.L., Gilliam, C.H., Bannon, J.S. and Zhang, Y. (2006) Estimation of U.S. bark generation and implications for horticultural industries, Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 24, pp. 29-34.

Macci, C., Vannucchi, F., Peruzzi, E., Doni, S., Lucchetti, S., Waska, K., Heřmánková, M., Scodellini, R., Cincinelli, A., Nicese, F.P. and Azzini, L. (2025) A low impact sediment and green waste co-compost: can it replace peat in the nursery sector?, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 27(5), pp. 10761-10788.

Macdonald, R. (2024) Site visit notes: Beadamoss, Wright Farm Produce, 19^th November 2024.

Maher, M., Prasad, M. and Raviv, M. (2008) Organic soilless media components, in Raviv, M. and Lieth, J.H. (Eds.) Soilless Culture: Theory and Practice. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 459–504.

Mansour, E., Loxton, C., Elias, R.M., and Ormondroyd, G.A. (2014) Assessment of health implications related to processing and use of natural wool insulation products, Environment International, 73, pp. 402-412.

Mapline, 2026) Phase 2 grower distribution. Available at: https://app.mapline.com/map/map_5d9bcce1 (Accessed: 14 January 2026).

Marrs, R.H. and Watt, A.S. (2006) Biological flora of the British Isles: Pteridium aquilinum (Bracken), Journal of Ecology, 94(6), pp. 1179-1206.

Marrs, R.H. and Watt, A.S. (2006) Biological Flora of the British Isles: Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn, Journal of Ecology, 94(6), pp. 1272-1321.

Mattei, P., D’Acqui, L.P., Nicese, F.P., Lazzerini, G., Masciandaro, G., Macci, C., Doni, S., Sarteschi, F., Giagnoni, L., and Renella, G. (2017) Use of phytoremediated sediments dredged in maritime port as plant nursery growing media, Journal of Environmental Management, 186, pp. 225–232.

McGrann, G.R.D., Feehan, L., Duff, J., Saubeau, G., Ormiston, N., and McHugh, R.C. (2020) Evaluation of alternative approaches for production of healthy PBTC mini tubers: Final Report. Available at: https://horticulture.ahdb.org.uk/11103401-approaches-for-the-production-of-healthy-mini-tubers (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

Medina, E., Paredes, C., Pérez-Murcia, M.D., Bustamante, M.A. and Moral, R. (2009) Spent mushroom substrates as component of growing media for germination and growth of horticultural plants, Bioresource Technology, 100(18), pp. 4227–4232.

Messori, F., Carr, S., Barker, J., and Carpenter, A. (n.d.) Evidence Review on the Use of Wool in Peatland Restoration [Draft]. Available at: https://www.dalefootcomposts.co.uk/research-development.aspx (Accessed: 11 February 2026).

Miserez, A., Pauwels, E., Schamp, B., Reubens, B., De Nolf, W., De Nolf, L., Nelissen, V., Grunert, O., Ceusters, J., and Vancampenhout, K. (2019) The potential of management residues from heathland and forest as a growing medium constituent and possible peat alternative for containerized ornamentals, Acta Horticulturae, 1266, DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2019.1266.55

Molde, C. (2011) Controlling exposure to dust and bioaerosols on farms growing common commercial mushrooms (Agaricus bisporus): Horticulture Development Company – Factsheet 02/11. Available at: https://archive.ahdb.org.uk/knowledge-library/controlling-exposure-to-dust-and-bioaerosols-on-farms-growing-common-commercial-mushrooms-agaricus-bisporus (Accessed: 11 February 2026).

Moorland Management (2024) Moorland Management Best Practice: Heather cutting in upland and moorland environments. Available at: https://www.moorlandmanagement.co.uk/guidance/heather-cutting (Accessed: 10 February 2026).

Müller, A., Schmidt, J., Maiberg, V., Gehring, O., and Schikora, A. (2025) Microbial communities and substrate properties influence the fate of a human pathogen in horticultural substrates with different peat content, Frontiers in Horticulture, 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fhort.2025.1568055

Mwangi, R.W., Mustafa, M., Kappel, N., Csambalik, L., Szabó, A. (2024) Practical applications of spent mushroom compost in cultivation and disease control of selected vegetables species, Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 26, pp. 1918-1933.

National Institute for Agricultural Botany (2024) Alternatives to peat for horticulture. Available at: https://www.niab.com/news-views/blogs/alternatives-peat-horticulture Accessed: 10 October 2025).

Natural Resources Wales (2025) End of waste: Compost produced from source-segregated biodegradable waste – Guidance Note. Available at: https://www.r-e-a.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/GN022_End-of-waste_Compost-produced-from-source-segregated-biodegradable-waste.pdf (Accessed: 23 January 2026).

NatureScot (2015) Scotland’s National Peatland Plan: working for our future. Available at: https://www.nature.scot/doc/scotlands-national-peatland-plan-working-our-future (Accessed: 7 October 2025).

Neacsu, M., Russell. W., and Duncan, S. (2025) Hemp-based Growing Media as a Sustainable Replacement of Coir for Scottish Soft Fruit Industry: Policy Brief. Available at: https://www.abdn.ac.uk/media/site/rowett/documents/Rowett-Institute-Policy-Brief-2025-Hemp-based-Growing-Media-as-a-Sustainable-Replacement-of-Coir-for-Scottish-Soft-Fruit-Industry.pdf (Accessed: 9 February 2026).

Negrini, G., Ferrante, A. and Pagano, M. (2020) Performance of greenhouse tomatoes in coir-based substrates compared with peat, Acta Horticulturae, 1273, pp. 87-94. 

Nemati, M.R., Fortin, J.-P., Beaulieu, C., Lemke, R., Thériault, G. and Simard, R.R. (2014) Potential use of biochar in growing media, Vadose Zone Journal, 13(10). DOI: 10.2136/vzj2014.06.0074

Nerlich, A., Karlowsky, S., Schwarz, D., Förster, N. and Dannehl, D. (2022) Soilless Tomato Production: Effects of Hemp Fiber and Rock Wool Growing Media on Yield, Secondary Metabolites, Substrate Characteristics and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Horticulturae, 8, 272. DOI: 10.3390/horticulturae8030272

National Farmers’ Union (2023) UK Horticulture Growth Strategy. Available at: https://www.nfuonline.com/news/nfu-horticulture-strategy/ (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

Nicese, F.P., Azzini, L., Lucchetti, S., Macci, C., Vannucchi, F., Masciandari, G., Luca Pantani, O., Arfaioli, P., Imran Pathan, S., Pietramellara, G. and Manzini, J. (2024), Co-Composting of Green Waste and Dredged Sediments Can Reduce the Environmental Impact of Potted Nursery without Affecting Plant Growth, Applied Sciences, 14(4), 1538. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app14041538

Nilsson, M. (2022) Biochar and hemp as peat substitutes in organic growing media: effects on nutrient availability and uptake. MSc thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Available at: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:slu:epsilon-s-18348 (Accessed: 24 January 2026).

Noble, R. and Roberts, S.J. (2003) A Review of the literature on eradication of plant pathogens and nematodes during composting, disease suppression and detection of plant pathogens in compost. Banbury, UK, The Waste and Resources Action Plan. Available at: https://www.r-e-a.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/LitReviewPlantPathogensNematodes.pdf (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

Noble, R. and Roberts, S.J. (2004) Eradication of plant pathogens and nematodes during composting: a review, Plant Pathology, 53(5), pp. 548–568.

Office for the Internal Market (2023) Impact of a proposed ban of the sale of horticultural peat in England. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/report-impact-of-a-proposed-ban-of-the-sale-of-horticultural-peat-in-england-on-the-effective-operation-of-the-uk-internal-market/impact-of-a-proposed-ban-of-the-sale-of-horticultural-peat-in-england (Accessed: 9 October 2025).

Omar, N.F., Kasim, N.N., Zainal Abidin, S.Z., Ali, S.N., and Abdul, A. (2023) The impact of rice husk ash (RHA) as soilless growing medium on Sawi Caixin Giant (Brassica parachinensis) growth performance, International Journal of Innovation and Industrial Revolution, 5(13), pp. 49-64.

Othman, N.Z., Sarjuni, M.N.H., Rosli, M.A., Nadri, M.H., Yeng, L.H., Ying, O.P., and Sarmidi, M.R. (2020) Spent Mushroom Substrate as Biofertilizer for Agriculture Application, Valorisation of Agro-industrial Residues – Volume I: Biological Approaches, pp. 37-57.

Oxford Economics (2024) The Economic Impact of Environmental Horticulture and Landscaping in the UK. Available at: https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/resource/the-economic-impact-of-environmental-horticulture-and-landscaping-in-the-uk/ (Accessed: 27 October 2025).

Pakeman, R.J. (2023) A Rapid Evidence Review of the Implications of Not Controlling Bracken with Asulam in Scotland. Aberdeen: James Hutton Institute. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.8011214

Pathmeswaran, P., Lokupitiya, E., Waidyarathne, K.P., and Lokupitiya, R.S. (2018) Impact of extreme weather events on coconut productivity in three climatic zones of Sri Lanka, European Journal of Agronomy, 96, pp. 47-53.

Peano, L., Loerincik, Y., Margni, M., and Rossi, V. (2012) Comparative life cycle assessment of horticultural growing media based on peat and other growing media constituents: Final report. Quantis, Switzerland.

Pearson, C., Littlewood, E., Douglas, P., Robertson, S., Gant, T.W., and Hansell, A.L. (2015) Exposures and health outcomes in relation to bioaerosol emissions from composting facilities: a systematic review of occupational and community studies, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 18(1), pp. 43-69. 

Peat-free Partnership (n.d.) Legislation timeline: The path to peat-free – a timeline of legislation to end peat sales in the UK. Available at: https://peatfreepartnership.org.uk/who-we-are/legislation-timeline/ (Accessed: 20 February 2026).

Pitman, R.M. and Webber, J. (2013) The character of composted bracken and its potential as a peat replacement medium, European Journal of Horticultural Science, 78(4), pp. 145-152.

Poudel, P., Duenas, A.E.K. and Di Gioia, F. (2023) Organic waste compost and spent mushroom compost as potential growing media, Frontiers in Plant Science, 14, 1229157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1229157

Prasad, R., Redmile-Gordon, M., Gush, M.B. and Griffiths, A. (2024) Characterisation of peat-free growing media, Acta Horticulturae, 1389, pp. 153-162.

Prasara-A, J., and Gheewala, S.H. (2017) Sustainable utilization of rice husk ash from power plants: A review, Journal of Cleaner Production, 167, pp. 1020-1028.

Rangel-Buitrago, N., Rizzo, A., Neal, W.J., and Mastronuzzi, G. (2023) Sediment pollution in coastal and marine environments, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2023.115023

Raviv, M. (2013) Composts in Growing Media: What’s New and What’s Next? Acta Horticulturae, 982, pp. 39-52.

Reidy, S. (2025) Rabobank: Fertilizer prices trending higher in 2025. Available at: https://www.world-grain.com/articles/21317-rabobank-fertilizer-prices-trending-higher-in-2025? (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

Renella, G. (2021) Recycling and Reuse of Sediments in Agriculture: Where Is the Problem? Sustainability, 13(4), 1648. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041648

Renewable Energy Association (2021). A future built on renewable energy and clean technology. London: Renewable Energy Association. Available at: https://www.r-e-a.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/REA_Strategy_Exec_Summary_February_2021.pdf (Accessed: 7 October 2025).

Responsible Sourcing Scheme (n.d.) Responsible Sourcing Criteria. Available at: https://responsiblesourcing.org.uk/responsible-sourcing-criteria/ (Accessed: 7 February 2026).

Restrepo, A.P., García, J.G., Moral, R., Vidal, F., Pérez-Murcia, M.D., Bustamante, M.A., and Paredes, C. (2013) A comparative cost analysis for using compost derived from anaerobic digestion as a peat substitute in a commercial plant nursery, Ciencia e Investigacion Agraria, 40(2), pp. 253-264.

Riddell, I. and Bowsher-Gibbs, J. (2025) Advancing a sustainable Scottish supply chain for industrial hemp and co-products. Glasgow: Scottish Enterprise. Available at: https://www.scottish-enterprise.com/media/jhlh3wub/advancing-a-sustainable-scottish-supply-chain-for-industrial-hemp-and-co-products.pdf (Accessed: 13 October 2025).

Robertson, S., Douglas, P., Jarvis, D., and Marczylo, E. (2019) Bioaerosol exposure from composting facilities and health outcomes in workers and in the community: A systematic review update, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 222(3), pp. 364-386.

Robroek, B.J.M., Jassey, V.E.J., Payne, R.J., MartÍ, M., Bragazza, L., Bleeker, A., Buttler, A., Caporn, S.J.M., Dise, N.B., Kattage, J., Zajac, K., Svensson, B.H., van Ruijven, J. and Verhoeven, J.T.A. (2017) Taxonomic and functional turnover are decoupled in European peat bogs, Nature Communications, 8, 1161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01350-5.

Royal Horticultural Society (2023) Industrial Transition to Peat-Free Survey 2023 Report. Available at: https://www.rhs.org.uk/science/pdf/peat-free-survey-2023-report.pdf. (Accessed: 25 October 2025).

Royal Horticultural Society (2024) RHS Science reveals peat-free doesn’t need additional water. Available at: https://www.rhs.org.uk/science/articles/peat-free-irrigation (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

Royal Horticultural Society (n.d.) The RHS Transition to Peat-Free Fellowship. Available at: https://www.rhs.org.uk/science/transition-to-peat-free (Accessed: 20 February 2026).

Ryans, F., Lennartsson-Turner, M., Schmutz, U., Faedo, L., Conroy, J., Foster, G., and Collins, R. (2023) Design and evaluation of peat-free blocking media. Available at: https://www.coventry.ac.uk/research/research-directories/current-projects/2023/design-and-evaluation-of-peat-free-blocking-media/ (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

Sahu, N., Parida, C. and Mishra, J. (2019) Study on health hazards of workers in coir industry, The Pharma Innovation Journal, 8(6), pp. 28-30.

Sax, M.S., and Scharenbroch, B. (2017) Assessing Alternative Organic Amendments as Horticultural Substrates for Growing Trees in Containers, Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 35 (2), pp. 66-78.

Scagel, C.F. (2003) Growth and Nutrient Use of Ericaceous Plants Grown in Media Amended with Sphagnum Moss Peat or Coir Dust, HortScience, 38(1), pp. 46-54.

Scarlat, N., Dallemand, J.-F. and Fahl, F. (2018) Biogas: Developments and perspectives in Europe, Renewable Energy: An International Journal, 129, pp. 457-472.

Schmilewski, G. (2008) The role of peat in assuring the quality of growing media, Mires and Peat, 3(2), pp. 1-8.

Schmilewski, G. (2014) Producing growing media responsibly to help sustain horticulture, Acta Horticulturae, 1034, pp. 299-306.

Schmilewski, G. and Nordzieke, B. (2019) Researched, developed and commercialized: GreenFiber, Acta Horticulturae, 1266, pp. 361-368.

Scotland’s Environment (2023) Soils: What are we doing? Available at: Soils | Scotland’s environment web (Accessed: 25 January 2026).

Scotland’s Rural College (2020) Alternative crop factsheet: Mushrooms – April 2020. Available at: https://www.sruc.ac.uk/media/bl0pf5dr/sac_mushroom-factsheet-v1-0.pdf (Accessed: 23 January 2026).

Scotland’s Soils (2024) National soil map of Scotland. Available at: https://soils.environment.gov.scot/maps/soil-maps/national-soil-map-of-scotland/ (Accessed: 25 January 2026).

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2025a) WAS-G-DEF-06: End-of-waste criteria for compost. Available at: https://beta.sepa.scot/regulation/authorisations-and-compliance/easr-authorisations/waste-activities/anaerobic-digestion-and-composting/composting-in-an-open-system-less-than-or-equal-to-500-tonnes/ (Accessed: 23 January 2026).

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (n.d.) Dredging authorisation guidance. Available at: https://beta.sepa.scot/topics/water/dredging/dredging-authorisation-guidance/ (Accessed: 23 January 2026).

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (2025b) Waste from all sources generated and managed 2023: An Official Statistics Publication for Scotland. Available at: https://data.gov.scot/sepa/waste/wfas.html (Accessed: 11 February 2026).

Scottish Forestry (2024) Economic Impact of Forest Based Activities in Scotland. Available at: https://www.forestry.gov.scot/sites/default/files/pub-documents/Economic-impact-of-forest-based-activities-in-scotland-2024.pdf (Accessed: 15 February 2026).

Scottish Forestry (2025) Markets for Scottish Timber. Available at: https://www.forestry.gov.scot/markets-scottish-timber (Accessed: 11 February 2026).

Scottish Government (2009) The Scottish Soil Framework. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-soil-framework/ (Accessed: 2 February 2026).

Scottish Government (2021) Programme for Government 2021 to 2022. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/fairer-greener-scotland-programme-government-2021-22/pages/2/ (Accessed 21 October 2025).

Scottish Government (2023a) National Planning Framework 4. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/national-planning-framework-4/ (Accessed: 7 October 2025).

Scottish Government (2023b) Ending the sale of peat in Scotland: consultation analysis. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/ending-sale-peat-scotland-analysis-consultation-responses/ (Accessed 7 October 2025).

Scottish Government (2025a) Peatland ACTION five year partnership plan 2025 – 2030. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/peatland-action-five-year-partnership-plan-2025-2030/ (Accessed: 26 January 2026).

Scottish Government (2025b) Total income from farming estimates 2018–2024. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/total-income-from-farming-estimates-2018-2024/ (Accessed: 7 October 2025).

Scottish Government (n.d.) Plant Health: Potatoes. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/policies/plants/potatoes/ (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

Sdao, A.E., Gruda, N.S. and De Lucia, B. (2025) Beyond Peat: Wood Fiber and Two Novel Organic Byproducts as Growing Media – A Systematic Review, Plants, 14(13), 1945. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14131945

Shackley, S., Hammond, J., Gaunt, J. and Ibarrola, R. (2014) The feasibility and costs of biochar deployment in the UK, Carbon Management, 2(3), pp. 335-356. 

Smith, J.L., and Lee, K. (2003) Soil as a Source of Dust and Implications for Human Health, Advances in Agronomy, 80, pp. 1-32.

Solbraa, K. (1979) Composting of bark: Different bark qualities and their uses in plant production, Meddeleser fra Norsk Institutt for Skogforskning, 34 (13), pp. 281-333.

Sonneveld, C. and Voogt, W. (2009) Plant nutrition of greenhouse crops. First edition. Dordrecht: Springer. 

Snellings, R., Cizer, O., Horckmans, L., Durdziński, P.T., Dierckx, P., Neilson, P., Van Balen, K. and Vandewalle, L. (2016) Properties and pozzolanic reactivity of flash calcined dredging sediments, Applied Clay Science, 129, pp. 35-39.

Sradnick, A., Werner, M. and Körner, O. (2023) Make a choice: A rapid strategy for minimizing peat in horticultural press pots substrates using a constrained mixture design and surface response approach, PLOS ONE, 18(7), e0289320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289320.

Steiner, C. and Harttung, T. (2014) Biochar as growing media additive and peat substitute, Solid Earth, 5, pp. 995-999. 

Stelte, W., Reddy, N., Barsberg, S., and Sanadi, A. (2022) Coir from coconut processing waste as a raw material for applications beyond traditional uses, BioResources, 18(1), pp. 2187-2212.

Stichnothe, H. (2022) Life cycle assessment of peat for growing media and evaluation of the suitability of using the Product Environmental Footprint methodology for peat, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 27(12), pp. 1270-1282.

Sulaiman (2025) ‘Rice Husk, Rice Husk Ash, and Their Applications’, in Jawaid, M., and Parmar, B. (Eds.) Rice Husk Biomass: Processing, Properties and Applications. Singapore, Springer, pp. 43-54.

Tambone, F., Scaglia, B., D’Imporzano, G., Schievano, A., Genevini, P. and Adani, F. (2010) Assessing amendment and fertilizing properties of digestates from anaerobic digestion through a comparative study with digested sludge and compost, Chemosphere, 81(5), pp. 577-583. 

Thomson, S. (2024) The Estimated Economic Contribution of Scotland’s Seed and Ware Potato Sectors: Version 1. Available at: https://ruralexchange.scot/blog/novel-insights-on-the-economic-contribution-of-the-potato-sector-29/ (Accessed: 12 March 2026).

Toboso-Chavero, S., Madrid-López, C., Villalba, G., Gabarrell Durany, X., Hückstädt, A.B., Finkbeiner, M. and Lehmann, A. (2021) Environmental and social life cycle assessment of growing media for urban rooftop farming, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 26(10), pp. 2085-2102.

Tozzi, F., Del Bubba, M., Petrucci, W.A., Pecchioli, S., Macci, C., Hernández García, F., Martínez Nicolás, J.J. and Giordani, E. (2020) Use of a remediated dredged marine sediment as a substrate for food crop cultivation: Sediment characterization and assessment of fruit safety and quality using strawberry as a model species of contamination transfer, Chemosphere, 238, 124651. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.124651

The Wildlife Trusts (2022) Devastating climate impact of using peat in UK horticulture revealed. Available at: https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/news/devastating-using-peat-uk-horticulture (Accessed: 7 October 2025).

UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (n.d.) Peatlands factsheet. Available at: https://www.ceh.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Peatland%20factsheet.pdf (Accessed: 21 October 2025).

UK Parliament (2025) Horticultural Peat (Prohibition of Sale) Bill. Available at: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3886 (Accessed: 7 October 2025).

United Nations Environment Programme (2022) Global assessment reveals huge potential of peatlands as a climate solution. Available at: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/global-assessment-reveals-huge-potential-peatlands-climate-solution (Accessed: 7 October 2025).

