Turfvrij Nederland: ‘Peat bogs are Europe’s rainforest, so we have to preserve, protect and restore them’

Philipp Gramlich and Karin Bodewits are self-acclaimed, passionate gardeners growing many plants on a half-hectare of land in Oosterbeek.

Philipp Gramlich and Karin Bodewits, leading figures in the community network Turfvrij Nederland, are at the forefront of the battle against peat use. Their efforts span from the amateur gardening (retail) market to the professional grower market and even to the brands and businesses involved in peat extraction and trade. The couple, who vehemently site peat extraction as ‘environmental vandalism’, are among the signatories of the 2022 Dutch ‘Environmental impact of potting soil and substrates’ covenant. They chose to sign, recognising its potential to amplify their voice and influence policy decisions despite their reservations.

Coincidence or not, the now husband-and-wife team of German-born Philipp Gramlich and Dutch Karin Bodewits first met in the UK. This is one of the first countries where government, businesses, environmental, and gardening bodies began working together to safeguard peatlands and transition to a peat-free future.

Later, they lived in Germany, where, the couple says, the sense and nonsense of horticultural peat is much more openly discussed than in the Netherlands, the country they now reside in.

Philipp and Karin are trained in chemistry and biochemistry/biology, respectively, and are co-founders of Nature Science Careers. The company offers science communication-themed seminars and talks to PhD students, postdoctoral researchers, principal investigators, and professors.

Among their clients are the Gatersleben-based IPK Leibniz Institute for Plant Genetics and Plant Research (IPK), the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Plant Physiology in Potsdam-Golm, the Cluster of Excellence on Plant Sciences (CEPLAS), MARUM, Bremen University’s centre for marine environmental science, and the Life Science Zurich Graduate School.

While Philipp and Karin do not have a background in soil science or horticulture, they firmly believe that “chemistry, biochemistry, and microbiology provides a solid foundation to understand what is going on”.

They stress that they have read dozens of horticultural, soil science, and climate change-related publications and haven’t encountered a single one they did not understand. Being entrepreneurs themselves, they also fully understand the economic side of the peat debate.

In 2021, the pair founded www.turfvrij.nl (‘turvrij’ means peat-free), a community and ‘fighting’ network to minimise the use of peat products.

Philippe Gramlich during site visit at Reterra.

Floraculture International: Why peat-free?

Karin Bodewits: “I am worried about the climate as much as all scientists, and, fortunately, also a big part of the population. Peat bogs are essential to keep the climate crises under control, if at all. Peat bogs are major carbon sinks and incredibly important for biodiversity. Countries such as the Netherlands and the UK face high costs because, in the past, they dug up peat, which now causes floods and soils to shrink. So, the problem is much bigger than the destruction of vast stores of carbon sealed underground. To me, peat bogs feel like Europe’s rainforest, so we need to preserve, protect, and restore them.”

Philipp Gramlich: “When moving from Germany to the Netherlands in 2020, we realised that the topic was not being discussed, although scientists, universities, and industry had been busy with it. So, with our science communication hat on, we spotted a missing communication link.”

November 2022, Philipp Gramlich signs the Dutch ‘Environmental impact of potting soil and substrates’ covenant.

On 18 November 2022, Turfvrij.nl was one of the 15 signatories of the Dutch ‘Environmental impact of potting soil and substrates’ covenant. The coalition announced a set of goals for 2025, 2030 and 2050. For 2025, the objective is to increase the use of renewable raw materials by an average of 35 per cent and 60 per cent in the professional grower market and the amateur gardening (retail) market, respectively and to double the use of compost to 600,000 m3. What does the covenant mean to you?

Karin: “My biggest question was whether to sign or not. I thought the goals weren’t ambitious enough and still believe they aren’t. We signed because we desired to have a greater say on peat-related matters. However, I believe one of the biggest weaknesses lies in the lack of differentiation between ‘luxury ornamentals’ and food products. The bulk of peat is used to grow ornamental plants. I would have preferred a stronger stand against peat used in ornamentals and a softer approach towards food products.”