Vandecasteele, B., Muylle, H., De Windt, I., Van Acker, J., Ameloot, N., Moreaux, K. and Debode, J. (2018) Plant fibres for renewable growing media: reducing N drawdown and pathogens via defibration, acidification or biocontrol fungi, Journal of Cleaner Production, 203, pp. 1143–1154. 

Vandecasteele, B., Hofkens, M., De Zaeytijd, J. and Melis, P. (2023) Towards environmentally sustainable growing media for strawberry cultivation: Effect of biochar and fertigation on circular use of nutrients, Agricultural Water Management, 284. DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108361

Viancelli, A., Comelli, C., Maria Nogara, C., De Araujo, V., and Michelon, W. (2024) The impact of pesticides: Assessing residue persistence, environmental contamination, and human health risks, Journal of Toxicological Studies, 2(2), 1667. DOI: https://doi.org/10.59400/jts.v2i2.1667

Victor, L. (2020) AD and Composting Industry Market Survey Report 2020 Final Version. Available at: https://www.r-e-a.net/resources/wrap-industry-survey-report-anaerobic-digestion-and-composting/ (Accessed: 11 February 2026).

Walker, R. and Litterick, A. (2024) Field lab: Eliminating peat and plastic from propagation using growing media blocks – Final report. Available at: https://www.innovativefarmers.org/media/ioqdpmpm/if-final-report-growblocks-2024-v2-final.pdf (Accessed: 14 October 2025).

Waller, P. (2012) The rise and fall of peat in UK horticulture. In: Peatlands in Balance – Proceedings of the 14th International Peat Congress, 2012, Stockholm, Sweden. International Peatland Society. Available at: https://peatlands.org/document/the-rise-and-fall-of-peat-in-uk-horticulture/ (Accessed 9 October 2025).

Waste Industry Safety and Health Forum (2023) Bioaerosols in waste and recycling: Information Document. Available at: https://www.wishforum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/INFO-23-Bioaerosols-in-waste-and-recycling-V1-Oct-2023.pdf (Accessed: 8 February 2026).

Waste and Resources Action Programme (2016) Compost and digestate quality for horticultural markets. Banbury: Waste & Resources Action Programme. Available at: https://wrap.org.uk/resources/report/digestate-and-compost-agriculture-dc-agri-project-reports (Accessed: 7 October 2025).

Waste and Resources Action Programme (2017) BSI PAS 110: Producing Quality Anaerobic Digestate. Available at: https://www.wrap.ngo/resources/guide/bsi-pas-110-producing-quality-anaerobic-digestate#download-file (Accessed: 11 February 2026).

White, E. V., Gatersleben, B., Wyles, K. J., Murrell, G., Golding, S. E., Scarles, C., and Xu, S. (2021) Gardens and wellbeing during the first UK Covid-19 lockdown (Research Report No. 1). Available at: https://www.surrey.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2021-07/garden-report.pdf (Accessed: 8 October 2025).

Wichtmann, W., Schröder, C., and Joosten, H. (Eds.) (2016) Paludiculture – productive use of wet peatlands: Climate protection – biodiversity – regional economic benefits. Stuttgart, Germany, Schweizerbart Science Publishers.

Wissner, P., Bohne, H., Heumann, S., and Emmel, M. (2017) Plant biomass from heathland management: a possible peat substitute? Acta Horticulturae, 1168, DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2017.1168.4

Wood Recyclers’ Association (2025) UK waste wood market remained buoyant in 2024 with over 96% of material processed. Available at: https://woodrecyclers.org/uk-waste-wood-market-remained-buoyant-in-2024-with-over-96-of-material-processed/ (Accessed: 11 February 2026).

Woznicki, T., Kusnierek, K., Vandecasteele, B. and Sønsteby, A. (2024) Reuse of coir, peat and wood fibre in strawberry production, Frontiers in Plant Science, 14, 1307240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1307240

Yadav, T.C., Singh, Y.P., Yadav, S., Singh, A. and Patle, T. (2023) Spatial variability in soil properties and site-specific management delineation using fuzzy clustering, International Journal of Plant & Soil Science, 35(6), pp. 49-78. 

Yin, M., Li, X., Liu, Q. and Tang, F. (2022) Rice husk ash addition to acid red soil improves the soil property and cotton seedling growth, Scientific Reports, 12, 1704. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-05199-7

How to cite this publication:

Macdonald, R, Hinchcliffe, W, Elliot, M, Everett, R, Hinchcliffe, E (2025) ‘ Transition to peat-free horticulture in Scotland’, ClimateXChange. DOI https://doi.org/10.7488/era/7009

© The University of Edinburgh, 2026
Prepared by Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, Scotland’s Rural College and International Union for the Conservation of Nature on behalf of ClimateXChange, The University of Edinburgh. All rights reserved.

While every effort is made to ensure the information in this report is accurate as at the date of the report, no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors, omissions or misleading statements. The views expressed represent those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent those of the host institutions or funders.

This work was supported by the Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division of the Scottish Government (CoE – CXC).

ClimateXChange

Edinburgh Climate Change Institute

High School Yards

Edinburgh EH1 1LZ

+44 (0) 131 651 4783

info@climatexchange.org.uk

www.climatexchange.org.uk

The appendices of this report are available in PDF from the link below. If you require them in an alternative format, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

Scotland’s peatlands store large quantities of carbon and play a critical role in climate regulation and biodiversity conservation. However, extracting peat for horticultural growing media damages these ecosystems and releases greenhouse gas emissions. The Scottish Government has committed to ending the use of peat in horticulture while recognising the economic importance of the sector. 

This report assesses the feasibility of transitioning to peat-free growing media in Scottish horticulture. It draws on published studies, industry reports and extensive engagement with the sector, including workshops and interviews with growers, growing media manufacturers, retailers and researchers. Stakeholders provided practical insight into how peat-free systems are working in practice, the challenges businesses face, and the solutions currently being trialled across the industry. 

Key findings 

• Peat-free horticulture in Scotland is achievable. A range of alternative growing media are already supporting commercial production across several horticultural systems. 
• The main challenge is coordinating the transition to align infrastructure, standards, supply chains and technical practice.  
• Progress has already been made in several parts of the sector. Retail growing media are now largely peat-free, and many ornamental and forestry producers have significantly reduced peat use.  
• Some production systems face greater technical constraints. Crops that favour acidic soil, potato mini-tuber production and propagation systems require to assess the viability of alternatives.  
• Cost, supply chain capacity and consistency of materials remain key barriers.  
• With coordinated implementation and realistic timelines, Scotland has the resources and industry capability needed to support a peat-free transition. 

This research indicates that the principal challenge for Scotland’s peat-free transition is not the absence of viable alternatives or willingness within the sector, but the coordination of infrastructure, standards, supply chains and technical practice.  

With coordinated implementation, investment in processing infrastructure and continued collaboration across the horticulture sector, Scotland can phase out horticultural peat while maintaining productive and resilient growing systems.  

The pace of change will depend on a combination of clear policy direction, realistic transition timelines and continued support for infrastructure, standards development and collaborative trials. 

For further information, please read the report.  

The main report is available as PDF and in HTML. The appendices are available as a separate PDF. If you require the report or appendices in an alternative format, such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

Minimising peat excavation is crucial to avoid carbon emissions, protect biodiversity and ensure downstream water quality. Building on peatlands inevitably results in the excavation and disturbance of peat. To inform how best to balance the benefits of renewable energy projects with the requirement to protect and restore peatland habitats, there is a need to gather evidence on the impacts and opportunities regarding the reuse of excavated peat. 

This project investigates the opportunities, impacts, and challenges associated with the reuse of excavated peat from windfarm construction sites. From a  review of published evidence, stakeholder discussions and site visits to peatland wind farms, the researchers have proposed identified three main issues and made three recommendations. 

Issues  

Issue 1: Avoidance of peat excavation: As a critical first step to protect peatland, biodiversity, and maintain water cycle connectivity, peat excavation must be minimised. 

Issue 2: Preparation and planning issues: Site surveys often lack the requisite detail to effectively avoid deep peat areas during construction leading to problems with removal of greater volumes of peat than expected that require reuse.  

Issue 3: Carbon storage: Accurate carbon calculations are needed to fully understand the impact of the wind farm. However, this study found that more peat is often excavated than planned, highlighting the need for greater accuracy in carbon excavation measurements.  

Recommendations 

Recommendation 1: The development of guidance for site planning and peat reuse hierarchy and principles. The guidance should aim to avoid or minimise peat excavation wherever possible and identify locally relevant reuse options. And use of hierarchy and guiding pronicples of peat reuse should aim to maximise the positive environmental outcomes.  

Recommendation 2: Create an environmental outcomes framework to ensure a balanced approach to peat reuse. The framework should prioritise minimising carbon loss, promoting positive biodiversity outcomes and ensuring downstream water quality. 

Recommendation 3: Enhance monitoring of environmental outcomes from reuse of peat to improve and inform the reuse hierarchy and implementation of best practice techniques. This should include:  

• Monitoring accurate peat excavation volumes at the end of construction to build a dataset to be used within the sector for more accurate carbon calculations and reuse planning.  

• Regular monitoring of wetness of the peat, carbon fluxes and vegetation surveys to understand the broader environmental impact of peat reuse.  

• Greater data sharing and collaboration between energy companies and the academic community to refine the reuse hierarchy and best practice in the field. 

For further information, please read the report.

If you require the report in an alternative format, such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783. 

Research completed: January 2025

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/6333

Executive summary

Minimising peat excavation is crucial in order to avoid carbon emissions, protect biodiversity and ensure downstream water quality. Built development on peatlands results in the excavation and disturbance of peat. In order to ensure evidence-based planning and consenting decisions there is a need to gather evidence on the impacts and opportunities regarding the reuse of excavated peat. This will help to inform how best to balance the benefits of renewable energy with the need to protect and restore peatland habitats, ensuring sustainable development practices.

This project investigates the opportunities, impacts, and challenges associated with the reuse of excavated peat from windfarm construction sites. It provides a greater understanding of the current knowledge concerning wind farm development on peatland, peat and peaty soils across Scotland. We propose a hierarchy of peat reuse options based on environmental impact and offer recommendations for data collection and monitoring to enhance the evidence base.

The research combined a review of published evidence with stakeholder engagement and site visits.

Findings

We found very little academic research specifically investigating best practice for the reuse of peat on windfarms. We therefore used stakeholder discussions and site visits to understand the current situation, what is occurring at different sites within Scotland, and likely environmental costs and benefits of different reuse options.

Key issues

Avoidance of peat excavation: Minimising peat excavation is crucial. As a critical first step of the mitigation hierarchy, different stakeholders agree the need to limit volumes to protect peatland, biodiversity, and maintain hydrological connectivity.

Preparation and planning issues: Site surveys often lack the requisite detail to effectively avoid deep peat areas during construction. It also leads to problems with planning how to reuse greater volumes of peat than expected. Additional training for construction operatives would enable them to minimise peat disturbance and maintain the excavated peat’s structure.

Carbon storage: Accurate carbon calculations are needed to fully understand the impact of the wind farm. However, this study found that more peat is often excavated than planned, highlighting the need for greater accuracy in carbon excavation measurements. Monitoring the condition of reused peat is also necessary to enable better understanding of carbon storage and other ecosystem services.

There are a range of construction activities that result in the excavation of peat, such as the construction and maintenance of roads and tracks, compounds and substations, crane pads and turbine blade laydown areas, cabling, drainage ditches and borrow pits. The main reuse methods include borrowpit reinstatement, restoration activities and landscaping. These reuse options may have varying environmental outcomes (Table 1), consideration for which needs to be part of the planning process when constructing a wind farm and planning the reuse of excavated peat within the project.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1: Guidance on excavation peat reuse

Because detailed evidence to confirm the different environmental outcomes is not available, we recommend a simple hierarchy of peat reuse options accompanied by additional guidance and requirements, which are essential for maximising environmental outcomes. We recommend this comprises:

• Recommendation 1a: Preparation and planning steps:
  • Avoid / minimise peat excavation wherever possible and
  • Appraise site circumstances and locally relevant potential reuse options
• Recommendation 1b: Hierarchy of peat reuse
• Recommendation 1c: Peat reuse implementation principles: to guide the site-specific choice of methods and implementation to maximise environmental outcomes.

The hierarchy is not useable as a standalone guide – it must be accompanied by the additional components – as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 Guidance for Excavated Peat Reuse

Recommendation 2: Environmental outcomes framework

To ensure the multiple potential environmental benefits of peat reuse are considered, avoiding a single-issue focus.

To ensure a balanced approach to peat reuse, we recommend targeting the following environmental outcomes:

• Minimising carbon loss: Reducing carbon emissions from excavated peat.
• Positive biodiversity outcomes: Achieving biodiversity goals at both local and national levels.
• Ensuring downstream water quality: Minimising sediment and nutrient load in water bodies.

Recommendation 3: Enhanced monitoring of environmental outcomes from reuse of peat

Enhanced research and monitoring are required to improve and inform the reuse hierarchy and implementation of best practice techniques going forward:

• Post-construction assessment: Providing accurate peat excavation volumes at the end of construction to build a dataset to be used within the sector for more accurate carbon calculations and reuse planning.
• Post-construction monitoring: Regular monitoring of wetness of the peat, carbon fluxes and vegetation surveys to understand the broader environmental impact of peat reuse.
• Data sharing and collaboration: Encouraging greater data sharing and collaboration between energy companies and the academic community to refine the reuse hierarchy and best practice in the field.

Next steps and future research

These results highlight our current understanding of peat reuse methods occurring in wind farm construction in Scotland. We have highlighted which environmental issues are critical and how the reuse of peat can maintain the habitat, allowing for environmentally conscious construction techniques to take precedence.

However, a clear conclusion from the information gained during this process is that planning prior to construction is key, as well as ensuring that stakeholders work together to achieve best practice.

After these main outcomes from the hierarchy, the attention needs to focus on delivering site specific reuse. It also became apparent that although there is a lot of knowledge within the peatland and wind farm sectors, there have been limited studies collecting data to inform best practice. This needs to be encouraged to understand current research gaps and advise on the right management methods to reduce peatland degradation in the long term.

Table 1: Synthesis of reuse options and simplified overview of potential environmental outcomes (Note: this table summarises potential outcomes indicated by research during this study, but evidence is limited and site-by-site circumstances vary significantly so currently this differentiation on environmental grounds cannot be fully reflected in the recommended ‘hierarchy of peat reuse’.)

Glossary

Abbreviations

Introduction

Aims and scope

This project explored opportunities, impacts and challenges for the reuse of excavated peat from windfarm development sites. It is intended to inform application of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), regarding the development of wind farms on peatland, peat and peaty soils. It aimed to provide recommendations for a hierarchy of peat reuse options based on environmental impact along with recommendations for data collection and monitoring to continually improve and update the evidence base.

The project focused on gathering evidence of impacts and opportunities for excavated peat reuse on-site but also considered potential for positive off-site opportunities. Evidence of environmental costs and benefits in terms of emissions, peatland function, habitat, biodiversity, hydrology, stability and structure in relation to reuse practices was evaluated.

Defining ‘reuse of peat’ for this report

This report was commissioned to understand the reuse of peat on wind farm sites during the construction process. We recognise there are differing definitions of “reuse”.

Throughout the study we adopted the definition of “reuse” of peat as:

the use of peat and/or peatland vegetation that has been excavated during the construction of a wind farm.

In this context, the “reuse” of peat can involve reinstatement, revegetation or restoration processes both onsite and offsite, during the construction of a wind farm.

Research methods

A combination of research methods were used:

• A Rapid Evidence Assessment to gather and evaluate the academic literature and other relevant studies.
• Desk-based evaluation of existing wind farm developments on peatland in Scotland to understand current practices.
• Site visits to active and completed wind farm developments on peatland to observe examples of reuse practices in situ.
• Stakeholder engagement, via discussions during site visits, individual research interviews and a workshop to complement desk-research.

It was anticipated that there was limited literature available – in the absence of this, the site visits and stakeholder engagement were critical to the project. Full details of methods are provided in the Appendices.

Background

Scotland is committed to reaching net zero by 2045, how we use and manage our land is vital to achieving this, including the use of land to produce renewable energy. Balancing the benefits from renewable energy with land-based emissions and nature and biodiversity goals is vital, particularly where wind farms intersect with sensitive habitats, like peatland and on carbon-rich soils.

Globally, peatlands are the largest terrestrial carbon store estimated to hold 660 gigatonnes of carbon and 10% of non-glacial freshwater, however, only 17% of these ecosystems are protected (Austin et al., 2025). Globally, 20% of all blanket bogs are located within the UK and Ireland[1]. In Scotland alone, blanket bogs cover around 1.8 million hectares, which is 23% of the land area (Ferretto et al., 2019). Situating new wind farms in the right location is crucial. Although wind farm developments are expected to save carbon emissions by offsetting fossil energy sources (Renou-Wilson and Farrell, 2009), where wind farms are situated on peatlands, there is a risk of land-based carbon emissions, negating the reduction associated with offsetting fossil energy sources. The quality of the peatland habitat is an important factor, as areas that are already degraded and emitting carbon, could be improved through restoration of the whole environment. When applications are made for wind farm construction there are often enhancement conditions attached to these new developments leading to restoration, but some restoration may have been necessary without the wind farm construction occurring. Peatland condition categories[2] range from pristine, near natural, modified, drained and actively eroding in relation to GHG emissions and restoration potential. Historically, Scotland’s peatlands have not been protected across the whole habitat, with afforestation being prioritised up until recently. Wind farm construction in these areas, is likely to lead to environmental improvements, with stakeholders working together to reduce peatland degradation and ambitious programmes of peatland restoration being undertaken.

[1] https://www.wwt.org.uk/discover-wetlands/wetlands/peat-bogs

[2] https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2023-02/Guidance-Peatland-Action-Peatland-Condition-Assessment-Guide-A1916874.pdf

Research findings

Availability of literature

Overall, the literature searches presented over fifty academic studies and governmental reports, which provided useful information related to the impact of landscape management on peatland as well as some interactions between peatland and wind farm developments. However, there were no empirical studies monitoring changes in reused peat on windfarm developments over time. This is a major research gap. Understanding how the reuse of peat may change the peat itself had to be extrapolated from studies measuring changes within laboratories or evaluations of the landscape scale after a number of years since wind farm construction had occurred. Studies did consider the impact of peat excavation on the environment, hydrology and risks of erosion or the degradation of the peatland habitat. The literature did present a large number of studies focusing on the restoration of peatland habitats, however, these were not readily extrapolatable to the current study on reuse of peat, as the parameters related to restoration are substantially different. A large number of the papers and reports were focused on the Scottish environment which suggests that Scotland is leading the way in this area of research.

Summary of stakeholder engagement achieved

We obtained contributions from 31 individuals during our stakeholder engagement (for a more in-depth synopsis of stakeholder engagement findings see Appendix). Stakeholders highlighted what they viewed as the positive features of some reuse options, such as where the water flows in borrow pits (one method of peat reuse) have been managed to keep the water table near the surface. Stakeholders we spoke to were aware of the gaps in evidence and lack of specific studies and so based their views on their own observations or monitoring on sites they were involved with. Overall stakeholders agreed that a number of factors need to be considered carefully to have any chance of achieving optimal environmental outcomes from reuse of peat on windfarm sites – simply putting peat in a convenient location on site would not be beneficial as peat would dry out, erode or lose its structure and functioning. Key considerations were – what was the condition of peat prior to excavation, the need to plan how to minimise disturbance, handling, drying and transport of peat after excavation, consideration of the water levels and flows, vegetation cover and the stability of reused peat in situ.

Summary of site research conducted

During five site visits across varied locations in Scotland, a range of different peat reuse practices were observed including:

• different approaches to infilling borrow pits,
• use in landscaping (for example alongside tracks or to cover cables),
• infill of other site features including historical peat cuttings,
• incorporation of peat into peatland restoration.

Across sites the condition of peat prior to excavation and reuse varied, as did the nature of reuse even where the same general type of reuse was used, for example borrow pit size, shape, fill level, structure, hydrology and vegetation varied across sites where this practice was used. For more information related to site visits see the Appendix.

Summary of literature and stakeholder research findings

In Scotland, peatlands store over 2,735 million tonnes of carbon covering approximately two million hectares (Smith et al., 2007), equating to around 25% of Scotland’s land area. These peatlands are often considered good candidates for onshore wind farms due to the windy and exposed environments they are located in and because they are often considered poor (or unprofitable) for other land uses, like forestry and farming activities.

The main construction activities which result in substantial disturbance for a wind farm development are track construction for maintenance and access roads, trenches for cabling, quarried aggregate extraction (borrow pits) and turbine foundation excavation. This large-scale disturbance can affect peat stability, degradation (such as habitat condition, plant assemblages, carbon storage, etc), as well as the hydrology of the habitat. Other disturbances are related to building infrastructure to support the wind farm development like crane pad constructions, temporary and permanent compounds, as well as substations to join the electricity generated to the grid. Estimates of the direct disturbance to the peatland habitat per wind turbine vary greatly but have been reported to be between 0.2 to 1 hectare per turbine, with the turbines within a wind farm usually taking up less than 10% of the wind farm area (Sander et al., 2024). However, if this area is on deep peatland, there will be greater environmental impact, than on shallow peat or mineral soils.

Larger turbines, which are more widely spaced (typically on a 300-500 m grid, with the distance between turbines around five times rotor diameter), capture energy on a much smaller spatial ‘footprint’ than smaller ones on wind farms (Renou-Wilson and Farrell, 2009). However, this is also site-dependent and varies if repowering occurs, as repowering may use the same footprint as the previous turbines, or it could locate the turbines at a new area within the development, thus increasing the environmental impact.