Philipp: “The covenant leaves it open whether such a differentiation is made or not. It looks like we’re going without it, which creates a problem of ‘shifting responsibilities. ‘ Take the 2030 goal of 50 per cent renewable raw materials for the professional market. Without differentiation, a grower of relatively robust ornamental plants could claim that he has managed to produce using 50 per cent renewable material. Simultaneously, despite all his efforts, a grower of vegetable plug plants may argue that he massively reduced his peat use, but he is still far off 50 per cent renewables. This could lead to free-riding, blaming each other and failing to reach the targets.”

“My take on the covenant is that it is a compromise between the different parties. I also see that the debate is different in countries where it must happen, such as Switzerland and the UK, and the transition is much faster. In the latest issue of FCI, HTA’s column reported about a 10 per cent peat decrease in peat volumes used in the professional grower market. In the Netherlands, it is half per cent point even if we talk about the same thing.

“The covenant’s transparency is tricky. Our 2021 motion in the Lower House of the Dutch Parliament boiled down to investigating whether the Netherlands wanted a ban on peat, which eventually resulted in the ‘Environmental impact of potting soil and substrates’ covenant. The latter is based on the industry’s Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), funded by Growing Media Europe (GME). To us, GME is a clear-cut peat lobby. No one can see behind the front end of GME’s LCA tool. The only thing you can do is pay €4,000 and then you are only granted access to the front end. Several times, we have asked for the data that were introduced at the back end, but so far, we have had no results. So, here we do have a very big belly pain with a huge lack of transparency, which can be solved within a couple of weeks. You don t need years for that.”

‘My biggest question was whether to sign or not. I thought the goals weren’t ambitious enough and still believe they aren’t’

No peat means no trees and plants, which are vitamins for our souls. No peat means no living green to make our cities healthier and more resilient in light of climate change?

Karin: “The Green City argument is often brought up, but we do not need the horticultural sector for that. Take the www.meerbomen.nu initiative, a free source of young trees. It is collecting seedlings from trees and shrubs from areas where they aren’t wanted and giving them away to civilians and farmers to replant. The organisation digs up and rehomes tree saplings that are even much better for our biodiversity and greening our cities because they adapt to the local climate, are good for wildlife, and thrive better in the soil. The bottom line is that the bulk of peat is not used for greening our cities. Cycling through my city of Oosterbeek in summertime, I see lamp-post baskets. Undoubtedly, they look beautiful, but we should ask ourselves whether such plants can be grown sustainably. If not, do we really want them? I actually do think these plants can be grown peat-free.

I sometimes ask myself why we are so emotionally attached to the hortensias in our windowsill that later are binned. I mean, this is wasteful and non-sensical. We need to think about the next generations, and we, as Dutch, know how important this is. How digging up our peat lands in the 1700s is causing so much trouble. And we now repeat this activity somewhere else.”

Philipp: “Plant choices are important, but in many a peat debate, the arguments are being extended beyond their scope. Yes, I want to produce food. And yes, I want it to be safe. The truth is that the fresh produce and fruit industry is a very small user of peat. I do think food safety and greening cities are very solid arguments, but accounting only for a tiny part of the overall peat use, perhaps not more than 10 per cent. That tiny part is expanded to the overall substrate market.

Karin: “Peat for private use is complete nonsense in our view. Many companies advise distributing a 5cm peat layer over the garden as mulch. Trees produce perfect mulch, called leaves. We don’t need to dig out fossil material to mulch gardens. In the professional grower market, it is too much about providing convenience, so retailers need to water their plants less, and consumers do not need to carry such heavy pots. Alternatives galore: just start producing slightly smaller plants in two-litre pots instead of three-litre pots, and the concept of watering plants can be taught to retailers. Hence, there are many ways to work around these problems.”

Philipp: “Importantly, the future will not be without ornamental plants but with different ornamental plants and less variation. The customer will not walk into an Intratuin garden centre to see, let’s say, 7,000 genera but an amount still sizeable enough to create the wow effect.”