Construction of a wind farm requires a significant array of associated infrastructure to be installed, this infrastructure may have impacts on the surrounding peatland either through the removal of peat from that habitat, removal and replacement of peat in less suitable locations or reducing the quality of the environment within the area the peat was moved to, compression, flooding, drainage, erosion or mass movement of the peat (Lindsay, 2018). Active peatlands are hydrologically linked and naturally stabilised therefore if hydrologically disrupted, the stability can be lost (Wawrzyczek et al., 2018). An unstable habitat can lead to wider environmental problems, with issues greater than just carbon loss, for example peat slides.

Peat and windfarms in Scotland

Peat is an amorphous organic deposit, considered to be the largest terrestrial carbon store. Peat is highly compressible and porous consisting of up to 90% water by volume. Active peat-forming mire has also been found to be effective in delaying storm run-off, reducing soil erosion and retaining inorganic nutrients when it is undrained (Bragg, 2002).

Across Europe it has been calculated that 25% of peatlands are degraded (Tanneberger et al., 2021). Under the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), there are 36 European regions with designated blanket bogs and of these, 12 have wind farm developments, including 644 wind turbines, 253 km of vehicular access tracks and an affected area of ~208 hectares, mainly in Ireland and Scotland where the extent of peatland is also higher (Chico et al., 2023). However, when this is compared to the Scottish soil maps, the extent of wind farm developments in Scotland on peatland is even higher, with 1,063 wind turbines and 635 km of vehicular access tracks on peatland in Scotland alone according to national inventory data (Chico et al., 2023).

Currently, 48% of wind farms in Scotland have already been built on peat[1] with this number likely to increase in the future. Wind farm developments can have an impact on the peatland habitats and emissions, during construction, operation, and decommissioning stages. This reduces the wind farms’ ability to reach the goal of net zero. Using a carbon calculator[2] to assess the carbon saving of wind farm developments compared to carbon lost through construction on Scottish peatland provides guidance on a wind farm’s carbon footprint. However, due to the heterogeneity of peatlands and the lack of detail at the required scale when completing peatland surveys pre-planning, it has been found that the amount of peat excavated is often more than the amounts used within the carbon calculations.

[1] John Muir Trust – Scotland’s peatland policy update.

[2] https://www.gov.scot/publications/carbon-calculator-for-wind-farms-on-scottish-peatlands-factsheet/

Current practices: excavation

Both in discussion with stakeholders and within the literature, the instability of peat deposits was highlighted, with small movements leading to slope terracing, slumps or the collapse of peat banks – these events are relatively common. Furthermore, disturbed peat can lose more than 50% of its strength compared to undisturbed peat and, in many cases, behaves as a viscous material that will readily flow, particularly when affected by high rainfall (Jennings and Kane, 2015). These inherent properties of peat carry risk and need to be considered during the wind farm construction process as the destabilisation of peat mass through drainage or excavation operations could lead to an increase in landslides / bog flow events (Dykes, 2022).

From discussions with stakeholders, it is clear that the exact volume of peat to be excavated can differ from estimates calculated in the EIA at application stage. This is usually due to a combination of initially unknown factors prior to the construction process – the exact depth, viscosity and bulk density of the peat material that needs to be excavated. Calculations are usually based on predefined excavation requirements for the size of the turbine alongside average peat depths for the area provided by preliminary site surveys, using an interpolated model of a peat depth probe survey. However, the depth of peat can also vary significantly over time, with changes in the peatland hydrology, leading to peat shrinkage occurring during drought conditions (Morton and Heinemeyer, 2019). Thus the timing of peat surveys may affect peat excavation calculations, as well as the scale of the survey and heterogeneity of the habitat. Table 2 describes common reasons for excavation as part of the construction process and how they differ in approach.

Table 2. Common reasons for excavation on site and how they differ in approach when applied to peat and peatland.

Roads and tracks

Construction and maintenance roads and tracks are the most extensive direct impact of a wind farm on peatland as the roads need to allow access to every turbine, plus all the other infrastructure buildings but could also provide access to areas for restoration and enhancement activities. Initially, roads were just cuttings made on shallower peat down to the mineral base. However, this meant that the roads were lower than the surrounding peatland and frequently led to drainage issues.

Construction methods have adapted from just cuttings to the ‘cut and fill’ method (where the peat is dug out until the mineral subsoil is reached and backfilling the trench with aggregate until the road is around the same level as the surrounding bog surface (Lindsay, 2018)) or the preferred method of floating roads (using a geotextile mesh on top of deep peat). Floating roads have limited peat removal as a geotextile mesh is laid on top of the peat, with aggregate poured on top. Another geogrid may then be added with more aggregate before the final ‘running surface’ is laid (Lindsay, 2018).

Stakeholders described how the design of the road network through a wind farm is largely driven by the placement of the turbines (often on ridges which may be where the deepest peat is located) and following the contours of slope (increasing the distances of the road network within the peatland habitat). Tracks also need to bear large weights, for example, the cranes used for wind turbine construction can weigh up to 200 tonnes (this also has implications for the construction of crane pads). A study showed the orientation of the road in relation to the flow of water within a peatland had a large impact (Elmes et al., 2022) and led to flow obstruction and changes to the overall hydrology when running perpendicular to the flow in comparison to parallel. However, this sort of nuanced planning is rarely discussed as part of the construction process. Infrastructure like work compounds and substations also require access roads (with drainage). Thus, the size of the area of peat that is disturbed by the development may be greater than first considered.

Drainage

It was highlighted by stakeholders – and during the site visits – that drainage is usually the first construction activity occurring when developing wind farm infrastructure and is often necessary around the turbine bases and accompanying roads and tracks to reduce the risk of surface flooding. Drainage ditches are also excavated around wind farm foundations to improve the stabilisation of the turbine foundations and to protect machinery. This process of draining peatlands is known to be detrimental, causing subsidence through oxidation of the peat (Williams-Mounsey et al., 2021) and carbon loss. However, peat further away from the drainage ditch (> 1m) will only lose 20% of its previous moisture content, with the main effect of peatland drainage leading to removal of surface water rather than deep water-table drawdown (Lindsay, 2014). Drying of the peat may also lead to cracking, which may lead to rainwater penetrating the base of the peat and lubricate the interface between the peat and the mineral subbase (Lindsay, 2018).

Excavation works

Other large-scale disturbances of the peat are through excavation works. This can be for granular material used during construction (taken from borrow pits); excavation of the wind turbine foundations (although piled foundations can reduce the overall negative impact); and trenches for laying cabling/pipework, leading to substantial quantities of peat that may need to be stored prior to reuse. Piled foundations are usually built over deep peat, rather than excavating large quantities of peat; long, thin columns (piles) are driven or drilled into the ground to support wind turbine structures. These foundations reduce the volume of peat needed to be excavated whilst ensuring stability of the structure. Turbine towers experience large forces and must be placed on a solid foundation embedded within the underlying mineral subsoil or bedrock (Lindsay, 2018). Stakeholders said that often large quantities of peat may be deposited on nearby surfaces temporarily, if trucks aren’t continuously available to receive the excavated material, or dependent on the stage of the construction process. However, it is best practice to only move the peat once (to maintain structure and water content) thus, if the requisite planning is in place, a reuse strategy can be implemented where excavated material is moved to its final location in one step.

Stockpiling peat occurs where peat has been excavated and may need to be temporarily stored prior to reuse due to logistical constraints. As well as becoming a potential source of GHG emissions due to its exposure to aerobic conditions, when peat is stored, changes have been observed within its hydrochemistry, leading to it becoming less acidic and less nutrient-rich (Detrey, 2022). Over time, dewatering also occurs, which alters the hydrophysical properties (porosity) of the peat, these are key for sustaining critical peatland ecohydrological functionality (Lehan et al., 2022).

Ground preparation for stablishing crane pads and turbine blade laydown areas often requires excavating peat to create a stable foundation, leading to the removal of substantial peat volumes, with similar issues as discussed related to other excavation works. This will expand the area of impact further away from the turbine, with underlying changes to the hydrology, potential for release of GHG emissions, vegetation changes and degradation of peatland (Wawrzyczek et al., 2018). Some of these areas are temporary. For example, at some sites visited, areas which had previously been turbine blade laydown areas had peat reinstated and vegetation was able to naturally regenerate. However, this only occurs if it is part of the plan created by the developers, as some laydown areas will remain as areas with stable foundations which are available for future use.

Current practices: use of excavated peat – reuse practices

Excavated peat needs to be moved from the excavation site and is often initially stockpiled until an appropriate time for reuse. The time peat is stockpiled can vary substantially and will be impacted by where it was excavated from, the volume, and timing of the excavation related to overall construction of wind farm site. Lehan, et al., (2022) undertook a restoration study, to assess the impact of time on the hydrophysical properties of peat blocks that were stockpiled for 3, 7, 11, and 14 months. In this study, stockpiling peat was differentially impacted dependent on whether it was shallower or deeper peats, where limited impact from stockpiling was observed in the shallower peats, regardless of stockpiling time; however, in the deeper peats as stockpiling time increased there was a decrease in microporosity as well as mobile porosity (drainable porosity) (Lehan et al., 2022). It may be necessary to rewet the peat or aim to keep it wet whilst stockpiled.

Peat that has started to dry out will be less likely to function when reused. When the surface of the peat starts to dry out development of a hydrophobic layer may occur which causes irreversible changes to the ability of peat to be fully rewetted and reduces the infiltration capacity of the peat (Evans et al., 1999), increasing the desiccation of the peat overall and exacerbating the issue over time. There could also be a similar issue occurring around drainage channels, changing the overall hydrology of the habitat. There are a number of different potential reuse practices that occur on site, with varying quantities of peat, depth of peat and aims (Table 3).

Table 3. Generalised overview of current and potential future reuse practices for excavated peat

When excavating peat, it is imperative that the different layers are kept separate (acrotelm, catotelm) and not mixed with the underlying mineral substrate. This is because of the different properties of these layers and mixing will degrade the peat and reduce its function. Although peat excavation during wind farm construction is likely to occur, large excavations of peat should be avoided. Peatland management plans are mandatory when submitting planning applications for wind farm developments on peaty soils (as part of Policy 5 of the NPF4 framework). These plans provide a draft outline of the volume of peat to be excavated and the reuse activities that will be performed as part of the development. The reuse of peat is unlikely to have wider environmental benefits in areas that are not already disturbed by the wind farm construction or considered degraded; depositing excavated peat on undisturbed vegetation is likely to be detrimental.

To prevent the loss of carbon and the increase in GHG emissions which would occur from the degrading peat, it is essential that a considerable time is spent planning prior to the excavation process – reducing the distance the peat is moved, keeping the times the peat is moved to a minimum and understanding the volumes of peat involved. From discussions with a number of stakeholders it was suggested that, although the level of planning and motivations of the energy companies to reuse peat without degrading it is high, it is often dependent on the capabilities and understanding of the operators doing the work. A number of training courses have been organised for the construction sector specifically to improve this. However, these courses are voluntary. Training the construction sector in the importance of peatlands, restoration techniques and sensitivity during construction, will enable greater preservation of this valuable resource. In almost all discussions with stakeholders the reuse of peat occurred onsite, there were discussions regarding offsite use, but these were more abstract in terms of what was possible, rather than what was occurring. The reasoning given that the majority of reuse is on site is because the SEPA guidance[1] states that unless the excavated peat is used for construction purposes in its natural state on the site from where it is excavated, it will be subject to regulatory control and considered waste.

[1] https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/287064/wst-g-052-developments-on-peat-and-off-site-uses-of-waste-peat.pdf

Overall, although the terminology is the same between different wind farm construction sites – the reuse of peat within borrowpits, landscaping or restoration, it is always site specific. There may be commonalities between the sites, for example, the need to maintain hydrological connectivity, and the importance of peatland vegetation. There will also be significant differences related to volume of peat excavated, previous habitat conditions and use, weather conditions and water table level, knowledge and preparedness of the contractors. Within 3.5.2, 3.5.3 and 3.5.4 we present case studies representing recent site visits.

Quantities of peat excavated during wind farm construction

Reviewing a number of reports, for example the “Good Practice during Wind Farm Construction” (NatureScot), “Research and guidance on restoration and decommissioning of onshore wind farms” (NatureScot), “Developments on peatland: guidance on the assessment of peat volumes, reuse of excavated peat and the minimisation of waste” (SEPA[1]), “Developments on Peat and Off-site uses of waste peat” (SEPA), as well as habitat management plans for specific wind farms, all state the importance of collecting relevant and detailed site investigation data at an early stage of the application process to enable a full understanding of the site character and to inform a more accurate design process. This is in full agreement with the academic literature (e.g. Jorat et al., 2024) and discussions with stakeholders. During the planning process the amount of peat that needs to be excavated and how it will be reused is identified (see Table 3 for an example of the average areas involved in excavations). However, due to the heterogeneity of the environment and the lack of granularity of peat depth survey’s there is some ambiguity related to total peat volumes until excavation has started.

[1] Scottish Renewables, Scottish Environment Protection Agency. 2012. Guidance on the Assessment of Peat Volumes, Reuse of Excavated Peat and the Minimisation of Waste

Table 4. Area of turbines adapted from Albanito et al., 2022, also includes calculation of the average volume of peat per turbine taken from reviewed peatland management plans of operational wind farms in Scotland

*Independent of wind farm capacity (MW)

**Average taken from reviewed peatland management plans of operational wind farms in Scotland.

Case studies – Borrow pit reinstatement

To successfully reinstate peat within borrow pit excavations, it is important to consider the borrow pit location, hydrological connectivity, depth, vegetation cover, and to preserve the layering of the peat (Figure 2). It is best practice to reinstate the borrow pit profile to a comparative level to the surrounding landscape, with gentle slopes that blend into the landscape, it’s design should maintain hydrological connectivity with the wider environment whilst also holding water within the peat soil. Often “cells” are created within the borrow pit to enable easier reinstatement, these cells are sometimes lined with clay to reduce the permeability through to the underlying parent material. This is to enhance the hydrological connectivity of the reinstated borrow pit and aims to keep the area wet. However, an outflow is also needed so that the area doesn’t become permanently waterlogged (Figure d). It is assumed that natural regeneration of peatland vegetation will occur, therefore seeding is not usually part of the PMP, however if seeding were to occur this would usually be two years after construction as part of the planning conditions process.

e)

f)

Figure 2. Examples of borrow pits a) newly completed (< 1 year); b) in the process of being in-filled, one cell completed – cell wall construction (light coloured) and peat infill (dark coloured); c) 15-year old borrow pit with examples of functional peatland vegetation (from natural revegetation); d) 15-year old borrow pit that was not designed with drainage, has led to waterlogging (arrow indicates ponding); e) 10-year old borrow pit, quite dry, with more of an acidic grassland habitat; f) newly completed (< 1 year) situated on a slope, quite shallow peat.

Case studies – roadside verges / landscaping

Peat deposited alongside roadside verges often occurs more in terms of landscaping rather than for preservation of the peat (and carbon within it) (Figure 3). However, the volumes are relatively small compared to borrow pit reinstatement. If the peat does not become integrated with the surrounding hydrology, it will likely dry out and decompose over time, releasing CO₂ into the environment and possibly erode away.

a)	b)
c)	d)

Figure 3. Example of peat reused along roadside as part of landscaping process, a) drainage and indication of below ground cabling visible, vegetated peat reused for this infill; b) drainage channels and depth of floating road visible (newly constructed < 1 year), c) newly constructed (<1 year) landscaping, mixing of peat and mineral soil visible; d) Established peat at edge of floating road (15 years after construction), has maintained level and has peatland vegetation growing on it through natural revegetation. (Photographic permissions granted)

Case studies – incorporation within restoration projects

The reuse of peat is not considered for peatland restoration in the majority of cases. However, there are some examples where excavated peat has been used as part of the restoration process but this has only been permitted as an experimental approach. This is because once the peat is excavated (in the quantities it is being removed for wind farm construction), it has often lost structure and hydrological connectivity, and left as a stockpile until reinstatement begins (which varies from site to site).

Thus, the excavated peat has likely started to degrade, using this for restoration is unlikely to improve the habitat to the same level restoration with non-degraded peat would do. However, on some sites there are opportunities for reuse that could enable restoration if the appropriate planning and coordination between experts occurs. An example can be seen in Figure 4 (a and b). Key to the success of this kind of trial is planning how to implement it, for example a) efforts were made to move the peat only once – from excavation to reuse site; b) the layers of peat were kept separate and maintained across translocation; c) training was provided to the contractors involved in this reuse and restoration project. At a different site, excavated peat was used to infill peat cuttings that had occurred previously, however this infill can still be seen 10 years later (Figure 44c – differences in vegetation).

Although there are differences still visible in vegetation, the process for infilling used in situ vegetation. When reinstating the peat within the cuttings, the existing vegetation was stripped off and placed aside, the cuttings were then filled with acrotelmic peat generated from the excavation of nearby turbine bases. The vegetation was then replaced to reinstate the area and stabilise the peat. Although this may not have restored the peatland habitat to equivalent to undisturbed areas, as differences in vegetation are still visible. As the degradation was separate to wind farm construction, comparisons need to be made with how the environment was prior to wind farm construction, rather than comparison to pristine peatlands. Understanding whether the reuse of peat has been successful in maintaining a functioning peatland or at least preventing the loss of peat (and carbon) is very important, vegetation and water table monitoring occurs on some sites regularly to assess this (Figure 44d).

a)	b)
c)	d)

Figure 4. Examples of incorporation in restoration projects – a) Restoration trial (as part of the forest to bog project), where excavated peat was deposited at the side of a constructed track. However, to enhance restoration, prior to peat addition, vegetation was removed and the site ‘smoothed’, before the excavated peat was layered on top (to a depth of 150 mm or 300 mm dependent on trial site), after which the vegetation was put back on top of the reused peat. B) Zoomed in photo of trial site in a) peat vegetation covering trial site, with very little bare peat. C) Landscape restoration through the infill of furrows – here infill is within peat cuttings (but similar infill also occurs within the furrows of former forested sites). D) Dip well monitoring of water levels to assess success of peat reuse. (Photographic permissions granted)

Offsite use of excavated peat

Throughout this research it was discussed with stakeholders whether excavated peat could be used offsite from the wind farm construction; as to date only one paper was found. Balode et al., (2024) discussed various off-site novel uses for peat within the energy sector, building materials and additives, as well as agriculture and the wider environment (Figure 5); however, the paper does not focus solely on reuse and hence these uses are unlikely to occur within wind farm construction industry as the quantities involved in reuse are not going to warrant the creation of a comprehensive supply chain.

It is important to note that throughout the stakeholder consultation, it was repeatedly stated that reuse of peat off-site did not generally occur. Mainly this is due to two reasons, firstly classification – if the peat was taken off-site, it would be categorised as waste, which would likely entail a cost; secondly the necessary volumes of peat and the logistics of transportation would make it too costly to the project. If the reuse of peat offsite from wind farm construction was to be encouraged than new SEPA guidance and recommendations would need to be developed.

Figure 5. Novel applications of peat from Balode et al., (2024).

Environmental outcomes of peat reuse 

The results of the literature review indicates that all anthropogenic activities within a peatland will impact the fate of nutrients. The fluctuating water table, local geochemistry and hydrology are the main drivers of a peatlands’ groundwater chemistry and discharge (Monteverde et al., 2022). Wind farm construction can increase the fluvial macronutrient loading of catchment streams (Heal et al., 2020), however, forest felling has been shown to lead to greater dissolved organic carbon (DOC) within felled areas compared to wind farm catchments (Zheng et al., 2018). It is important to note that often wind farms are developed on felled forest sites that were previously peatland, e.g. Whitelees and Camster, however it has been calculated that nearly 14 million trees have been cut down as part of wind farm construction projects over the last 20 years (2000 – 2020)[1]. Thus, academic studies comparing habitats as if they are discrete categories like a felled forest compared to a wind farm development need to include previous land use as part of their analysis. In other words, undisturbed peatland to forestry to felled forest and windfarm may produce different results compared to an undisturbed peatland to wind farm, but if only considering the final use they would be classed as having the same management factors influencing them. It is also unclear whether the environmental perturbations are additive and would likely occur if the area hadn’t previously been changed? Also the timing of monitoring is important, for example a newly constructed wind farm showed 5 g m² losses in dissolved organic carbon (compared to control samples) over an 18-month period (Grieve and Gilvear, 2008) but it is unclear if losses reduce over time – this is a research gap. Is there an initial flush that quickly dissipates? Or are those losses continuous without signs of improvement. Grieve and Gilvear (2008) believe this 5 g m² loss represents between 25% and 50% of annual carbon sequestration in peatlands in central Scotland, so it is quite substantial.

[1] https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18270734.14m-trees-cut-scotland-make-way-wind-farms

The structure and hydrology of removed and replaced peat will not resemble that of the undisturbed peat and likely undergo further degradation through settlement and oxidation (Lindsay, 2018). Excavated peat is often used to blend the transition from undisturbed areas to those which are part of the construction. The disturbance to the peat results in negative impact to the habitat (Jorat et al., 2024), however using excavated peat to link undisturbed areas with disturbed areas will encourage vegetation regrowth in keeping with the surrounding landscape and may stablise the disturbed peat. Error! Reference source not found. provides an overview of the potential environmental outcomes for some of these reuse options.

Understanding how each reuse option impacts the wider environment will inform the hierarchy. Repowering of wind farms, upgrading the turbines and technology used within a wind farm site once it has reached the end of use-limit, is one method of reducing disturbance on peatland. However, this still requires extensive planning, as the newer turbines are often larger, needing different spacing between turbines and larger foundations. Approximately 30% more land surface area will be disturbed for repowering using a new rather than reengineered foundation (Waldron et al., 2018). If the surrounding peatland has not recovered from the previous development, this could lead to greater degradation than using new locations.

It is unsurprising that wind farm construction leads to wide-scale changes to the peatland habitat, which are known to be sensitive habitats with unique attributes related to their hydrology and carbon richness. Within this report we have been focused solely on the impact of wind farms on the excavation of peat and its reuse, however once in situ wind farms may still have an impact on the surrounding peatland. For example, a study by Moravec et al., (2018) showed that wind turbines can affect ground surface temperatures (which has the potential to change soil hydrology); and these changes varied with proximity to wind turbine (Armstrong et al., 2016). These impacts may also last for the lifetime of the wind farm, a large-scale review of the impacts of pipeline construction on soil and crops found that pipelines caused soil degradation for years and decades following installation and that soil compaction and soil horizon mixing detrimentally impacted soil function (Brehm and Culman, 2022).

Table 5: Synthesis of reuse options and simplified overview of potential environmental outcomes (Note: this table summarises potential outcomes indicated by research during this study, but evidence is limited and site-by-site circumstances vary significantly so currently this differentiation on environmental grounds cannot be fully reflected in the recommended ‘hierarchy of peat reuse’.)

Limitations of data

Through the rapid evidence assessment (REA) we did not consider peatland restoration methods as part of the scope, however there are some strategies that go beyond restoration practices and should be a consideration as part of the reuse of peat. For example, rewetting peatland, drain blocking, revegetation, and fire management (Balode et al., 2024). Although there is academic research on the impact of peatland degradation, how wind farms can reduce reliance on fossil fuels and the social acceptance of wind farms within the environment, there is a lack of published research directly quantifying the impact of wind farms on peatlands, or providing evidence of best practice. Reliance on grey literature and stakeholder discussions is necessary to cover this research gap. For example, where novel reuse methods have been used, the industry has led monitoring of those sites, collected data and written these up as internal reports, which are not obviously available for the wider industry and academia to use. However, “standard practice” is rarely reviewed in academia nor comprehensive data collected, thus it is very difficult to make recommendations on what works best through standard literature reviews. Grey literature may be written with bias, there may be a lack of replication within the data, and it will not have been peer reviewed and is thus less reliable as a data source.

Often there is limited detail within peat management plans and planning applications for wind farms. For example, it is assumed that all excavated material will be peat; differences between peat layers (acrotelm and catotelm) are not distinguished and there is no reference to the vegetation layer. Depending on volumes, the only indication of reuse is stated as backfilling around turbine bases and landscaping around access tracks. As well as the aforementioned issues with the reuse of excavated peat, one important consideration that is often not discussed is that the different layers of peat excavated (acrotelm and catotelm) have different physical properties. Whilst the reuse options discussed above may be appropriate for acrotelm peat, they are unlikely to be suitable for catotelmic peat (generally below 1m depth peat)[1].

[1] https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/287064/wst-g-052-developments-on-peat-and-off-site-uses-of-waste-peat.pdf

Knowledge and evidence gaps

There is a lack of understanding related to the outcome of peat reuse – is it to restore peatland bog function, or is it to try to reduce losses of carbon from the excavated peat? Or is it to do something with the excavated peat that will minimally impact the wider environment? The likelihood is that the overall outcome will be somewhere between these points.

Although there is a significant amount of academic research on the impact of wind farms on peatland, there were clear gaps related to what should be deemed ‘best practice’. For example, there is no published work on the measurement of peatland parameters as part of the reinstatement of borrow pits on wind farms – how can best practice be defined when there is no indication of something working in practice, or a clear understanding of what ‘success’ looks like in this context? There have also not been any in-depth assessments of carbon loss after excavation and reuse – discussions were held in relation to loss of carbon as the peat dried out, but there is a lack of direct studies focusing on this over time. This information is also absent from the grey literature. There was a lot of discussion with stakeholders regarding what they believe works best from a real-world perspective (rather than lab based academic studies), but this still lacked underlying reported evidence, and was only discussed in terms of past experience of what worked (to reuse the peat available, and perceived that it remained within the field rather than eroding) and what hasn’t worked, remaining largely unmeasured and therefore unproven. Interestingly, where a wind farm had used a novel method of reuse, there was a monitoring plan set up by the energy company and evidence was gathered to justify this method. Highlighting how energy companies can lead the way in providing evidence of good practice.

Generally, there was a lack of monitoring occurring, both in terms of whether the construction process adheres to what has been set out in the PMPs but also to ascertain whether the approach has worked (and thus could be referred back to and repeated elsewhere). There is also a disconnect between the desired outcomes compared to the aims of the wind farm operators. For the wind farm developers, there is a need to balance aspects such as effectiveness and safety within the construction process (i.e. the need for drainage), with restoration, when that part of the construction process is complete. Removing drainage if it is no longer necessary within the wind farm infrastructure would enable an area to return to a more natural peatland habitat, although dialogue is required to ensure a shared understanding of how this might be defined.

Legislation and advisory documents change over time, for example “Scotland’s Peatland Standard”[1] (SPS) is currently being developed. This document will provide technical information and guidance to promote peatland protection. It will define the minimum for sustainable management and restoration requirements that Scottish Government expects all peatland owners, managers and contactors to follow. Thus, in future could potentially fill some of these knowledge gaps discussed.

[1] https://www.nature.scot/climate-change/nature-based-solutions/nature-based-solutions-practice/peatland-action/peatland-action-how-do-i-restore-and-manage-my-peatland-0

Recommendations

We have developed the hierarchy below for reuse of peat through the literature review, stakeholder discussions and site visits presented within this report. We considered the role and nature of a potential hierarchy for peat reuse methods during this project, considering:

• What needs to be included in a hierarchy and in which order.
• What additional guidance or principles would help guide an environmentally beneficial approach to peat reuse.
• Highlighting the research gaps at this time that need to be addressed to better inform a hierarchy of peat reuse methods.

Based on the findings of this study we have three recommendations:

Recommendation 1: Guidance on excavation peat reuse

1a: Planning and preparation steps
1b: A draft hierarchy of reuse methods
1c: Peat reuse and implementation principles

Recommendation 2: Environmental outcomes framework to ensure the multiple potential environmental benefits of peat reuse are considered, avoiding a single-issue focus.

Recommendation 3: Enhanced monitoring of environmental outcomes from reuse of peat – these investigations need to be targeted to address the specific research gaps highlighted in our study, and also better routine monitoring of site reuse implementation and environmental outcomes.

Our recommendations come from learnings acquired during this study. Through a rapid evidence assessment, an understanding was gained of the current research occurring on peatlands and wind farm developments, alongside site visits to see what was occurring in the field and a series of stakeholder discussions and workshops to fill in the gaps where reports or data were lacking. An area of clear agreement across stakeholders, both in terms of construction and also the conservation sector, is to minimise the amount of peat excavated. Avoidance of peat excavation can mean different things to different stakeholders, for example:

• Is avoidance about minimising the volume of peat excavated? (reduction of waste and minimising cost) – Yes
• Is avoidance about minimising the areas of carbon-rich soil impacted by excavation? (limited footprint of impact) – Yes
• Is avoidance about minimising the loss of area of peatland in pristine / good conditions? (protected biodiversity) – Yes
• Is avoidance about minimising loss of hydrological connectivity across on-site/off-site peatland and the wider functions of larger peat bodies? (ecosystem services) – Yes

Depending on the perspective of the stakeholder they may agree or disagree with some of the above statements, however they are overlapping in terms of reducing the impact of wind farm construction across peatlands. Avoidance is the essential first step in the hierarchy of reuse.

At times the timeline between site acquirement, site surveys, planning approval, and construction company deployment, leads to issues related to preparation and planning. Discussion with stakeholders highlighted that often the site surveys presented as part of the planning applications may not be at the detailed scale necessary to identify areas with the deepest peat (that should be avoided) at the construction stage. The construction contractors would like to avoid the areas with the deepest peat (due to costs and time, as well as to minimise the amount of peat disturbed) but are limited by what has previously been set out within the planning application. The condition of the existing peatland across the landscape prior to wind farm construction may not have been fully assessed, thus if the peat is already degraded the starting point for the reuse of peat will be lower and has the potential to degrade faster when disturbed.

Understanding the hydrological connectivity of the landscape will enable appropriate placement of drainage, this links closely to site condition – if there are already drier areas within the peatland, they may become drier over time with increased drainage. In some instances it is possible to reduce drainage after construction, if the areas being drained are reinstated with peat, however this is a consideration that should be made at the planning stage. Greater training needs to be provided for the construction operatives, both in terms of implementation of activities, but also to understand why it is important; as key to maintaining the quality of the peat during reuse, is minimising disturbance and maintaining the peat structure from the outset.

The importance of peatland for carbon storage is widely discussed both within the literature and by stakeholders, however, a key disconnection between the planning process and the completion of windfarm construction is the accuracy of the carbon calculations – it was widely discussed that in the majority of developments more peat is excavated than was planned. The actual amount of excavated peat is not used to recalculate the carbon loss and thus the overall impact of the wind farm development is not fully assessed. It also means the contractors inevitably have more peat excavated than was planned for reuse, thus the options for reuse of this peat may lack adequate planning for how to reuse appropriately. It is a pity contractors aren’t required to report how much peat has been excavated during the construction process, as this could improve the accuracy of estimates over time, but currently this data is not available or monitored. The condition of the peat that is reused is rarely monitored (at excavation or afterwards), therefore it is unclear whether this peat will continue storing the carbon it contains or whether carbon will be released into the atmosphere. Academic studies collecting empirical data on the release of carbon from disturbed peat are rare, and do not occur at a field scale or if they do these assessments usually occur in relation to agricultural disturbance rather than windfarm construction and are not wholly applicable. Where the peat was excavated from is also an important consideration for reuse – if it is taken from a borrow pit excavation this lends itself to borrow pit reinstatement, however if it is removed for cabling and road installation than returning the peat to this area (referred to as landscaping) may be a better option.

Recommendation 1: Guidance for Peat Reuse Options

Because detailed evidence to confirm the different environmental outcomes is not available, our recommendation is for a simple hierarchy of peat reuse options accompanied by some additional guidance and requirements which are essential for maximising environmental outcomes:

• Recommendation 1a: Preparation and Planning Steps:
• Avoiding / minimising peat excavation and
• Appraise site circumstances and locally relevant potential reuse options
• Recommendation 1b: Hierarchy of Peat Reuse
• Recommendation 1c: Peat Reuse Implementation Principles: to guide the site-specific choice of methods and implementation to maximise environmental outcomes.

The hierarchy is not useable as a standalone guide – it must be accompanied by the additional components – as shown in

.

Figure 6: Guidance for Excavated Peat Reuse

Recommendation 1a: Preparation and planning steps

Is critical to conduct investigations to inform preparation and planning in order to maximise environmental outcomes – including first taking action to avoid peat extraction. Our recommended preparation and planning steps are set out in Table 6.

Table 6: Preparation and planning steps to accompany the hierarchy of peat reuse

Recommendation 1b: Hierarchy of reuse

The rational for the hierarchy of reuse set out in Table 7 reflects the available evidence for environmental outcomes of peat reuse. The main options all have potential to deliver positive environmental outcomes in comparison to the secondary options or landfilling but there is insufficient evidence to rank the main options further. Their feasibility and environmental outcomes will depend upon the site context and the way they are implemented.

The table provides a supplement to the available information on good practices for use and handling of soil and peat. The evidence of environmental outcomes of reuse options has many gaps currently. Where there is evidence, it cannot always be confidently applied to specific sites and circumstances. Therefore, these principles / considerations are taking the precautionary principal approach and should be used as stepping stones reflecting the consensus amongst technical experts about things which are important to consider in the absence of a complete evidence base.

Table 7: Underlying rationale and details related to hierarchy of reuse of peat

Recommendation 1c: Peat Reuse Implementation Principles

The effectiveness and likely outcomes of different methods of peat reuse is heavily dependent on-site specific context, feasibility of achieving the desired outcome, and the detailed design of the method (such as borrow pit infill design). Thus, any hierarchy needs to be flexible, but decisions should be guided by a set of principles to maximise environmental outcomes. These include:

• Aiming for functioning peatland (as close to natural functioning as possible because full natural functioning is likely to be unachievable in most cases), or other valuable habitat if not possible.
• Maintaining / reinstating vegetation
• Maintaining / reinstating water flows / hydrological functioning, whilst ensuring site stability and safety.
• Minimising peat movement
• Maintain peat structure (layers) where possible.

See Table 8 below for more detail.

Putting these into practice is facilitated by the preparation steps set out in Recommendation 1a above. For example greater detail could be requested prior to planning consent, because most peatland management plans lack depth and site-specific details. Requiring this information prior to the start of the construction process will increase the likelihood that planning, and preparation will be undertaken to the necessary extent to improve the outcomes of peat reuse. This would move the onus from contractor and place it with the energy company / landowner that ‘owns’ the consent and is responsible for full legal compliance. Greater detail within the PMPs would also provide a more accurate understanding of the true quantities of peat to be excavated, by including a requirement under the consent for accurate recording and in turn enhance the reuse strategy to be implemented. This could also provide future developments with more accurate calculations to use within their planning applications and PMPs. However, it is beyond the scope of this research to identify where responsibility lies for receiving and reviewing such additional material.

It was clear through the stakeholder consultation that there are a number of very knowledgeable groups working within the sector (Appendix B, including environmental government organisations, wind farm contractors, energy companies, environmental consultants from the private sector, as well as academics and conservation organisations). Capturing this knowledge to ensure recommendations for best practice are supported by what is practical will improve the wind farm construction process in the future.

Table 8: Peat reuse implementation principles – further explanation

Recommendation 2: Environmental outcomes framework

Multiple environmental outcomes should be targeted through peat reuse. To avoid excessive focus on one environmental measure of success, we recommend the following environmental outcomes should be considered when deciding on which peat reuse option to implement on site. These environmental outcomes should be monitored to assess success (see Table 9 for rationale):

• Minimising carbon loss from excavated peat
• Positive biodiversity outcomes reflecting local and national goals
• Ensuring downstream water quality (sediment / nutrient load)

Following on from Recommendation 1 and the hierarchy of reuse options, environmental outcomes framework indicates the priority environmental outcomes for peat reuse. These should be considered by the consenting authority as part of the planning process, in conjunction with the EIA process and developers should be considering these in their development plans. We recommend the consenting authority to check that the applicant has fully considered these areas within the planning proposal as part of their strategy for reuse. The environmental outcomes framework should also guide subsequent monitoring and evaluation, during and after construction. Clarity on what environmental outcomes could potentially be achieved from peat reuse can support all parties to deliver better environmental outcomes.

Table 9: Rationale for Environmental Outcomes Framework for Peat Reuse

Recommendation 3: Improved research and monitoring

In discussion with stakeholders, some monitoring is occurring post wind farm construction for peat reuse, usually by the landowner or energy company, however as discussed previously this monitoring is not mandatory and usually focuses on novel uses, or where the reuse appears to have been successful. We recommend:

• Monitoring of environmental outcomes of peat reuse for the life of the windfarm, EIAs often require follow up monitoring in relation to biodiversity post-construction, however Peatland Management Plans (PMPs) do not. We recommend greater considerations is given to PMPs as part of follow up monitoring to include:
• Monitoring of peat levels, and wetness around the wind farm, irrespective of reuse option, this should occur to identify areas that may be drying out due to drainage, or where too much waterlogging may be occurring because of the changes in hydrology caused by the construction process.
• Monitoring of vegetation cover and types, for example through vegetation surveys are used as indications of functioning peatlands, but other measures (like DOC within the water catchment or carbon fluxes) could provide a more nuanced understanding of the impact reuse is having on the wider environment.
• Greater sharing of this data and collaboration with the academic community, would also enable further distinctions of best practice to occur. We recommend a formal advisory relationship to form between developers and the research community facilitated by Scottish Government, so that data sharing can occur and consenting authorities have access to better knowledge of effective peat reuse being undertaken. Data that has historically been collected but has not been reported on could be shared initially to assess how a collaborative data sharing process may work. The current lack of data sharing and credible longitudinal studies was noticeable at the site visits for wind farms that had been commissioned 10+ years previously – key details had been lost with job changes / retirement that could have benefitted the wind farm sector as a whole, with improved understanding of what is now visibly working and what hasn’t worked so well.

Research gaps

There are many research gaps that have been highlighted throughout this study. These could be addressed through the following actions:

• The exact volume of peat excavated across a wind farm development is not known at completion of construction → We recommend asking the contractors to update records at the end of construction. Building on this we recommend a study to assess the differences between the amount of peat stated to be extracted prior to the wind farm development commencing compared to the wind farm after construction has finished. This could also be used to improve the accuracy of the carbon calculator providing a more accurate picture of the true carbon losses after completion of construction.
• Understanding how the carbon content changes within the peat volume over time for all reuse options → We recommend monitoring projects focusing on carbon loss and GHG emissions
• Seeing how the full GHG balance for infilled borrow pits changes dependent on size and age of the borrowpit → We recommend that monitoring of infilled borrow pits including size and volume, and hydro connectivity needs to occur at regular intervals
• The environmental outcomes of borrow pits have not been fully assessed → We recommend collecting monitoring data of the regeneration of plants and biodiversity over time will enable this.
• Reviewing available printed information on best practice (and standard practice) → Likely this is very limited and may involve contacting energy companies to access internal data and reports. We recommend greater collaboration between the energy companies and academia, with a greater amount of data sharing. Funding opportunities are usually the best way to encourage engagement between different stakeholders.
• The level of revegetation on peat that had previously been excavated appears to be reliant on natural recolonisation, how well this occurs is not thoroughly understood. → We recommend monitoring how plants recolonise the excavated peat that has been reused which would enable a better understanding of best practice. From discussions with stakeholders there is limited reseeding occurring and it is largely left to natural revegetation. However, this is more likely to occur if the surface plants are maintained (removing the in situ plants, redistributing the reused peat and returning the plants on top should enhance recolonisation rates).

Conclusions

These results highlight our current understanding of peat reuse methods occurring in wind farm construction in Scotland. We have identified the critical environmental issues and how the reuse of peat can maintain the habitat, allowing for environmentally conscious construction techniques to take precedence.

However, the overriding synthesis of the information gained during this process is that planning prior to construction is key, as well as ensuring that stakeholders work together to achieve best practice. Avoidance of excavation of deep peat is the first priority. Next, acknowledging that once peat is excavated full consideration of how best to reuse it (ideally only moving it once and keeping the different layers separate, while aiming to keep the peat wet and/or maintaining hydrological connectivity) are crucial.

After these main outcomes from the hierarchy, attention needs to focus on delivering site specific reuse. It also became apparent that although there is a lot of knowledge within the peatland and wind farm sector, there has been limited studies collecting data to inform best practice. This needs to be encouraged to understand current research gaps and advise on the right management methods to reduce peatland degradation in the long term.

References

Albanito, F., Roberts, S., Shepherd, A., Hastings, A., 2022. Quantifying the land-based opportunity carbon costs of onshore wind farms. Journal of Cleaner Production 363, 132480.

Armstrong, A., Burton, R.R., Lee, S.E., Mobbs, S., Ostle, N., Smith, V., Waldron, S., Whitaker, J., 2016. Ground-level climate at a peatland wind farm in Scotland is affected by wind turbine operation. Environmental Research Letters 11, 044024.

Austin, K.G., Elsen, P.R., Coronado, E.N.H., DeGemmis, A., Gallego-Sala, A.V., Harris, L., Kretser, H.E., Melton, J.R., Murdiyarso, D., Sasmito, S.D., Swails, E., Wijaya, A., Winton, R.S., Zarin, D., 2025. Mismatch Between Global Importance of Peatlands and the Extent of Their Protection. Conservation Letters 18, e13080.

Balode, L., Bumbiere, K., Sosars, V., Valters, K., Blumberga, D., 2024. Pros and Cons of Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Peatlands: Review of Possibilities, Applied Sciences.

Bragg, O.M., 2002. Hydrology of peat-forming wetlands in Scotland. Science of the Total Environment 294, 111-129.

Brehm, T., Culman, S., 2022. Pipeline installation effects on soils and plants: A review and quantitative synthesis. Agrosystems, Geosciences & Environment 5, e20312.

Chico, G., Clewer, T., Midgley, N.G., Gallego-Anex, P., Ramil-Rego, P., Ferreiro, J., Whayman, E., Goeckeritz, S., Stanton, T., 2023. The extent of wind farm infrastructures on recognised European blanket bogs. Scientific Reports 13, 3919.

Detrey, I., 2022. Bog in a Box: Is long term peat storage for future restoration viable? University of the Highlands and Islands, UHI.

Dykes, A.P., 2022. Landslide investigations during pandemic restrictions: initial assessment of recent peat landslides in Ireland. Landslides 19, 515-525.

Elmes, M.C., Petrone, R.M., Volik, O., Price, J.S., 2022. Changes to the hydrology of a boreal fen following the placement of an access road and below ground pipeline. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 40, 101031.

Evans, M.G., Burt, T.P., Holden, J., Adamson, J.K., 1999. Runoff generation and water table fluctuations in blanket peat: evidence from UK data spanning the dry summer of 1995. Journal of Hydrology 221, 141-160.

Ferretto, A., Brooker, R., Aitkenhead, M., Matthews, R., Smith, P., 2019. Potential carbon loss from Scottish peatlands under climate change. Regional Environmental Change 19, 2101-2111.

Grieve, I.C., Gilvear, D., 2008. Effects of wind farm construction on concentrations and fluxes of dissolved organic carbon and suspended sediment from peat catchments at Braes of Doune, central Scotland. Mires and Peat 4.

Heal, K., Phin, A., Waldron, S., Flowers, H., Bruneau, P., Coupar, A., Cundill, A., 2020. Wind farm development on peatlands increases fluvial macronutrient loading. Ambio 49, 442-459.