Philipp Gramlich: “It is pretty comfy to say, ‘Oh, our beloved peat, which is so cheap and safe to use’.”

What do you think has been Turfvrij’s constructive role within the covenant group?

Philipp: “There is significant overlap. For example, turfvrij.nl has superb search engine optimisation. Everyone who googles for peat-free products ends up on our website. We are happy to link them with the producers we think are fitting best.

More recently, we have been working on an awareness campaign in association with BVOR, the industry body for green compost producers, biomass and other renewable materials. It targets municipalities, encouraging them to compost their green waste and use it in potting soil instead of burning it in the open, which is still allowed in a few places. Or, even worse, being dumped on agricultural land, which is also a kind of borderline illegal practice.”

You emphasise that you are not taking a cent for your efforts.

Philipp: “Correct. We are driven by idealism. So, we are not sending, let’s say, Klasmann-Deilmann a bill because we forward them a likely prospect. And we feel our efforts pay off. Take the international Responsibly Produced Peat (RPP) label. We have constantly bombed them with critical questions urging for more transparency. As a result, their website now provides a much more comprehensive, publicly available overview and documentation of RPP extraction sites and companies the RPP Foundation intends to (re) grant RPP certification. Overall, we applaud RPP for these improvements. Maureen and Hein are excellent partners when it comes to providing information.

Also, RPP’s Chain of Custody is now better explained. This document used to be almost completely hidden on the website. Now it´s nicely visible. The RPP Chain of Custody goes beyond just a typical mass balance approach. Mass balance as such is not an issue as keeping the individual streams of peat physically apart would be a big effort with no real positive outcome- the amount of RPP and non-RPP peat would stay the same.

Currently, if you buy a bag with potting soil carrying the RPP label, it can also contain non-RPP-certified peat. This chain of custody allows companies to have 50 per cent RPP and 50 per cent non-RPP peat. And to sell 100 per cent of that under the RPP label and five years later that percentage has to be 80 per cent.”

‘Currently, if you buy a bag with potting soil carrying the RPP label, it can also contain non-rpp certified peat’

How did you perceive the tone of the peat debate?

Philipp: “More generally, the debate is pretty constructive and nice. People have been friendly with a few exceptions to the rule.”

Karin: “For me, the question is, how are we being perceived? I guess as individuals that are digging deep into topics. Last year, a few journalists travelled to the Baltic states for a peat industry-themed coverage. We were in direct contact with them, and we saw their reports upon their return. These provide us with information the industry would not like us to have. I take how critical we are is not really being appreciated. In this context, we are actually planning to make a documentary, but we need a budget for that first.”

Philipp: “Being critical is vital. Take Growing Media Europe and the sources they provide. One of their documents read that a natural peat bog is a carbon source; after extraction, it becomes a net carbon sink. A prime example of climate disinformation by an industry body labelling itself as a knowledge organisation. They keep spreading these pertinent lies even if they represent the industry’s unified voice. So, of course, we have to attack them for that.”

“We are scientists; everything we do is meticulously checked with fellow scientists. Every statement we make is fact-checked with scientists from the field. It is hard to digest that, basically, all covenant participants are happy at some point, but at some central point, our work is being put down. We have been in greenhouses and spoken with growers, food producers, and composting facilities. Our agenda includes many site visits, primarily in the Netherlands. We have been in natural peat bogs, restored peat bogs and wetlands. We speak first-hand with all commercial players except the extraction companies, but Joost van Beek (a former civil servant of the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture) is doing that for us. By all means, as a three-person organisation, we are not living in a bubble and talking only theoretically.

Regarding the debate’s tone, we are sometimes put down as non-experts, while half of the covenant people come from marketing. So, how much do they know about climate or horticulture, about growing plants. Not necessarily more than us, so putting us down as non-experts is unfair and unjustified.”

Environmental groups claim that disturbed peatlands account for five to eight per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions globally. Dutch industry bodies such as VPN respond that the extracted areas for horticultural use represent only 0.05 per cent of global peatlands and that horticultural peat accounts for 0.027 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions globally—within Europe, it is 0.11 per cent. What is the truth, according to Turfvrij Nederland?