Jennings, P., Kane, G., 2015. Geotechnical engineering for wind farms on peatland sites, Geotechnical Engineering for Infrastructure and Development, pp. 595-600.

Jorat, M.E., Minto, A., Tierney, I., Gilmour, D., 2024. Future Carbon-Neutral Societies: Minimising Construction Impact on Groundwater-Dependent Wetlands and Peatlands, Sustainability.

Kareksela, S., Haapalehto, T., Juutinen, R., Matilainen, R., Tahvanainen, T., Kotiaho, J.S., 2015. Fighting carbon loss of degraded peatlands by jump-starting ecosystem functioning with ecological restoration. Science of the Total Environment 537, 268-276.

Lehan, K., McCarter, C.P.R., Moore, P.A., Waddington, J.M., 2022. Effect of stockpiling time on donor-peat hydrophysical properties: Implications for peatland restoration. Ecological Engineering 182, 106701.

Lindsay, R., 2014. Impacts of artifical drainage on peatlands. IUCN UK Committee Peatland Programme. Briefing Note Number 3.

Lindsay, R., 2018. Peatlands and Wind farms: Conflicting Carbon Targets and Environmental Impacts, In: Finlayson, C.M., Milton, G.R., Prentice, R.C., Davidson, N.C. (Eds.), The Wetland Book: II: Distribution, Description, and Conservation. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 413-425.

Monteverde, S., Healy, M.G., O’Leary, D., Daly, E., Callery, O., 2022. Management and rehabilitation of peatlands: The role of water chemistry, hydrology, policy, and emerging monitoring methods to ensure informed decision making. Ecological Informatics 69, 101638.

Moravec, D., Barták, V., Puš, V., Wild, J., 2018. Wind turbine impact on near-ground air temperature. Renewable Energy 123, 627-633.

Morton, P.A., Heinemeyer, A., 2019. Bog breathing: the extent of peat shrinkage and expansion on blanket bogs in relation to water table, heather management and dominant vegetation and its implications for carbon stock assessments. Wetlands Ecology and Management 27, 467-482.

Natural England, 2013. Natural England Evidence Reviews: guidance on the development process and methods (NEER001). Natural England.

Renou-Wilson, F., Farrell, C., 2009. Peatland vulnerability to energy-related developments from climate change policy in Ireland: the case of wind farms. Mires and Peat 4.

Sander, L., Jung, C., Schindler, D., 2024. Global Review on Environmental Impacts of Onshore Wind Energy in the Field of Tension between Human Societies and Natural Systems, Energies.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency, 2017. Developments on peatland: guidance on the assessment of peat volumes, reuse of excavated peat and the minimisation of waste. SEPA Guidance, WST-G-052, version 1, available from https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/287064/wst-g-052-developments-on-peat-and-off-site-uses-of-waste-peat.pdf

Scottish Natural Heritage, 2013. Research and guidance on restoration and decommissioning of onshore wind farms. NatureScot Commission Report No 591, available at https://www.nature.scot/doc/naturescot-commissioned-report-591-research-and-guidance-restoration-and-decommissioning-onshore

Scottish Renewables, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Forestry Commission Scotland and Historic Environment Scotland, 2015. Good Practice during Wind Farm Construction, version 3, available from https://www.nature.scot/doc/good-practice-during-wind-farm-construction

Smith, J., Nayak, D.R., Smith, P., 2014. Wind farms on undegraded peatlands are unlikely to reduce future carbon emissions. Energy Policy 66, 585-591.

Smith, P., Smith, J., Flynn, H., Killham, K., Rangel-Castro, I., Foereid, B., Aitkenhead, M., Chapman, S., Towers, W., Bell, J., Lumsdon, D., Milne, R., Thomson, A., Simmons, I., Skiba, U., Reynolds, B., Evans, C., Frogbrook, Z., Bradley, I., Whitmore, A., Falloon, P., Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly Government, 2007. ECOSSE: Estimating Carbon in Organic Soils – Sequestration and Emissions: Final Report, Web only.

Tanneberger, F., Moen, A., Barthelmes, A., Lewis, E., Miles, L., Sirin, A., Tegetmeyer, C., Joosten, H., 2021. Mires in Europe—Regional Diversity, Condition and Protection, Diversity.

Waldron, S., Smith, J., Taylor, K., McGinnes, C., Roberts, N., McCallum, D., 2018. Repowering onshore wind farms: a technical and environmental exploration of foundation reuse. Carbon Landscapes and Drainage KE Network-led report. DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/SCZDE

Wawrzyczek, J., Lindsay, R., Metzger, M.J., Quétier, F., 2018. The ecosystem approach in ecological impact assessment: Lessons learned from wind farm developments on peatlands in Scotland. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 72, 157-165.

Williams-Mounsey, J., Grayson, R., Crowle, A., Holden, J., 2021. A review of the effects of vehicular access roads on peatland ecohydrological processes. Earth-Science Reviews 214, 103528.

Zheng, Y., Waldron, S., Flowers, H., 2018. Fluvial dissolved organic carbon composition varies spatially and seasonally in a small catchment draining a wind farm and felled forestry. Science of the Total Environment 626, 785-794.

Appendix A – Research scope, questions and methods

Research Scope and Questions

To provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge, identify key knowledge gaps, and highlight areas for future research and policy development in sustainable peatland management within the context of renewable energy infrastructure, particularly in Scotland, this review has centred on the below questions:

Current practices:

• How are excavated peat management and reuse practices being employed (of relevance for Scottish wind farm developments) both on-site and off-site?

Environmental impacts of current methods:

• What are the impacts and/or benefits of current peat reuse practices in relation to hydrology and water quality, carbon emissions and storage, biodiversity and habitats?
• Are there any environmental risks associated with current peat reuse practices, such as increased sediment load, erosion or landscape instability?
• How do impacts change over time – what timeframes are relevant and are there long-term impacts of peatland disturbance and reuse practices?

Limitations and challenges:

• What are the technical limitations of using excavated peat on-site?
• How do regulatory frameworks impact the options for peat reuse?

Best practices:

• From current available evidence, what peat reuse practices are preferable for minimising GHG emissions and wider negative environmental impacts?
• How can peat management plans be optimised to maximise environmental benefits and minimise carbon losses?

Development of a reuse hierarchy

• Hierarchy of Peat Reuse
• Preparation and Planning Steps
• Peat Reuse Implementation Principles

Research Methods

The following sections describe the information collation methods and data sources used in this study, these methods have been kept purposefully brief here, for more detail please see the appendices. A project database was compiled in Excel and is supplied separately to this project report.

Rapid Evidence Assessment

The method used for performing the evidence review was based on the Natural England (2013) evidence review methodology to ensure that the approach was transparent, objective and rigorous, allowing for robust evidential conclusions to be drawn from the available information for a full description see Appendix A.

Rapid Evidence Assessment methodology

The method used for performing the evidence review was based on the Natural England (2013) evidence review methodology to ensure that the approach was transparent, objective and rigorous, allowing for robust evidential conclusions to be drawn from the available information.

Scope

This rapid evidence assessment (REA) focused on synthesizing current evidence related to peatland excavation and reuse within the context of wind farm construction and similar large-scale developments. The assessment covered:

• Current standard practices of peatland excavation and management in development projects.
• Environmental impacts of peatland disturbance.
• Opportunities for reuse of excavated peat on-site and off-site, including their environmental benefits and limitations over different timescales
• Best practices for minimizing peatland disturbance and optimizing peat management plans.

Evidence search approach

The methodology comprises five main steps:

• Define search strategy including keyword list compilation and define inclusion/exclusion criteria.
• Searching for evidence and record findings.
• Title and abstract screen.
• Evidence extraction.
• Evidence synthesis and evidence gap identification.

Step 1: Keyword list compilation

To establish a systematic search strategy, a list of key search words, search terms and suitable combinations were developed (included in separately shared document). These search terms were recorded for systematic use by the review team to reduce bias.

Step 2: Identification of information sources

In order to develop a comprehensive and relevant evidence base, appropriate information sources were identified. To reduce the risk of publication bias on the evidence base a range of information sources were used, which enabled access to peer-reviewed literature, grey-literature, and unpublished sources.

For this review Science Direct and Scopus were used to identify peer-reviewed information. Google Scholar and Research Gate provided further access to peer-reviewed information to enhance the literature search. Grey literature was also identified in the search and included industry reports and relevant committee proceedings.

Step 3: Evidence search

To facilitate the repeatability and transparency of the search process evidence searches were carried out as Boolean searches (AND, OR, NOT, etc). For example, using Boolean operators we searched (“excavated peat” OR “peatlands” OR “peat bogs” OR “carbon rich soils”) AND (“reuse” OR “recycling” OR “repurposing” OR “reclamation” OR “displaced” OR “borrow pits”) AND (“wind farms” OR “wind turbines” OR “wind energy” OR “onshore wind” OR “renewable energy”) AND (“sustainability” OR “environmental impact” OR “eco-friendly” OR “carbon footprint” OR “climate change” OR “carbon flux” OR “soil restoration” OR “land rehabilitation” OR “habitat restoration” OR “conservation”). The results of each search were recorded, including the number of search hits and number of relevant records returned, date of search and database used. Any other sources, such as evidence provided by stakeholders or generated through stakeholder engagement meetings were also documented similarly.

Developing and establishing search strings was treated as an iterative process and, as such, search strings were amended or adapted to optimise search relevance particularly where the number of search hits or relevance of records retrieved are excessively large or small.

Step 4: Title and abstract screen

In order to allow for a systematic and repeatable approach to screening whilst minimising individual subjectivity and bias, results of the evidence search were screened by title and abstract against pre-established inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review question(s). Evidence that did not satisfy the inclusion criteria were not taken forward for further analysis. References and key details (search date, search terms, publication name, database source and a DOI) were captured for all selected literature. Duplicates are also removed at this stage.

Step 5: Evidence extraction

To allow for interpretation and evaluation of the available literature evidence. A consistent, systematic approach to extracting evidence was taken for each item in the evidence item. Information was extracted on the basis of the review questions. Collated information included details of the type of study, the situation studied, key outcomes, endpoints and geographical extent (reported in separately shared excel document).

Step 6: Evidence synthesis and evidence gap identification

The compilation of evidence allowed for the type and amount of evidence obtained to be scrutinised and for any key evidence gaps or conversely areas of extensive evidence to be highlighted. This allowed for conclusions to be drawn based on the findings review and further enabled the appraisal of whether the collated evidence was adequate and suitable for addressing the review question. The collated information from the review of the literature is detailed in Supplementary Document 1 (finalisation in process).

Availability of the literature

The Rapid Evidence Assessment methodology used (Appendix A) obtained over 250 articles and reports through a range of keyword searches, in Science Direct and Google Scholar as described above. These were screened based on their title and abstract to identify relevant articles. This resulted in 50 articles and reports that were flagged as relevant for further scrutiny. These articles were then reviewed, and key information was extracted and is included within this report.

Desk-based research into current practices

A list of current wind farms in Scotland was obtained from the renewable energy planning database^[12] (October 2024, quarter 3) sorted by energy type, location and whether they were currently operational (Figure 7). A sample of wind farms were chosen (as examples of a range of sizes of wind farms and locations across Scotland), to review the information provided within the peatland management plans, amount of peat to be excavated (if stated within application) and other related environmental planning information where obtained.

Figure 7. The distribution of wind farms across Scotland with peatland also highlighted. A list of current wind farms in Scotland was obtained from the renewable energy planning database^[13] (October 2024, quarter 3) sorted by energy type, location and whether they were currently operational these were plotted on to a map of Scotland along with the distribution of peatland taken from Carbon and Peatland 2016 map^[14].

Site visits

Five wind farm site visits were undertaken in November 2024 (Figure 3), these included three wind farms in the North-east of Scotland and two wind farms in the South-west of Scotland. These sites were chosen to cover a broad geographic distribution, a range of ages (different amounts of time since construction), and variation in peat depth. Visiting these sites provided a greater understanding of what was happening as part of the wind farm construction process, alongside providing context as to how peatland management plans are implemented and the many possible variations which can occur due to the amount of peat extracted, weather conditions and the inherent habitat quality prior to wind farm construction. These site visits also provided ‘real world’ examples of management practices in use, including (a) borrow pit reinstatement (over varying time periods – currently under construction, recent construction (< 5 years), 5-10 years since reinstatement, 10+ years since reinstatement), and (b) the replacement of peat at the side of the constructed roads (as part of the landscaping process and/or to maintain peat levels across the habitat).

Stakeholder Engagement Methods

During the study stakeholders were engaged for the following reasons:

• To gain insights into current practices for reuse of peat excavated on wind farms in Scotland.
• To gather views on the strengths, weaknesses, applicability and environmental outcomes of different reuse methods.
• To gather suggestions for examples and sites which could provide learning about the two points above.
• To gain input into the development of recommendations for reuse of excavated peat.

Appendix B Stakeholder engagement

Summary stakeholder engagement approach

Methods of stakeholder engagement:

Several different types of stakeholder engagement were employed in the study to gain further insights into relevant issues, current and potential future peat reuse methods, related considerations and impacts and to help identify sites to visit, get sign-posted to relevant documentation and research resources, and to understand considerations which are being or could be taken into account when decisions about reuse of excavated peat are made. Table 10 provides a brief overview of methods.

Table 10. Overview of stakeholder engagement methods

Approach to identifying and selecting stakeholders to engage:

The project sought engagement with a range of different types of stakeholders academics and experts, such as those with a track record of relevant publications (i.e. on topics linked to the use of peat on wind farms in Scotland); practitioners from the energy sector (e.g. Ecological Clark of Works (ECoW) / Ecology officers) with wind farm sites in Scotland and from the construction sector that have been involved in building wind farms in Scotland; Civil Servants (Forestry and Land Scotland, PEAG); and conservation organisations (IUCN UK Peatland Programme). A selection of stakeholders were invited to attend the academic workshop, as well as a series of one-to-one discussions.

This approach to stakeholder engagement enabled the facilitation of site visits along with group discussions.

We identified stakeholders via:

• Introduction / recommendations from the project steering group – a group of specialists from across relevant Scottish Government Agencies (see Section 8.1.7.3)
• Desk research / REA – to identify relevant academics
• ‘Snowballing’ – asking our contacts and contacts via the steering group or other interviewees to recommend relevant technical experts or industry contacts who could provide access or insights about wind farm sites.
• We have sought a diversity of sites, with reasonable access – but to include a site further North if possible due to variation in vegetation colonisation rates for reuse on site.

When selecting wind farm sites to visit we aimed to achieve a diverse range of sites with reasonable access where we would be able to observe a range of different types and ages of reuse of excavated peat. We chose to include sites in different locations, including some further North due to variation in vegetation colonisation rates which we were advised in earlier stakeholder interviews could likely influence the outcome / progression of reuse methods. We contacted several wind farmer developers / operators – some via introduction and some via publically available contact details and also landowners such as Forestry and Land Scotland. The final selection of sites for visit was based on who was willing to host a visit and practical feasibility in the project timescale and available resources (see Section 9.4). During the visits our hosts often shared wider insights about considerations for reuse of peat and examples from other sites which had worked well or less well – these insights are included in the summary findings here.

When selecting stakeholders to interview we tried to ensure a diverse range of perspectives, but we did not set out to achieve a rigorous sampling approach – we had to take a more pragmatic approach to gather insights from willing participants. The snow-balling approach was valuable in helping us identify people to speak to with relevant scientific and technical knowledge and who could provide insights into what had happened on specific sites. We made a deliberate effort to speak to some stakeholders from outside industry organisations, including academics, non-profit organisations and contractors/technical consultants to achieve some balance in our research. A full list of interviews is in Section 8.1.7.1.

Stakeholder workshop

We held an online workshop for academics and technical specialists on 16^th December 2025 from 14:00 to 16:30. In total, 23 people attended (in addition to the Ricardo project team) including academic researchers, non-profit organisations, government agencies, energy company peatland specialists, see Section 8.1.7.2 for the list of attendees.

Workshop aims and objectives:

• Gather insights from previous research and ongoing studies which may not yet be published, to fill research gaps.
• Get insights into challenges / complexities which may need to be taken into account as we develop recommendations e.g. considerations for applying research results to different contexts / climates.
• Discuss, test and refine initial ideas for a hierarchy of excavated peat reuse (or similar simple structured approach which could help guide decisions on peat reuse, depending on what has come from our earlier research.

Whilst the focus of the workshop was to engage academic researchers and technical experts, we also had attendees from industry who were technical specialists with relevant insights to share about their experiences with peat reuse in practice and the day-to-day challenges associated with planning, implementation and evaluation of peat reuse.

Workshop agenda:

Table 11. Workshop agenda

Findings from the workshop are incorporated into the stakeholder research results below (Section 8.1.6) and results of polls in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Results of word cloud (a) and other polls (b and c) undertaken during stakeholder workshop

a)

b)

c)

Method of analysis of stakeholder engagement findings:

Key findings from stakeholder engagement

Current peat reuse practices

During the workshop and stakeholder interviews a variety of practices were explained, along with associated issues, challenges and likely environmental outcomes or state of knowledge about the outcomes. The approaches are summarised in Table

Table 12. Current peat reuse practices

Other feedback provided by stakeholders on current practices included:

• Variable ‘aims’ of reuse currently – ranging from developers who are trying to create functioning peatland on previously degraded land through to examples where people suggested there was no clear intention beyond finding a place to put the excess peat.
• Compliance with guidance: multiple stakeholders shared a view / example that guidance is not always followed particularly in relation to peat infill depths and handling practices – reasons were unclear, although separately a skills gap was mentioned.
• Quality of PMPs: varied – some followed fairly standard practice without consideration of the uniqueness of the site, whilst some were more nuanced / based on more detailed analysis of possibilities and potential outcomes
• Enforcement / monitoring of PMPs: enforcement / monitoring during constructure can be inconsistent – sometimes very good collaboration and active consideration of effective approaches to achieve good environmental outcomes and sometimes poor / ineffective. Monitoring after construction and commissioning is not common practice, except were linked to habitat management plans which have a formal requirement for monitoring over the life of the site.
• Influence of contracting process and responsibilities: separate contracts for different parts of the windfarm design and construction are commonly let which can make it difficult to develop and maintain a coherent plan for peat management through from planning permission through to final build and ongoing management. The wind turbine specification can also dictate excavation e.g. to achieve desired gradient for installation, but with more site surveys and consideration between developer, turbine supplier and site works contractor there may be potential to develop techniques which require less excavation.
• Important of site selection / micro-siting: the flexibility to move turbines, based on more detailed site surveys of peat is important to reduce peat excavation.
• Reuse of peat is well policed – must be in line with SEPA Reuse Guidance and therefore industry stakeholders follow this approach without feeling able to vary from this.

Potential future reuse practices

Insights about environmental outcomes from peat reuse

Examples and comments on positive environmental outcomes:

• Peat / vegetation recovery in restoration / hag infill – appears successful (in short-term) on flatter ground.
• Softer trackside verges – vegetation and less slope – can prevent silt migrating into bogs.
• Typical vegetation recovery: acid grassland mix initially, then (5-10yrs later) heathers / heath, and then hopefully wetter ones will progress to bog.

Examples and comments on negative environmental outcomes:

• Most peat reused on wind farms turns into non-peatland habitat – it doesn’t function as peatland because hydrological conductivity is lost. At best going to form an upland wet heath, more likely to be an acid grassland.
• If non-functioning peatland carbon will not be saved within the system Need to keep the carbon gaining and building within the system.
• With poor water management silt is migrating into wet bogs.
• Contamination of nutrient poor peatbog with mineral sources changes nutrient balance and therefore makes peatbog hard to achieve in reuse/restoration – flushed peat or fen more likely. Several stakeholders flagged that it can be challenging to prevent mineral contamination – storage and handling care is needed, and isn’t always feasible in practice.

Other comments on environmental outcomes:

• Potential measurement approaches:
• GI stage, peat probing / wetness, catchment mapping, qualitative sample (no one does this despite guidance), Van Post Scale (peat character).
• Dip wells – across sites.
• Water index via satellite imagery linked to Sentinal programme.
• Pressure loggers – data recording for three months.
• Options for assessing carbon; current government calculator, in house planning tools; revised carbon calculated – potential for different assumptions about loss of carbon on excavated peat.
• Important to balance carbon / biodiversity outcomes. Some stakeholders flagged this in general and also one highlighted the challenge of balancing this in the context of deciding whether to rewet peat during storage – if abstraction from river is required this could have negative consequences for river habitat.
• Several flagged nervousness about assuming reused and restored peat delivers the same environmental outcomes as natural peatlands.

Other considerations for excavated peat reuse

Drainage installation, maintenance and infill: stakeholders agreed that ensuring the right amount of drainage during construction and afterwards is important, but did not all agree on how well this is currently being achieved and whether it is possible provide clearer guidance on this.

Peat handling & storage: many stakeholders flagged the need to minimise movement and handling of peat, aim to keep peat local, minimise handling / travel distance. Use of large diggers and trucks makes this hard. Issues included:

• Need to keep the peat moist: actively or passively
• Need to maintain layers / structure and avoid contamination with mineral soils / aggregate as this will change the nutrient profile and functional structure of the peat.
• Peat can liquify in trucks if handled.
• Cost for moving peat
• Some flagged that temporary storage in ‘groins’ between road junctions is often preferred as there is more space to work there, whilst other advocated designated storage areas. What is practical will vary site to site.

‘Land-made-available’ limitation: land envelope can restrict end destination of any peat reuse ‘on site’ – instances where sensible areas for ‘peat reuse’ are outside the envelope.

Site data availability: planning the peat re-use in advance would be good but often don’t get chance to plan until actually on site and work starts – trees often obscure lidar data.

Excavation timing: contractors don’t get much choice/penalties for delays – timing will influence ability to keep peat wet, keep structure etc.

Evidence gaps

Stakeholders flagged the following issues and gaps in evidence:

• Limited monitoring of implementation and outcomes of Peatland Management Plans (PMPs). Monitoring isn’t required for PMPs in the same way as for Habitat Management Plans (which are monitored for the life of the wind farm), and therefore limited data is available on prior land condition, peat reuse/management methods, and environmental outcomes.
• Approach and quality of assessments and monitoring could be better. Current over reliance on the presence or absence of specific vegetation as an indicator was highlighted – finding a species at a specific location in a large site doesn’t represent the entire site. Better quality peatland condition assessments are needed, ideally landscape based incorporating species, hydrology and other factors rather than quadrat based. This would provide better data for planning reuse / management and a better baseline for impact monitoring, particularly important as construction is often on degraded peat.
• Lack of longitudinal studies into environmental outcomes of peat reuse/management approaches. People cited specific gaps such as study of behaviour and environmental outcomes of peat drying at the side of the road after reinstatement; impacts of storage techniques such as surface roughing to help water infiltration vs allowing crust to form; GHG emissions following disturbance and reinstatement.
• General gap in terms of the understanding of peatland and peat behaviour in the context of wind farm construction. This includes peatland hydrology and how this is affected by disruption, how peat behaves in storage, the impact of movement on peat quality and potential for reestablishment in new destination
• Evidence of the validity of measures such as water table and indicator species as indictors of GHG emissions / ‘functioning peat bog’ for reinstated / restored peatlands. Stakeholders flagged there is no research on peatland excavation and then reuse, hence need to establish the relationship with vegetation, hydrology.
• Limited literature on remote sensing for wind farm monitoring.
• Lack of clear guidance on some aspects of engineering and site management e.g. balancing drainage and wetness, storage practices.
• Lack of research to show whether implementation of best practice is feasible. NPF4 Policy 5 states that ideally carbon rich soils are actively sequestering carbon, and this should be the aim of the PMP. There is a need for research to show if this is possible – this relates to points above about behaviour of peat after disturbance / validity of indicators.

Priorities and recommendations

In general stakeholders were reluctant to give detailed feedback on which methods of peat reuse on site should be a priority because of variability of site circumstances (e.g. land capability, condition) and the lack of concrete research to provide evidence of the environment outcomes which could be anticipated.

Some key comments and points on priorities were:

• Revegetation and minimising bare peat is key to avoid negative cycle of drying and/or erosion: to help success it is important to have follow up surveys and action if issues are identified.
• Need to minimise extraction of peat.
• Advice must allow for flexibility and be nuanced due to the diversity of peatlands.
• Suggested hierarchy:
• Avoid;
• Reinstate in location contiguous to other peatland where carbon can be retained and retain hydrology and long-term species composition will be at least consistent with species within the species disturbed.
• Re-use off site to the same effect.
• Alternative suggestion: two different hierarchies, one with the aim of functioning peatland, and one for the aim of using peat in a way that would result it being used for another purpose e.g. wet heath, dry heath.
• Essential component is maintaining connectivity of the re-use areas with the hydrology and its immediate area, but also looking further at the wider hydrological unit. This also includes connectivity with the peatland restoration areas that will be undertaken on the site.
• Guidance documents can be perfect, however, on the ground can be challenging e.g. to ensure hydrological connectivity – potential need for incentive to go for the best outcome and need to involve different parties to achieve this.

List of stakeholder discussion interviews and workshop attendees

Interviewees

Workshop attendees

Project steering group

Ben Dipper (Scottish Government)

Kerry Dinsmore (Scottish Government)

Patricia Bruneau (Nature Scot)

Scottish Government policy team representatives

Appendix C Wind Farm Site Research (site visits & desk research)

Wind farm planning document review

This section reviews the desk-based research describing existing wind farms management plans including data on numbers of wind farms across Scotland on peat soils.

Wind farm site visit summary

This section combines the results of the desk-based research describing existing wind farm management plans alongside the information gathered during the site visits. We aimed to visit a diverse range of sites with reasonable access where we would be able to observe a range of different types and ages of reuse of excavated peat. We chose to include sites in different locations, the north-east and south-west of Scotland. In both areas we visited a newly constructed wind farm, alongside older wind farms within the same locality. This provided examples with different vegetation colonisation rates which could influence the success of reuse methods. We contacted several wind farmer developers / operators, the final selection of sites for visit was based on who was willing to host a visit and practical feasibility in the project timescale and available resources.

Desk-based findings

We reviewed the planning information prior to site visits. This included information on when the work was completed / site commissioned to generate energy, the number of turbines that had been built (both initially and in phased extensions), land ownership and whether other stakeholder were involved in the process (e.g. wildlife rangers based on site, ECoW’s).

Sample site selection

Site selection was undertaken taking into account key variables to ensure that a representative sample of wind farms across Scotland was obtained. Primarily, this included considering a range of development site sizes and locations across Scotland, while ensuring that wind farms were both operational and included relevant Peat Management Plans (PMPs). To note, the number of wind turbines was used as a proxy for development size, while the requirement for developments to have PMPs significantly reduced availability of case studies (even though this is an NPF4 requirement).

Peatland management plans

The key limitations in the approach concerned the accuracy of the data held within the PMPs, for which accessing documents with the requisite information (peat depths and volumes) was the first challenge. In those PMPs that were available, the peat volumes were based on peat survey depths, which are extrapolated across sites via peat probe information, meaning that there is a degree of uncertainty between distinct probe points. There is therefore a high degree of mathematical assumption based on converting peat depth extrapolations to volumes via combining this data with site stripping boundaries. Utilising survey information also assumes competence of all surveyors, despite peat surveys (and peat identification more generally) being a highly specialist skill that geo-environmentalists, geotechnical specialists and even soil scientists would not necessarily have experience of. In addition, peat volumes included in PMPs can change during the construction phase, such as where design is updated, or due to poor implementation of PMP measures. This means that volumes at project inception are often unlikely to be the same once wind farms are conducted, given the dynamic nature of the construction phase and typically iterative design approaches.

Overview of key finding from site visits

Key highlights are included in the main section 3.5.2, 3.5.3 and 3.5.4. A number of borrow pits were visited at each of the sites – these varied in effectivity, levels of monitoring and time since reinstatement. Landscaping examples where peat had been put down along the roadside were clearly visible in the newly constructed wind farms, in the older wind farms this was less obvious, in some cases the peat had become part of the surrounding peatland, however the likelihood was that in some areas it had been lost to the wider environment through erosion. Novel restoration reuse was seen, this was experimental and not common practice. No peat was taken off-site for reuse elsewhere.

Limitations of site visits

Although we were very grateful to the stakeholders for taking the time to show us the wind farms and distil their knowledge of the process, it was clear that this view was only able to provide a snapshot in time analysis of what had occurred at that site. Also depending on time from commissioning, some key details related to the reuse of peat were lost (e.g. exact volumes of peat used within infill of peat excavations, how borrow pit reinstatements were originally designed). Thus, it is harder to identify best practice and what has worked and what hasn’t if the methodology is unreported. The site visits could have been impacted by the weather conditions on the day (e.g. low cloud and drizzle for the final site visit), this made note taking and photographing examples harder and some of the finer details may not be visible in the photographs.

How to cite this publication:

Crotty, F., Dowson, F., Schofield, K., Barker, M., Ginns, B., David, T., Herold, L. (2025) ‘Reuse of excavated peat on wind farm development sites’, ClimateXChange. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/6333

© The University of Edinburgh, 2025
Prepared by Ricardo on behalf of ClimateXChange, The University of Edinburgh. All rights reserved.

While every effort is made to ensure the information in this report is accurate as at the date of the report, no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors, omissions or misleading statements. The views expressed represent those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent those of the host institutions or funders.

This work was supported by the Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division of the Scottish Government (CoE – CXC).

ClimateXChange

Edinburgh Climate Change Institute

High School Yards

Edinburgh EH1 1LZ

+44 (0) 131 651 4783

info@climatexchange.org.uk

www.climatexchange.org.uk

1. 
   

   https://www.wwt.org.uk/discover-wetlands/wetlands/peat-bogs ↑

   
   
2. 
   

   https://www.nature.scot/sites/default/files/2023-02/Guidance-Peatland-Action-Peatland-Condition-Assessment-Guide-A1916874.pdf ↑

   
   
3. 
   

   John Muir Trust – Scotland’s peatland policy update. ↑

   
   
4. 
   

   https://www.gov.scot/publications/carbon-calculator-for-wind-farms-on-scottish-peatlands-factsheet/ ↑

   
   
5. 
   

   https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2011/228/contents ↑

   
   
6. 
   

   https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/287064/wst-g-052-developments-on-peat-and-off-site-uses-of-waste-peat.pdf ↑

   
   
7. 
   

   Scottish Renewables, Scottish Environment Protection Agency. 2012. Guidance on the Assessment of Peat Volumes, Reuse of Excavated Peat and the Minimisation of Waste ↑

   
   
8. 
   

   https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18270734.14m-trees-cut-scotland-make-way-wind-farms ↑

   
   
9. 
   

   https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/287064/wst-g-052-developments-on-peat-and-off-site-uses-of-waste-peat.pdf ↑

   
   
10. 
    

    https://www.nature.scot/climate-change/nature-based-solutions/nature-based-solutions-practice/peatland-action/peatland-action-how-do-i-restore-and-manage-my-peatland-0 ↑

    
    
11. 
    

    Micro-siting is where small adjustments to the wind farm lay out are made to avoid / minimise damage to peat (or other sensitive environments) on site. ↑

    
    
12. 
    

    Renewable Energy Planning Database: quarterly extract – GOV.UK ↑

    
    
13. 
    

    Renewable Energy Planning Database: quarterly extract – GOV.UK ↑

    
    
14. 
    

    https://www.data.gov.uk/dataset/ed1922b7-1136-442c-af4d-a36ebad8839f/carbon-and-peatland-2016-map-wind-farm-spatial-framework ↑

    
    
15. 
    

    It was unclear whether stakeholder was referring to current or previous guidance. ↑

    
    
16. 
    

    A method described to us where rocks are piled, rather than smaller aggregate to create a more porous substrate allowing for greater water flow. ↑

    
    

The Climate Change Committee’s 2023 Report to the Scottish Parliament called for stronger action on food system emissions. Policy interventions need to address the environmental impacts of food production and consumption while ensuring dietary improvements and economic sustainability.  

This report assesses Scotland’s diet and climate policy landscape, identifying areas for policy development and providing recommendations to support the Scottish Government’s climate, public health and food security goals going forward.  

The study combined desk-based research, stakeholder engagement and categorisation using a PESTLE (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, and Environmental) framework. 

Summary of findings

Scotland’s complex diet and climate policy landscape includes several emerging developments and opportunities, yet challenges persist. These challenges typically reflect areas that would benefit from policy coordination and development.  

• Political alignment and coordination: Scottish Government has taken steps to articulate sustainable food ambitions through legislation such as the Good Food Nation Act. Fragmentation across different policy fields (health, agriculture, environment, economy) limits integrated food system transformation. Coordination between local, devolved, and UK governments remains limited, leading to conflicting priorities. The absence of clear emissions targets for food production constrains alignment with net-zero ambitions. 

• Economic levers and constraints: Investments in local food initiatives and growing interest in sustainable supply chains signal progress. Fiscal policies have the effect of benefiting high-emission food production over sustainable alternatives. Financial barriers constrain local authorities, small producers, and community groups in adopting agroecological approaches. The cost of sustainable food options continues to limit access and dietary change. 

• Social attitudes and engagement: Public interest in sustainable diets is increasing, and some awareness campaigns have gained traction. Cultural traditions, cost concerns, and inconsistent messaging shape public resistance to reducing red meat consumption. Food insecurity remains a barrier to sustainable diet access for lower-income households. Greater public engagement is needed to build trust and understanding of dietary policy aims. 

• Technological tools and innovation: Advances in precision agriculture and digital tools offer potential for more sustainable production. Lack of a standardised food emissions-tracking system limits evidence-based policymaking for reducing environmental impact. Rural areas often lack the digital infrastructure to adopt new technologies. Inadequate sustainability labelling limits informed consumer choice. 

• Legal frameworks: The Good Food Nation Act provides a foundation for coordinated food policy development. The evidence suggests a lack of strong enforcement mechanisms to drive change. Regulation of food marketing, labelling, and ultra-processed foods is limited. Devolved and UK-wide inconsistencies create legal misalignment across food, health, and trade policy. 

• Environmental integration: Scotland has made progress in climate policy and land stewardship through initiatives like the Land Use Strategy. There are challenges in balancing different land use functions such as forestry, agriculture, and biodiversity protection. Climate adaptation strategies for agriculture need to be better developed, due to increasing climate risks. The ecological role of grazing land in biodiversity and carbon sequestration is underutilised in policy planning. 

For further information, please read the report.

If you require the report in an alternative format, such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783. 

Research completed: March 2025

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/6180

Executive summary

The Climate Change Committee’s 2023 Report to the Scottish Parliament called for stronger action on food system emissions. Policy interventions need to address the environmental impacts of food production and consumption while ensuring dietary improvements and economic sustainability.

This report assesses Scotland’s diet and climate policy landscape, identifying areas for policy development and providing recommendations to support the Scottish Government’s climate, public health and food security goals going forward.

The study combined desk-based research, stakeholder engagement and categorisation using a PESTLE (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, and Environmental) framework.

Key findings

Scotland’s complex diet and climate policy landscape includes several emerging developments and opportunities, yet challenges persist. These challenges typically reflect areas that would benefit from policy coordination and development.

• Political alignment and coordination: Scottish Government has taken steps to articulate sustainable food ambitions through legislation such as the Good Food Nation Act. Fragmentation across different policy fields (health, agriculture, environment, economy) limits integrated food system transformation. Coordination between local, devolved, and UK governments remains limited, leading to conflicting priorities. The absence of clear emissions targets for food production constrains alignment with net-zero ambitions.
• Economic levers and constraints: Investments in local food initiatives and growing interest in sustainable supply chains signal progress. Fiscal policies have the effect of benefiting high-emission food production over sustainable alternatives. Financial barriers constrain local authorities, small producers, and community groups in adopting agroecological approaches. The cost of sustainable food options continues to limit access and dietary change.
• Social attitudes and engagement: Public interest in sustainable diets is increasing, and some awareness campaigns have gained traction. Cultural traditions, cost concerns, and inconsistent messaging shape public resistance to reducing red meat consumption. Food insecurity remains a barrier to sustainable diet access for lower-income households. Greater public engagement is needed to build trust and understanding of dietary policy aims.
• Technological tools and innovation: Advances in precision agriculture and digital tools offer potential for more sustainable production. Lack of a standardised food emissions-tracking system limits evidence-based policymaking for reducing environmental impact. Rural areas often lack the digital infrastructure to adopt new technologies. Inadequate sustainability labelling limits informed consumer choice.
• Legal frameworks: The Good Food Nation Act provides a foundation for coordinated food policy development. The evidence suggests a lack of strong enforcement mechanisms to drive change. Regulation of food marketing, labelling, and ultra-processed foods is limited. Devolved and UK-wide inconsistencies create legal misalignment across food, health, and trade policy.
• Environmental integration: Scotland has made progress in climate policy and land stewardship through initiatives like the Land Use Strategy. There are challenges in balancing different land use functions such as forestry, agriculture, and biodiversity protection. Climate adaptation strategies for agriculture need to be better developed, due to increasing climate risks. The ecological role of grazing land in biodiversity and carbon sequestration is underutilised in policy planning.

Opportunities for action and policy implications

A summary of key opportunities for action is presented in the table below. A fuller articulation of these opportunities, with supporting detail, is included in Section 6, Conclusions and policy implications.

Glossary and abbreviations table 

Table 1: Glossary and abbreviations used in the report

Introduction

How can Scotland balance climate goals, public health, and economic resilience in food policy?

Scotland’s diet and climate policy landscape is shaped by multiple, often competing priorities, making policy development and implementation particularly complex. Scotland’s net-zero ambitions don’t sit in isolation and delivery is influenced by UK Government food policy and wider cross-border complexities. Any approach must align with, Scotland-specific advice such as Recommendation R2024-003 from the Climate Change Committee’s (CCC) 2023 Report to the Scottish Parliament, which calls for stronger action on food system emissions (CCC, 2023). The CCC’s carbon budget for Scotland is due to be published in May 2025, and the CCC has highlighted that agriculture is projected to become the second-highest emitting sector by 2040. Efforts to reduce the environmental impact of food consumption need to be balanced with public health goals, economic considerations, and social acceptability. While the Scottish Government plans to introduce measures such as restricting unhealthy food promotion and encouraging sustainable agricultural practices, significant barriers remain. Public resistance to dietary change, particularly reductions in red meat consumption, reflects deep-seated cultural attitudes and concerns about choice, affordability and accessibility. Furthermore, promoting lower meat diets could lead to economic contraction in agriculture-related sectors, especially the red meat sector (Allan, Comerford & McGregor, 2019). If food system transitions are to be just, they must ensure that rural economies and farming communities remain viable while meeting climate targets, requiring sensitive and adaptive policy solutions.

Another layer of complexity arises from policy fragmentation and governance challenges. Responsibilities for food, health, environment, and agriculture are divided across multiple sectors and levels of government, including devolved and UK-wide authorities, leading to inconsistencies in strategy and implementation. Furthermore, the socio-economic impacts of dietary policy shifts, including how changes affect low-income households or food supply chains, are not yet fully understood due to limited data and evaluation frameworks. Addressing these challenges will require a holistic approach that integrates cross-sectoral collaboration, rigorous evidence, and stakeholder engagement to navigate trade-offs and identify the most feasible pathways for change.

Aims of the project

This report addresses two primary aims:

• Analysis of a mixed-method evidence base for diet and climate policy in Scotland using a structured PESTLE framework.
• Identification of evidence gaps and the proposal of actionable recommendations to inform future policy development.

These two aims seek to support the Scottish Government in developing policies aligned with climate targets, while also advancing a just transition that considers the nutritional needs of communities, and the livelihoods of people employed in the food system.

Methodology

Research design

This research adopted a mixed-method design to analyse the intersection of diet and climate policy in Scotland. It combined desk-based research, stakeholder engagement, and thematic categorisation using a PESTLE framework (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, and Environmental dimensions).

Research approach and evidence sources

The study integrated three core sources of evidence:

• Literature review: A systematic review of academic, grey, and policy literature, including documents from the Scottish Government, Climate Change Committee, Food Standards Scotland, and international case studies. Further detail on the literature review method can be found in Appendices C and D.
• Stakeholder engagement: 14 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders from government, academia, and civil society provided insight into governance challenges, socio-economic impacts, and practical barriers to policy implementation. Further detail on the method can be found in Appendix E.
• Workshops: Three stakeholder workshops (one in-person, two online)^[1] were conducted to validate findings, prioritise areas for further policy development, and co-develop recommendations. These involved scenario planning and structured group discussion. Workshop protocols and details of participating stakeholders are displayed in Appendix F.

Ethics and data management

The research followed ethical guidelines from the University of Bath and ClimateXChange. All participants gave informed consent and were offered anonymity. Data handling adhered to the Scottish Government’s “open as possible, closed as necessary” principle. Triangulation across data sources helped ensure reliability and consistency.

Stakeholder mapping

Stakeholders were identified through desk research and consultations (see Appendix A) and classified into categories including government, academia, third sector, public health, industry, and community groups. A database of 447 stakeholders was compiled (Appendix B).

PESTLE framework

The PESTLE framework guided the thematic analysis of areas for policy development and opportunities, ensuring comprehensive coverage of structural, social, and environmental dimensions. It helped surface interdependencies and evidence gaps across policy domains.

Limitations and future research

Due to time constraints, the analysis could not include quantitative modelling or longitudinal data. While the research drew from diverse sectors, representation from the food industry was more limited. Further research should explore economic modelling of dietary transitions, consumer behaviour dynamics, and legal feasibility of regulatory measures.

Further methodological detail, including workshop protocols and stakeholder lists, is available in the Appendices.

Analysis of diet and climate policy evidence

While the literature, stakeholder meetings, and workshops all highlighted the need for more integrated, cross-sectoral approaches to diet and climate policy, each source also highlighted distinct emphases.

• The literature focused on systemic analysis and policy gaps, often referring to structural barriers, need for further regulation, and the dominance of voluntary policy mechanisms.
• The stakeholder meetings added a degree of nuance on political sensitivities, informal policymaking, and institutional fragmentation, often surfacing insights that were missing from the literature, such as the influence of farming identities, lobbying, and inter-departmental misalignment (i.e. the lack of coordination between government departments, such as health, agriculture, and climate, which can lead to contradictory or disconnected policies).
• The stakeholder workshops, by contrast, reflected the practical and lived experience of policy implementation, giving voice to tensions related to affordability, cultural norms, and supply chain dynamics, and offering grounded ideas for cross-sector collaboration.
• Taken together, these sources converged on key challenges but revealed gaps in empirical evidence on effective interventions and highlighted the need for more inclusive, community-informed policy processes.

The following sections present an analysis of the issues shaping diet and climate policy, drawing on insights from the literature review, stakeholder meetings, and workshops.

We begin by outlining key areas for policy development, offering a comprehensive view of the diverse factors influencing policy in Scotland. For clarity, each PESTLE dimension is analysed separately, although we recognise that many issues cut across multiple dimensions. In addition to the summaries in Sections 5.1–5.6 of the report, extended analyses and illustrative examples are provided in Appendices G–L.

PESTLE Political dimension

The PESTLE Political dimension highlights key political drivers and barriers shaping Scotland’s food system, focusing on governance, policy coherence, and regulatory alignment. Despite ambitious climate and health goals, food policy remains fragmented; characterised by siloed strategies, short-term political cycles, and limited public engagement.