Philipp: “The 0.05 per cent figure as such is not incorrect. The problem is, do you ever hear the American oil industry talking about the size of their boreholes?
A surface area is nonsense, considering a 1m2 peat bog has twenty times as much carbon stored as a forest.

Peat use in horticultural is truly a European phenomenon and on a few other continents such as North America. The rest of the world hardly uses any peat, so this whole argument is not applicable. China does not use peat? Well, they just have begun to do so, with demand mostly driven by European peat companies. They are making long-term investments in the Chinese market now that the EU is under pressure.”

Can the horticultural industry be held responsible for the tens of thousands of hectares of peatlands used for agricultural land or forestry elsewhere in the world?

Philipp: “No, they can’t. However, the possibility to eventually extract peat is an economic incentive for the retention of the drainage of peat bogs. Therefore, some Soviet-era drainage is still being kept intact to allow for the eventual peat extraction, often decades later. The emissions of this drained land are not calculated into the peat extraction’s GHG emissions.

There’s more than greenhouse gas emissions alone. Think of the needed road infrastructures, water pollution, local heating, biodiversity loss, fire and flooding risks. The percentage of peat-related emissions is 0.5 per cent of total Dutch emissions, which is big for an industry of 800 FTEs. However, the collateral damage is even bigger.”

Karin: “Why isn’t there more consideration for local residents? If you drain the land for peat extraction. In that case, a farmer risks the lack of irrigation water, and the local temperature will rise by two degrees centigrade because of the peat’s dark surface. Plus, a local farmer does not economically benefit from peat extraction at all. Also, I know of fishermen complaining about losses because water gets polluted.”

Arguably, the most challenging part is improving renewable raw materials’ quality, safety, and availability. As confirmed by WUR, this requires additional research. Competing demand for raw materials is also an issue. How can the industry move to an extensive, low input, low output system if we need to secure food and product quality and avoid product loss for the sake of sustainability?

Karin: “I do not deny that the availability of peat alternatives is absolutely challenging. But there are plenty of things we can do. What if we would rewet the many destroyed peat bogs? In doing so, you could harvest your own grown sphagnum. That would benefit the environment and biodiversity, and it would be good because we would have a beautiful peat alternative.”
(Philipp correcting Karin in the background not to use the verb ‘harvest’ because peat is a fossil material and is, as such, extracted). “Why shouldn’t the horticultural sector be pushed to farm its own resources?”

Philipp: “It is pretty comfy to say, ‘Oh, our beloved peat, which is so cheap and safe to use’. Meanwhile, BVOR is undertaking good work, something I cannot credit the industry for. BVOR calculated that 30 per cent of non-composted green waste is illegally dug under on agricultural land. This brings with it a huge risk of the spread of alien invasive species.

Karin: “The reason for this is that municipalities have to pay for their green waste and that’s a shame because it is a resource that we can use for potting soils. So, there is actually a lot we can do with green waste. If not dug under, we would have enough growing media to supply the entire amateur market.”

Is there anything else you would like to share with our readers?

Philipp: “In FCI’s May 2024 issue, you interviewed VPN director Han de Groot. He stressed that replacing peat is not the organisation’s goal. At the same time, the covenant describes the percentages of renewable raw materials to be used, which naturally relate to peat percentages. To me, it feels wishy-washy.

We don’t know the exact intentions behind Han’s statement, but we fear that such statements prepare the stage to be able to say later on that the GME-sponsored LCA dictates that we change our targets, allowing for more peat to be used than was stated in the original covenant. We don´t know this, but a statement like ‘replacing peat is not our goal’ smells funny, to say the least.
Finally, in the same interview, De Groot says that Turfvrij claims that disturbed peatlands account for five to eight per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions globally, while we usually say five to six per cent. So, here he is, misquoting us. However, nine other damage categories are coming on top of this.”

This article was first published in the June 2024 issue of FloraCulture International.