There are clear opportunities to improve alignment between national and local policies, embed measurable targets under the Good Food Nation Act, and integrate food more fully into net-zero strategies. Policy coherence is particularly lacking in areas such as dietary change, where targets, especially for meat reduction, are absent or politically sensitive.

Public procurement and food supply chain resilience require stronger alignment with sustainability priorities. Resistance to livestock reduction, driven by cultural, economic, and political factors, continues to constrain progress. Meanwhile, policy support for plant-based foods, oversight of emissions-intensive agriculture, and trade resilience post-Brexit, remain underdeveloped.

Improving citizen participation and learning from international best practice are also essential to ensure legitimacy and policy effectiveness. Overall, stronger strategic leadership and more integrated, inclusive policymaking are critical to enable a just transition in Scotland’s food system.

For further detail and illustrative examples, see Appendix G.

PESTLE Economic dimension

This section outlines key economic enablers and constraints in Scotland’s transition to a more sustainable and just food system. While the need for climate-compatible diets and resilient supply chains is increasingly recognised, economic policy and market structures remain poorly aligned with sustainability goals.

The analysis highlights persistent gaps in financial incentives for low-carbon agriculture, agroecology, and alternative proteins. Current financial support regimes continue to favour high-emission livestock production, while support for biodiversity and ecosystem services is limited. High upfront costs and infrastructure barriers also constrain farmers’ ability to adopt sustainable practices.

Trade and supply chains add further complexity to the landscape. Import/Export policies risk carbon leakage and should go further to reflect Scotland’s net-zero ambitions. Small producers face limited access to public procurement and mainstream markets, which are dominated by large retailers and multinationals.

A lack of stable, long-term funding also undermines urban agriculture, community food initiatives, and public food provision. Consumer incentives are misaligned; VAT law and pricing structures serve to limit the uptake of plant-based foods, while environmental and health costs remain externalised. Without targeted interventions, dietary shifts might also result in greater reliance on ultra-processed food or alternative animal products, with implications for health.

A clear transition strategy is needed to support rural economies, address workforce shortages, and align financial incentives, trade policies, and consumer support with Scotland’s net-zero goals.

For further evidence and examples, see Appendix H.

PESTLE Social dimension

The next section explores the social factors that influence dietary behaviours, food access, cultural norms, and public engagement with food system sustainability in Scotland. While awareness of sustainable diets is growing, economic inequality, cultural barriers, and information gaps continue to limit equitable access to healthier and more climate-compatible food choices.

The analysis shows that low-income, rural, and marginalised groups face structural challenges to adopting sustainable diets, including affordability, limited access to healthy food options, and digital exclusion. Taxation policies, such as levies on red meat, may also disproportionately affect households with limited economic flexibility unless protections are in place. High energy costs, limited cooking facilities, and restricted access to healthy food outside the home reduce the feasibility of dietary shifts for many communities.

Consumer environments and behaviours present further challenges. Ultra-processed foods dominate many retail and foodservice settings, while alternative proteins remain scarce or poorly understood. Misperceptions, unclear labelling, and cultural or sensory barriers to meat alternatives reduce consumer confidence in plant-based foods. Public institutions, such as schools and hospitals, have been slow to integrate sustainability into procurement and meal provision, missing valuable opportunities to shape norms and access around sustainable food.

Cultural identity, health concerns, and trust also play a critical role in shaping diet. Intergenerational tensions, media confusion, and stigma around plant-based eating reinforce resistance to change. The term “sustainable diet” is understood in multiple ways, and guidance on nutritional adequacy, especially for meat reduction, remains limited. There is also a need to strengthen support for regenerative and culturally inclusive farming practices.

Crucially, the evidence highlights an over-reliance on individual responsibility for dietary change, which overlooks the need for supportive food environments and system-level shifts. Policies that reshape food environments, through procurement, pricing, education, and public messaging, are likely to be more effective and equitable in the longer term. More specifically, focusing on health-based messaging, trusted community voices, and social norm–based approaches would help build broader public support.

In summary, socially informed policies must address structural inequalities, cultural diversity, and behavioural dynamics to ensure a just transition toward sustainable diets. This includes improving affordability and access, embedding sustainability in public food settings, and aligning dietary policies with both climate and public health goals.

Further detail and evidence examples are available in Appendix I.

PESTLE Technological dimension

Technology plays a critical role in shaping the sustainability, efficiency, and resilience of Scotland’s food system. The analysis highlights the lack of a comprehensive monitoring framework to evaluate the impact of dietary shifts on emissions, public health, food security, and biodiversity. Without clear indicators and centralised data systems, it is difficult to assess progress toward climate and health goals or ensure that dietary policies are evidence driven. Metrics for agroecological practices and sustainable diet transitions remain underdeveloped, impeding efforts to support and scale lower-impact farming approaches.

Digital infrastructure limitations, particularly poor rural broadband, continue to restrict the uptake of precision livestock farming and climate-smart technologies. Awareness of these tools remains low among producers, while Government support for adoption is often fragmented. Similarly, industry accountability is weakened by the absence of transparent data reporting and standardised carbon footprinting systems. Inconsistent greenhouse gas accounting methods, a lack of methane tracking at farm level, and the need for sector-specific targets for beef production further undermine emissions mitigation efforts.

Food system resilience also depends on improved technological capacity in supply chains. Current systems do not adequately support food origin tracking, nor do they account for high-emission foods in dietary data, weakening emissions attribution and policy precision. The sustainability impacts of emerging plant-based products remain poorly assessed, and infrastructure gaps limit the scaling of regional food systems and local supply chain technologies.

Digital tools could be used more effectively to promote sustainable consumer choices and increase transparency in food sourcing, animal welfare, and product quality. However, greater investment in infrastructure, digital literacy, and data coordination is required to unlock this potential.

In summary, a more technologically enabled food policy landscape in Scotland will require investment in data infrastructure, tailored emissions metrics, precision agriculture, and digital tools to support both consumer engagement and policy accountability. Doing so will help ensure that Scotland’s net-zero, biodiversity, and health ambitions are underpinned by robust evidence and smart, scalable solutions.

Further detail and evidence examples are available in Appendix J.

PESTLE Legal dimension

With reference to the role of legal and regulatory frameworks, the PESTLE analysis reveals that Scotland currently lacks targeted legal mechanisms to incentivise low-carbon food production. Regulatory gaps and weak enforcement of environmental standards limit the transition to sustainable agriculture, while power imbalances in the supply chain, favouring large corporations over smaller producers, remain largely unaddressed. The Good Food Nation Act, though an important step forward, does not extend regulatory authority over retailers, large-scale producers, or food manufacturers, limiting its system-wide impact.

Other issues requiring attention exist in consumer protection and information. Weak regulation of unhealthy food marketing, especially in out-of-home settings, undermines public health efforts. The continued reliance on voluntary reformulation agreements with industry, combined with the lack of mandatory carbon footprint labelling, limits consumers’ ability to make informed dietary choices aligned with Scotland’s climate and health goals. Meanwhile, the absence of mandatory nutritional fortification, such as for non-dairy milk products, can impede public health initiatives aimed at addressing nutritional deficiencies.

Legal and governance barriers also slow policy implementation. Complexities in devolved and UK-level responsibilities contribute to policy inconsistency, particularly on dietary and emissions targets. Additionally, legal risks around nutrient adequacy in meat and dairy reduction strategies may discourage more ambitious dietary guidance.

Within agriculture, current carbon audit schemes lack sufficient enforceable emissions targets and are perceived as bureaucratic, offering limited incentives for change. Unclear guidance on carbon markets and inconsistent rules on emissions reporting (including Scope 3 emissions from retailers) reduce transparency and slow investment in climate-smart farming.

In summary, legal reform is needed to strengthen regulatory levers across the food system, extending beyond the public sector to include retailers and industry, enforcing sustainability and nutrition standards, and improving consumer protections. Aligning governance frameworks, reducing administrative burdens, and embedding human rights principles into dietary policy are therefore needed to enable effective system-wide change.

Further detail and evidence examples are available in Appendix K.

PESTLE Environmental dimension

This final section examines the environmental factors affecting Scotland’s transition to a sustainable food system. The evidence highlights that many community food initiatives and new entrants to agroecological farming face significant barriers, particularly in accessing secure land and financial support. Temporary land use agreements and bureaucratic processes can limit the growth of community food systems, despite existing policy. In some cases, unregulated forestry expansion can risk displacing agricultural land, with limited assessment of net carbon impacts or broader public interest outcomes.

Scotland’s climate mitigation policies in agriculture remain focused on food-based emissions without addressing the wider transformation needed across the food system. Adaptation strategies for extreme weather, water resource management, and soil health are underdeveloped, leaving farmers vulnerable to increasingly unpredictable conditions. Localised environmental impacts of emissions-intensive farming are often overlooked in national-level emissions data, reducing policy responsiveness to regional ecological pressures.

The analysis also highlights the need for a more strategic approach to land use. With the majority of Scottish farmland classed as “Less Favoured”^[2] and unsuitable for plant protein production, blanket approaches to livestock reduction may generate trade-offs for biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and rural livelihoods. Well-managed grazing land has shown potential to support biodiversity and store more carbon than forestry in some contexts, yet these contributions are not widely acknowledged in land-use planning.

From a consumption perspective, the environmental footprint of ultra-processed and highly standardised food products remains a concern, as do the resilience risks associated with crop monocultures and supply chain vulnerabilities. There is growing recognition that agricultural technologies, diversification, and the promotion of locally adapted crop varieties can play a role in building resilience, but these approaches require greater policy support and coordination.

In summary, delivering a climate-resilient and environmentally sustainable food system in Scotland will require integrated land-use and adaptation planning, support for agroecological transitions, and a shift toward more diverse and regionally appropriate production systems. Environmental priorities must be balanced with social and economic sustainability to secure long-term food system resilience.

Further detail and evidence examples are available in Appendix L.

Analysis of areas for policy development

We next move on to consider evidence linked to the foregoing PESTLE analysis. The PESTLE analysis of diet and climate areas for policy development in Scotland has revealed several critical evidence gaps that limit progress towards a sustainable, resilient, and equitable food system. This section summarises areas for development, evaluates the feasibility of addressing them through targeted initiatives, and prioritises areas for immediate and long-term action. A summary of identified areas for further policy development, feasibility of addressing issues, scope for collaboration, and suggested priority levels for each PESTLE dimension are set out in Table 4.1.1.1.

Disclaimer: While this report identifies multiple areas for policy development, it is acknowledged that various initiatives and programmes may already be addressing some of these areas to differing extents. The intention is not to overlook ongoing efforts, but to highlight where further action, coordination, or scaling may still be required.

PESTLE evidence analysis of areas for further policy development

In summary, addressing areas for policy development identified through the evidence review would require a combination of more immediate actions, pilot initiatives, and longer-term policy reforms. Targeting governance and coordination should be prioritised as a foundation upon which to develop emissions tracking, economic incentives for sustainability, and environmental resilience strategies. Based on the analysis of evidence, addressing these areas through targeted research, cross-sector collaboration, and data standardisation would be essential for leveraging meaningful progress on sustainable diet transitions.

Conclusions and policy implications

Diet, climate, and public health intersect in complex ways with food systems, shaping both environmental sustainability and human well-being. Dietary patterns influence greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity, and resource use, whilst also influencing non-communicable diseases and health risks. A transition to sustainable diets presents an opportunity to improve public health and reduce environmental impact, though significant barriers including affordability and accessibility must be tackled. In Scotland, the transition to sustainable diets is complicated by cultural and economic reliance on established food industries, particularly livestock farming. Whilst high red and processed meat consumption poses health and environmental concerns, economic dependencies, consumer habits, and social norms around food identity and tradition all contribute to resistance to change.

Crucially, policymakers must navigate inevitable trade-offs between economic stability and sustainability. The Scottish red meat sector supports jobs and rural economies, making policies to reduce meat consumption economically sensitive. Furthermore, plant-based diets remain costly due to supply chain and financial support structures, with change carrying the risk of exacerbating social inequalities. Balancing voluntary industry commitments with regulatory measures and fiscal policies is needed to drive change whilst minimising economic disruption.

This report has highlighted the complex connections between diet, climate, and public health in food systems, and the urgent need for integrated policy responses for sustainable diet transitions. The UK’s 7th Carbon Budget (CB7) (Climate Change Committee, 2025) reinforces this urgency, proposing a substantial reduction in livestock numbers and a shift towards more sustainable dietary patterns. Scotland’s food system has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while improving public health, yet fragmented policies, gaps in governance, and limited economic incentives inhibit meaningful progress. In line with CB7, this report underscores the importance of policy coherence, aligned with public engagement, agricultural and industry support, fiscal measures, and public health initiatives.

Informing next steps for policy development

Whilst significant strides have been made with policies like the Good Food Nation Act (Scottish Government, 2022a), further action is needed to strengthen accountability, set clear sustainability targets, and improve cross-sectoral collaboration. Managing the economic implications of dietary transitions is also crucial to ensuring a just transition—without targeted support, rural inequalities may deepen, and resistance to change may grow. Lessons from other countries have shown that a mix of financial incentives, public procurement reforms, and consumer engagement strategies can drive sustainable dietary shifts while maintaining economic stability.

Such goals require coordinated action across government, agriculture, the food industry, public health, and civil society. A whole-systems approach must ensure sustainability policies are both equitable and inclusive. Priorities could therefore include:

• Strengthening governance and policy coordination: Develop a cross-sectoral food policy framework aligning climate, health, and agricultural objectives. Enhance local-national coordination for food system implementation. Establish clear emissions reduction targets for food production and dietary transitions and clarify the role of dietary transitions in meeting this target.
• Improving economic incentives for sustainable food systems: Redirect agricultural support payments towards sustainable and regenerative farming. Explore the role for fiscal policies (e.g. e.g. support payments or taxation) to make sustainable food choices more affordable. Invest in local food infrastructure and supply chains to reduce dependence on imports.
• Addressing social and cultural barriers to dietary change: Expand public, agricultural, and food system engagement and participation and leverage procurement opportunities to increase awareness and availability of climate-friendly diets. Improve policies regarding food affordability to ensure sustainable diets are accessible to all income groups. Develop culturally sensitive strategies for dietary shifts, considering food traditions.
• Investing in technology and data monitoring for food system resilience: Support the development of a UK-wide standard for emissions tracking in food production and consumption, recognising the complexity of this task and the need for cross-jurisdictional coordination. Introduce digital food labelling to increase consumer awareness of sustainability impacts.
• Supporting legal and regulatory measures: Enforce sustainability standards in food production and marketing. Align devolved and UK-wide dietary policies for consistency. Improve public procurement regulations to prioritise sustainable food sourcing.
• Integrating environmental considerations into food policy: Develop land-use policies balancing food security, biodiversity, and climate goals. Strengthen climate adaptation strategies for Scottish agriculture. Explore the potential role of well-managed grazing land in supporting biodiversity and contributing to carbon sequestration, while recognising that evidence on sequestration benefits remains contested.

Scotland has an opportunity to lead in sustainable food policy by embedding climate and health goals into food system governance. A cross-sectoral, just transition approach is essential to creating a food system that protects the environment, supports local economies, and enhances public health to secure long-term benefits for both people and the planet.

References

Allan, G., Comerford, D. and McGregor, P., 2019. The system-wide impact of healthy eating: Assessing emissions and economic impacts at the regional level. Food Policy, 86, p.101725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.05.008

Ambler-Edwards, S., Bailey, K.S., Kiff, A., Lang, T., Lee, R., Marsden, T.K., Simons, D.W. and Tibbs, H., 2009. Food futures: Rethinking UK strategy. London: Chatham House. [online] Available at: Food futures: rethinking UK strategy. A Chatham House report -ORCA (Accessed: 25/11/24).

Attorp, A. and Hubbard, C., 2022. Governing the UK agri-food system post-Brexit, in Shucksmith, M. and Bosworth, G. (eds.) Rural governance in the UK. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 78–98.

Baker, P., Conquest, A. and Moxey, A., 2023. The evidence for private sector drivers for climate action in Scottish agriculture. LUC. [online] Available at: The evidence for private sector drivers in the Scottish agricultural supply chain (Accessed: 17/12/24).

Bauer, J.M., Aarestrup, S.C., Hansen, P.G. and Reisch, L.A., 2022. Nudging more sustainable grocery purchases: Behavioural innovations in a supermarket setting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 179, p.121605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121605

Beckert, M., Smith, P. and Chapman, S., 2016. Of trees and sheep: Trade-offs and synergies in farmland afforestation in the Scottish uplands. In: S. Kratzer and M. Schönhart, eds. Land use competition: Ecological, economic and social perspectives. Cham: Springer, pp.183–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33628-2_11

Bellamy, A.S., Furness, E., Mills, S., Clear, A., Finnigan, S.M., Meador, E., Milne, A.E. and Sharp, R.T., 2023. ‘Promoting dietary changes for achieving health and sustainability targets’, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 7, 1160627. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1160627.

Bhunnoo, R. and Poppy, G.M., 2020. A national approach for transformation of the UK food system. Nature Food, 1(1), pp.6–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-019-0003-3

Billen, G., Aguilera, E., Einarsson, R., Garnier, J., Gingrich, S., Grizzetti, B., Lassaletta, L., Le Noë, J. and Sanz-Cobena, A., 2021. Reshaping the European agro-food system and closing its nitrogen cycle: The potential of combining dietary change, agroecology, and circularity. One Earth, 4(6), pp.839–850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.05.011

Booth, A., 2006. Clear and present questions: Formulating questions for evidence based practice. Library Hi Tech, 24(3), 355-368. https://doi.org/10.1108/07378830610692127

Boyle, N.B., Jenneson, V., Okeke-Ogbuafor, N., Morris, M.A., Stead, S.M., Dye, L., Halford, J.C. and Banwart, S.A., 2024. ‘Connected Food: First steps for an ambitious national food strategy’, Nutrients, 16(19), p. 3371. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16193371.

Brennan, M., 2023. Food systems transformation in Scotland—The journey to, vision of, and challenges facing the new Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act. Sustainability, 15(19), p.14579. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914579

Brett, S.N., 2022. Examining the opportunities for agricultural experiences as part of Scottish secondary school pupils’ learning under Curriculum for Excellence. Doctoral dissertation, University of Glasgow. [online] Available at: Examining the opportunities for agricultural experiences as part of Scottish secondary school pupils’ learning under Curriculum for Excellence – Enlighten Theses (Accessed: 14/1/25).

Briggs, H.R., Tallontire, A.M. and Dougill, A.J., 2019. Exploring the contribution of vertical farming to sustainable intensification from the point of view of the innovator and the farmer. Sustainability Research Institute, University of Leeds. [online] Available at: https://sri.leeds.ac.uk/publications/vertical-farming-sustainability (Accessed: 25/1/25).

Brodie, E., 2023. The potential for nature-based solutions in Scottish agriculture. [online] Available at: The Potential for Nature-based Solutions in Scottish Agriculture (Accessed: 25/11/24).

Bryant, C., Couture, A., Ross, E., Clark, A. and Chapman, T., 2024. A review of policy levers to reduce meat production and consumption. Appetite, p.107684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107684.

Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST), 2024. Briefing 31: How Wales can speed up decarbonisation: Insights from transport and mobility, food and agriculture, and the circular and sharing economy. [online] Available at: CAST Briefing 31: How Wales can speed up decarbonisation: Insights from transport and mobility, food and agriculture, and the circular and sharing economy – CAST (Accessed: 3/11/24).

Cleland, E., McBey, D., Darlene, V., McCormick, B.J. and Macdiarmid, J.I., 2025. Still eating like there’s no tomorrow? A qualitative study to revisit attitudes and awareness around sustainable diets after 10 years. Appetite, 206, p.107799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107799.

Climate Change Committee (CCC) (2025) The Seventh Carbon Budget. Climate Change Committee. [online] Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/7th-carbon-budget/ (Accessed: 4/3/25).

Climate Change Committee (CCC), 2023. Progress on reducing emissions in Scotland-2023 Report to Parliament. [online] Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/progress-in-reducing-emissions-in-scotland-2023-report-to-parliament/ (Accessed 21/10/24).

Climate Change Committee (CCC), 2020. The Sixth Carbon Budget: The UK’s path to Net Zero. [online] Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/sixth-carbon-budget/

(Accessed 25/11/24).

Comrie, L., Wilson, C., Nneli, A., Whybrow, S., Chalmers, N., and Macdiarmid, J.I., 2024. Modelling the impact of reductions in meat and dairy consumption on nutrient intakes and disease risk. [online] Available at: https://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/publications-and-research/publications/modelling-the-impact-of-reductions-in-meat-and-dairy-consumption-on-nutrient-intakes-and-disease-risk (Accessed: 14/12/24

Cotton, C., Gosschalk, K., Gray, H. and White, E., 2024. Consumer Scotland Net Zero 2024. Consumer Scotland. [online] Available at: [xm24-02-consumers-and-net-zero-net-zero-consumer-survey-yougov-final-report-pdf-version-for-publication.pdf] (Accessed: 14/1/25).

Culliford, A.E., Bradbury, J. and Medici, E.B., 2023. Improving communication of the UK sustainable healthy dietary guidelines—the Eatwell Guide: A rapid review. Sustainability, 15(7), p.6149. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076149

Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), 2024. Assessing carbon displacement risk in the agri-food sector: The development and application of a carbon displacement and wider impacts framework. October 2024. Defra. [online] Available at: ADAS Collaborate on Project Investigating Carbon Displacement (Accessed: 25/11/25).

Dogbe, W., Revoredo-Giha, C. and Russell, W., 2024. An analysis of the current and potential market opportunities for hempseed and fibre: the case of Scotland? Agriculture & Food Security, 13(1), p.57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-024-00388-6.

Dogbe, W., Wang, Y. and Revoredo-Giha, C., 2024. Nutritional implications of substituting plant-based proteins for meat: Evidence from home scan data. Agricultural and Food Economics, 12(1), p.30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-024-00272-2.

EAT (n.d.) Summary Report of the EAT-Lancet Commission. [online] Available at: https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/eat-lancet-commission-summary-report/

(Accessed: 2/11/24).

Eating Better, 2022. Sandwiches unwrapped 2022. [online] Available at: eb_sandwichreport_may22_final.pdf (Accessed 24/3/25).

Edwards-Jones, G., 2010. Does eating local food reduce the environmental impact of food production and enhance consumer health? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 69(4), pp.582–591. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665110002004

Ellis, N.R. and Tschakert, P., 2019. Triple-wins as pathways to transformation? A critical review. Geoforum, 103, pp.167-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.04.017

Eory, V., Topp, K., Rees, B., Jones, S., Waxenberg, K., Barnes, A., Smith, P., MacLeod, M. and Wall, E., 2023. A scenario-based approach to emissions reduction targets in Scottish agriculture. ClimateXChange (CXC). [online] Available at: A scenario-based approach to emissions reduction targets in Scottish agriculture (Accessed 14/1/25).

Fardet, A. and Rock, E., 2020. Ultra-processed foods and food system sustainability: What are the links? Sustainability, 12(15), p.6280. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156280

Nourish Scotland, 2021. Farming for 1.5° final report. [online] Available at: https://www.farming1point5.org/publications [Accessed 17/12/24].

Ferguson, H.J., Bowen, J.M., McNicol, L.C., Bell, J., Duthie, C.A. and Dewhurst, R.J., 2024. The impacts of precision livestock farming tools on the greenhouse gas emissions of an average Scottish dairy farm. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 8, p.1385672. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1385672

Follett, E., Davis, L., Wilson, C. and Cable, J., 2024. Working for the environment: farmer attitudes towards sustainable farming actions in rural Wales, UK, Environment, Development and Sustainability, pp. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-03764-7.

Food and Drink Federation (FDF), 2020. Product reformulation: Understanding Scottish consumer attitudes. [online] Available at: Research shows consumers are actively seeking healthier food | The Food & Drink Federation (Accessed: 3/11/24).

Food, Farming and Countryside Commission (FFCC), 2024. From food security to food resilience. [online] Available at: From Food Security to Food Resilience – Food, Farming and Countryside Commission (Accessed: 17/12/24).

Food, Farming and Countryside Commission (FFCC), 2023. So, what do we really want from food? Citizens are hungry for change: Starting a national conversation about food. [online] Available at: [So, what do we really want from food? – Food, Farming and Countryside Commission] (Accessed: 3/11/24).

Food Standards Agency (FSA), 2022. Alternative proteins consumer survey. [online] Available at: FSA report template (Accessed: 23/1/25).

Food Standards Scotland (FSS) (2024) New research shows existing dietary advice can help us meet climate change mitigation goals. Food Standards Scotland. [online] Available at: https://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/news-and-alerts/new-research-shows-existing-dietary-advice-can-help-us-meet-climate-change-mitigation-goals (Accessed: 23/1/25).

Food Standards Scotland (FSS), 2023. Consumer attitudes towards the diet and food environment in Scotland. Food Standards Scotland. [online] Available at: https://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/publications-and-research/publications/consumer-attitudes-towards-the-diet-and-food-environment-in-scotland (Accessed: 17/12/24).

Food Standards Scotland (FSS), 2021a. Overview of the total food and drink landscape in Scotland 2021. [online] Available at: https://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/publications-and-research/publications/overview-of-the-total-food-and-drink-landscape-in-scotland-2021

(Accessed: 25/11/24).

Food Standards Scotland (FSS), 2021b. The out of home environment in Scotland. Food Standards Scotland. [online] Available at: https://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/publications-and-research/publications/the-out-of-home-environment-in-scotland (Accessed: 3/11/24).

Foster, J.A. and Poston, A., 2024. Occupant experience of domestic kitchen environments in low-energy social and affordable housing in Scotland. Building Research & Information, 52(7), pp.799–816. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2024.2312504.

Gargano, G., 2021. The bottom-up development model as a governance instrument for the rural areas: The cases of four Local Action Groups (LAGs) in the United Kingdom and in Italy. Sustainability, 13(16), p.9123. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169123.

Gill, M., Fowler, K. and Scott, E.M., 2024. ‘Bridging the gap between science and food policy: nutrition as a driver of policy drawing on Scotland as a case study’, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, pp. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665124000267.

Hasnain, S., Green, R., Williams, A., Dangour, A.D., Smith, P. and Hillier, J., 2020. Mapping the UK food system – a report for the UKRI Transforming UK Food Systems Programme. University of Oxford. [online] Available at: https://www.foodsystemresearch.org.uk/publications/mapping-the-uk-food-system (Accessed: 3/11/24).

Hielkema, M.H. and Lund, T.B., 2021. ‘Reducing meat consumption in meat-loving Denmark: Exploring willingness, behavior, barriers and drivers’, Food Quality and Preference, 93, 104257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104257.

Holmes, E.J., 2018. Brexit, beef, and beans: a sustainable food-system approach for the UK. Master’s thesis, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås. [online] Available at: 249964646.pdf (Accessed: 18/2/25).

Houzer, E. and Scoones, I., 2021. Are livestock always bad for the planet? Rethinking the protein transition and climate change debate. Institute of Development Studies. [online] Available at: https://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/are-livestock-always-bad-for-the-planet-rethinking-the-protein-transition-and-climate-change-debate/ (Accessed: 26/1/24.

Hunt, L., Pettinger, C. and Wagstaff, C., 2023. A critical exploration of the diets of UK disadvantaged communities to inform food systems transformation: A scoping review of qualitative literature using a social practice theory lens. BMC Public Health, 23(1), p.1970. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16775-3.

Jaacks, L., Frank, S., Vonderschmidt, A., Stewart, C., Runions, R., Kennedy, J., McNeill, G. and Alexander, P., 2024. Understanding the climate impact of food consumed in Scotland. University of Edinburgh. [online] Available at: https://era.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1842/41611/CXC-Understanding-the-climate-impact-of-food-consumed-in-Scotland-evidence-assessment-February-2024.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y (Accessed: 27/10/24).

Jenkins, B., Avis, K., Willcocks, J., Martin, G., Wiltshire, J. and Peters, E., 2023. Adapting Scottish agriculture to a changing climate – assessing options for action. Ricardo Energy & Environment. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/adapting-scottish-agriculture-to-a-changing-climate (Accessed: 25/10/24).

Jenkins, B., Herold, L., de Mendonça, M., Loughnan, H., Willcocks, J., David, T., Ginns, B., Rock, L., Wilshire, J., Avis, K., 2024. Breeding for reduced methane emissions in livestock. ClimateXChange. [online] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/era/5569 (Accessed: 3/11/24).

Kemper, J.A., 2020. ‘Motivations, barriers, and strategies for meat reduction at different family lifecycle stages’, Appetite, 150, 104644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104644.

Kennedy, J., Clark, M., Stewart, C., Runions, R., Vonderschmidt, A., Frank, S., Scarborough, P., Comrie, F., McDonald, A., McNeill, G., Alexander, P. and Jaacks, L., 2025. Impact of reducing meat and dairy consumption on nutrient intake, health, cost of diets and the environment: A simulation among adults in Scotland. Research Square [online] Available at: Impact of reducing meat and dairy consumption on nutrient intake, health, cost of diets and the environment: A simulation among adults in Scotland (Accessed: 3/3/25).

Kmetkova, D., Zverinova, I., Scasny, M. and Máca, V., 2024. Acceptability of meat tax and subsidy removal by meat-eaters: insights from five European countries (No. 2024/42). Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies. [online] Available at: https://ies.fsv.cuni.cz (Accessed: 14/1/25).

Kwasny, T., Dobernig, K. and Riefler, P., 2022. ‘Towards reduced meat consumption: A systematic literature review of intervention effectiveness, 2001–2019’, Appetite, 168, 105739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105739.

Lambe, F., Weitz, N., Hilgert, A., Kemp-Benedict, E. and Carlsen, H., 2025. Applying the Unlocking a Better Future framework for a just transition in Scotland: Opportunities for the Scottish Government to promote socio-economic transformations needed to help tackle the climate and nature emergencies. Stockholm Environment Institute. [online] Available at: https://www.sei.org/publications/just-transition-scotland-unlocking-a-better-future/ (Accessed: 17/1/25.

Lampkin, N., Shrestha, S., Sellars, A., Baldock, D., Smith, J., Mullender, S., Keenleyside, C., Pearce, B. and Watson, C.A., 2021. Preparing the evidence base for post-Brexit agriculture in Scotland – case studies on alternative payments. Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) and Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP). [online] Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/preparing-the-evidence-base-for-post-brexit-agriculture-in-scotland/ (Accessed: 3/2/25).

Leat, P., Revoredo-Giha, C. and Lamprinopoulou, C., 2011. ‘Scotland’s food and drink policy discussion: Sustainability issues in the food supply chain’, Sustainability, 3(4), pp. 605–631. https://doi.org/10.3390/su3040605.

Lee, A.J., Cullerton, K. and Herron, L.M., 2020. ‘Achieving food system transformation: Insights from a retrospective review of nutrition policy (in) action in high-income countries’, International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 10(12), pp. 766–776. https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2020.69.

Lozada, L.M. and Karley, A., 2022. The adoption of agroecological principles in Scottish farming and their contribution towards agricultural sustainability and resilience. The James Hutton Institute. [online] Available at: https://www.hutton.ac.uk/research/projects/agroecology-scotland (Accessed: 1/11/24).

Malone, T. and Lusk, J.L., 2017. Taste trumps health and safety: Incorporating consumer perceptions into a discrete choice experiment for meat. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 49(1), pp.139–157. https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2016.39.

McAreavey, R., Choudhary, S., Obayi, R., Attorp, A., Barbulescu, R., Martinez Perez, A. and Nayak, R., 2023. The impact of labour shortages on UK food availability and safety. [online] Available at: https://www.food.gov.uk/research/the-impact-of-labour-shortages-on-uk-food-availability-and-safety (Accessed: 14/1/25).

McBey, D., McCormick, B.J.J., Hussain, M. and Macdiarmid, J.I., 2024. ‘Does sociodemographic strata determine local access to plant-based meat alternatives?’, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 83(OCE4), p. E350. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665124003723.

McBey, D., Rothenberg, L., Cleland, E., McCormick, B.J. and Macdiarmid, J., 2024. What do young people think about sustainable diets? The Rowett Institute, University of Aberdeen. [online] Available at: https://aura.abdn.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/2164/24312/McBey_etal_What_do_young_VOR.pdf?sequence=1 (Accessed: 20/1/25).

McBey, D., Sánchez, G.M., McCormick, B.J.J., Horgan, G.W. and MacDiarmid, J.I., 2024. Consumer ranked likely effectiveness of interventions to reduce meat consumption, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 83(OCE4), p. E296. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665124002963.

McBey, D., Watts, D. and Johnstone, A.M., 2019. Nudging, formulating new products, and the lifecourse: A qualitative assessment of the viability of three methods for reducing Scottish meat consumption for health, ethical, and environmental reasons, Appetite, 142, 104349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104349.

McNicol, L.C., Bowen, J.M., Ferguson, H.J., Bell, J., Dewhurst, R.J. and Duthie, C.A., 2024. Adoption of precision livestock farming technologies has the potential to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from beef production, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 8, 1414858. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2024.1414858.

Meyerricks, S. and White, R.M., 2021. Communities on a threshold: Climate action and wellbeing potentialities in Scotland, Sustainability, 13(13), 7357. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137357.

Milner, J., Green, R., Dangour, A.D., Haines, A. and Wilkinson, P., 2015. Health effects of adopting low greenhouse gas emission diets in the UK, BMJ Open, 5(4), e007364. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007364.

Mitev, A., Portes, J., Osman, M., Codur, A.M., Abraham, C. and Kroll, L., 2023. The implications of behavioural science for effective climate policy: Output 1: Literature review and background report. Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations (CAST) and The Behavioural Insights Team. [online] Available at: https://cast.ac.uk/resources/reports/the-implications-of-behavioural-science-for-effective-climate-policy/ (Accessed: 15/10/24).

Myrgiotis, V., Williams, M., Rees, R.M. and Topp, C.F., 2019. Estimating the soil N₂O emission intensity of croplands in northwest Europe. Biogeosciences, 16(8), pp.1641–1655. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-16-1641-2019.

National Farmers’ Union Scotland (NFUS), n.d. Written evidence from the National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS) (MET0027). Available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/110519/pdf/ (Accessed: 19/1/25).

Nneli, A., Revoredo-Giha, C. and Dogbe, W., 2023. ‘Could taxes on foods high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) improve climate health and nutrition in Scotland?’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 421, 138564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138564.

Obesity Action Scotland (OAS), 2019. Reformulation. [online] Available at: https://www.obesityactionscotland.org/publications/reformulation/ (Accessed: 2/11/24).

Pechey, R., Reynolds, J.P., Cook, B., Marteau, T.M. and Jebb, S.A., 2022. Acceptability of policies to reduce consumption of red and processed meat: A population-based survey experiment, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 81, 101817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101817.

Public Health Scotland (PHS), 2024. Action needed to prioritise health in Scotland’s food environment. [online] Available at: https://www.publichealthscotland.scot/news/2024/march/action-needed-to-prioritise-health-in-scotlands-food-environment/ (Accessed: 16/12/24).

Pultar, A., Ferrier, J. & Jahanbakhsh, A., 2024. Transforming industry: Strategic policy insights for Scotland’s industrial decarbonisation. [online] Available at: [https://pure.hw.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/139634343/IDRIC_Policy_Synthesis_Report_for_Scotland_-_2024.pdf (Accessed: 25/11/24).

Rathnayaka, S.D., Revoredo-Giha, C. and de Roos, B., 2024. Assessing Scotland’s self-sufficiency of major food commodities, Agriculture & Food Security, 13(1), p. 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-024-00452-3.

Reay, D.S., Warnatzsch, E.A., Craig, E., Dawson, L., George, S., Norman, R. and Ritchie, P., 2020. ‘From farm to fork: growing a Scottish food system that doesn’t cost the planet’, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4, 72. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00072.

Rhymes, J., Stockdale, E. and Napier, B., 2023. The future of UK vegetable production: Technical report. WWF. [online] Available at: https://www.wwf.org.uk/ourreports/future-uk-vegetable-production-technical-report (Accessed: 3/11/24).

Ruani, M.A., Reiss, M.J. and Kalea, A.Z., 2023. Diet-nutrition information seeking, source trustworthiness, and eating behavior changes: An international web-based survey. Nutrients, 15(21), p.4515. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15214515.

Rubio Ramon, G., 2024. Building animal nations: industrial animal agriculture in the making of Catalonia and Scotland. ERA [online] Available at: https://era.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/41639 (Accessed: 26/1/25).

SAC Consulting, n.d. The impact of extreme weather events on Scottish agriculture. WWF Scotland. [online] Available at: https://www.wwf.org.uk/scotland/reports/impact-of-extreme-weather-on-scottish-agriculture (Accessed: 29/11/24.

Scottish Government, 2024. Local food for everyone: Our journey. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/local-food-for-everyone-our-journey/ (Accessed: 15/12/24).

Scottish Government, 2023. Reducing emissions from agriculture – the role of new farm technologies. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/reducing-emissions-from-agriculture-role-of-new-farm-technologies/ (Accessed: 2/11/24).

Scottish Government, 2022a. National Good Food Nation Plan. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/national-good-food-nation-plan/ (Accessed: 19/10/24).

Scottish Government, 2022b. The next step in delivering our vision for Scotland as a leader in sustainable and regenerative farming. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/next-step-in-delivering-our-vision-for-scotland-as-a-leader-in-sustainable-and-regenerative-farming/ (Accessed: 27/10/24).

Scottish Government, 2013. Revised dietary goals for Scotland. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/revised-dietary-goals-for-scotland/ (Accessed: 28/10.24).

Scottish Government, n.d.(a). Agriculture and the environment. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.scot/policies/agriculture-and-the-environment/ (Accessed: 21/10/24).

Scottish Parliament, n.d.(b). Briefing for the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee on Petition PE1963: Phase in meat production ban by 2040. [online] Available at: Briefing for petition PE1963: Phase in meat production ban by 2040 (Accessed 23/1/25).

Shortland, F., Hall, J., Hurley, P., Little, R., Nye, C., Lobley, M. and Rose, D.C., 2023. Landscapes of support for farming mental health: Adaptability in the face of crisis. Sociologia Ruralis, 63, pp.116–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12399.

Smith, A.M., Duncan, P., Edgar, D. and McColl, J., 2021. Responsible and sustainable farm business: Contextual duality as the moderating influence on entrepreneurial orientation. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 22(2), pp.88–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465750320939779.

Sovacool, B.K., Bazilian, M., Griffiths, S., Kim, J., Foley, A. and Rooney, D., 2021. ‘Decarbonizing the food and beverages industry: A critical and systematic review of developments, sociotechnical systems and policy options’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 143, 110856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110856.

Spiro, A., Hill, Z. and Stanner, S., 2024. Meat and the future of sustainable diets—Challenges and opportunities’, Nutrition Bulletin, 49(4), pp. 572–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/nbu.12685.

Sutherland, L.A., Banks, E., Boyce, A. and Martinat, S., 2023. Establishing an agricultural knowledge and innovation system. The James Hutton Institute. [online] Available at: establishing-an-agriculture-knowledge-and-innovation-system-in-scotland-workshop-report-jan-2023.pdf (Accessed: 17/12/24).

Sutherland, L.A. and Burton, R.J., 2011. Good farmers, good neighbours? The role of cultural capital in social capital development in a Scottish farming community. Sociologia Ruralis, 51(3), pp.238–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2011.00536.x.

Thomson, S.G., Moxey, A.P. and Hall, J., 2021. The transition to future (conditional) agricultural support – NFU Scotland’s approach. NFU Scotland. [online] Available at: https://www.nfus.org.uk/news/news/conditional-agricultural-support (Accessed: 8/1/25).

Tregear, A., Morgan, E., Spence, L., and Bell, M., 2024. Dietary guidance for healthy and climate friendly diets: A review of international evidence. Food Standards Scotland. [online] Available at: https://www.foodstandards.gov.scot/publications-and-research/dietary-guidance-for-healthy-and-climate-friendly-diets (Accessed: 20/10/24).

van der Horst, D., Lane, M., Creasy, A., Gillette, K., Soriano-Hernández, P., Jia, H. and Smith, R.S., 2021. Edinburgh and the n-minute neighbourhood concept: an exploratory study. Available at: https://www.research.ed.ac.uk/en/publications/edinburgh-and-the-n-minute-neighbourhood-concept-an-exploratory- (Accessed: 14/1/25).

Vittersø, G., Torjusen, H., Laitala, K., Tocco, B., Biasini, B., Csillag, P., de Labarre, M.D., Lecoeur, J.L., Maj, A., Majewski, E. and Malak-Rawlikowska, A., 2019. Short food supply chains and their contributions to sustainability: Participants’ views and perceptions from 12 European cases’, Sustainability, 11(17), p. 4800. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174800.

White, J.T. and Bunn, C., 2017. Growing in Glasgow: Innovative practices and emerging policy pathways for urban agriculture, Land Use Policy, 68, pp. 334–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.052.

Wiltshire, J., Freeman, D., Willcocks, J. and Wood, C., 2021. The potential for leguminous crops in Scotland. Ricardo Energy & Environment. [online] Available at: The potential for leguminous crops in Scotland (Accessed: 23/1/25).

Witheridge, J. and Morris, N.J., 2016. An analysis of the effect of public policy on community garden organisations in Edinburgh, Local Environment, 21(2), pp. 202–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2014.940357.

Appendix A: Diet & climate policy stakeholder identification and mapping methodology 

Purpose and Scope

The stakeholder mapping exercise aimed to identify and understand the individuals and organisations who influence or are affected by climate and diet policies in Scotland. It was designed to support inclusive, evidence-informed policy review by incorporating a broad range of perspectives.

The mapping focused on ten key policy areas:

• Agriculture
• Food systems
• Public health
• Carbon emissions
• Land use and forestry
• Water use and pollution
• Economic and social impacts
• Food security
• Consumer behaviour and education
• Urban planning and food infrastructure

Stakeholders were assessed for their relevance to these areas and the potential for involvement in the policy process.

Methods

• Desk research: Systematic searches of government documents, NGO and advocacy websites, academic literature, and media reports to compile a draft list of stakeholders.
• Expert consultation: Meetings with policymakers, researchers, and advisors to validate the list and identify additional stakeholders.
• Categorisation: Stakeholders were grouped by type (e.g., government, academia, NGOs, industry, health, community, media, public).
• Influence–Interest Mapping: Stakeholders were classified based on their level of influence over, and interest in, diet and climate policy. A rubric guided the assignment of High, Medium, or Low categories for each.

Stakeholder Categories

Stakeholders were grouped into eight high-level categories:

• Government bodies and regulators (e.g., Scottish Government, SEPA, Food Standards Scotland)
• Research and academia (e.g., University research centres, think tanks)
• NGOs and advocacy groups (e.g., Nourish Scotland, Friends of the Earth Scotland)
• Agriculture and food industry (e.g., NFU Scotland, food producers, retailers)
• Public health bodies (e.g., NHS Scotland, Public Health Scotland)
• Community organisations (e.g., local sustainability hubs, rural associations)
• Media and influencers (e.g., journalists, campaigners)
• General public and citizen groups (e.g., low-income groups, consumer organisations)

Ongoing Adaptation

Stakeholder positions and influence are dynamic. The mapping process includes continuous review to respond to evolving policy priorities and to adapt engagement strategies accordingly.

Appendix B: Findings from the stakeholder identification and mapping analysis