Written by Stefan Marks one of our Farm Carbon and Soils Advisors.
July marks the midpoint of 2023, with the first half passing by swiftly. It has been a varied year thus far and trying to encapsulate what a typical day might look like working for FCT can be difficult. A week can be a mix of farm days, office work and deadlines but perhaps this milestone provides a good opportunity to reflect on the progress made in the first 6 months.
So far this year my involvement in projects such as Farm Net Zero and the Duchy of Cornwall have been somewhat limited though they are certain to be a key focus in the coming months. The foundation of my projects this year have been varied including sampling in the South West for FERA, remote GIS work collating our GPS sampling data for Yeo Valley and the completion of the Durham AONB project.
The Durham AONB project has been a singular focus with a significant amount of sampling and an equally significant amount of data to process from the 29 farms in the North Pennines. Much of this was conducted over the winter period with considerable efforts from samplers in some rather adverse conditions. Indeed, whilst sampling myself I observed first hand some of the difficulties of farming in such a challenging landscape. So, when we returned at the end of May, marking the end of this project, it was fantastic to see the North Pennines at their best with nature in full flow!
To conclude the Durham project, we ran 3 days of farmer focused events in which we presented the results of the soil analysis and potential options for improving soil health to consider on farm. These events provided an excellent forum for a positive dialogue and knowledge exchange between those in attendance. I found being part of this discussion hugely beneficial providing me with greater context of farming in this distinctive landscape which does not closely resemble many farms I visit in Cornwall.
From my own experience I have found farm events are the highlight of the job and these were no different with such genuine interest and active discussion initiated by the farmers themselves. Among the discussions there was an emphasis on enhancing the natural environment and tailoring on farm operations to benefit the unique wildlife in the AONB.
It has been a busy and rewarding 6 months ending with Groundswell 2023. An opportunity to see some familiar faces, catch up with the FCT team and listen to inspiring talks from some from some of the industry’s best. I am looking forward to the second half of 2023!
Read more about Stefan and the rest of the team here.
Cover crops are usually planted within arable rotations between cash crops. They provide a multitude of benefits including building soil fertility, improving soil health and enhancing above and below ground biodiversity.
As a non-cash crop, it is important to evaluate your soils to identify any issues and decide what you want to accomplish on a field-by-field basis before you sow any cover crops. Species selection should be based on what solution you want the cover crop to provide.
Above: Cover crops (left to right) oil radish, winter vetch, phacelia and rye
There are many reasons to grow cover crops
Cover crops can offer solutions for soil compaction, fertility building, pest management, livestock feed, cover over winter and more generally, improved soil health.
Addressing compaction issues with deeper rooting species will aid in breaking up the soil and improve porosity, leading to better water infiltration alongside nutrient and gaseous exchange. Incorporating leguminous plants, such as clover, will fix nitrogen, reducing dependency on artificial fertiliser for subsequent crops. Incorporating forage crops into covers which can then be strip or paddock grazed with out-wintered livestock may reduce costs from bought in feed. If arable only, it presents an opportunity to integrate livestock from a neighbouring farm.
Maintaining ground cover and persistence of living roots in the soil can also reduce competition from pests. Certain species of cover crops can even be selected to control the lifecycle of predators. For example, in a Farmer’s Weekly case study, a farmer described his strategy for controlling the population of free-living nematodes that were destroying his vegetables and sugar beet. In this case, a specific oil radish was used that stimulated the hatching of nematode eggs whilst simultaneously providing hostile conditions for their growth, causing slowing and ultimate cessation of nematode reproduction.
Improving soil health
Cover crops are also a useful tool to build stable aggregates to improve soil structure and increase soil organic matter and soil carbon to feed the soil biology. They act as a ‘savings account’, scavenging and assimilating residual nutrients from previous cropping which will then be released upon desiccation for the next crop.
Diversity in cropping is often mooted as a key method to improve soil health and productivity and incorporating cover crops is a fantastic way to introduce much needed diversity into the arable rotation. The idea is that a diverse mix of crops will bring along a diverse mix of rooting types, structures and lengths. Each root will support an array of bacteria and fungi with different apparatus to cycle the nutrients whilst extending and expanding the root network. Above-ground you are also providing a mosaic of solar panels of all different shapes and sizes, keeping the soil covered and maximising the surface area for photosynthesis, utilising the sun’s energy and pumping carbon back into the soil.
Practical tips for establishing and destroying cover crops
For optimum results you need the cover crops to progress quickly therefore warmer soils are usually required – late summer is best for legumes and phacelia, however, brassica and grass species can be sown as late as October. It is good practice to sow multiple species in any one field to optimise competition and gain maximum benefit. This can be especially good for controlling persistent weeds.
Destruction options vary depending on weather, crop type and available machinery. Some cover crops may die off with winter frosts or in hot weather a crimp roller can usually do the job. Ensure a clear plan is drawn out before sowing cover crops and allow a 4-6 week window between destruction and sowing the next crop.
Using cover crops to increase profit margins
It’s important to think of your bottom-line productivity when assessing whether to go for cover crops. It is an added expense, but the potential savings from reduced inputs could outweigh the additional cost. The benefits of having living roots in the soil all year round, alongside cover to buffer against adverse weather conditions will also improve soil quality, protecting our soils for future harvests and most importantly building business resilience.
This blog was written by one of our Farm Carbon and Soils Advisors, Tilly Kimble-Wilde. Find out more about her and the rest of the team here.
As the Calculator Manager, I keep the Calculator running for our thousands of users and our expanding team of soil and carbon advisors.
Monday morning means a remote team meeting at FCT. In just a 45 minute conversation, I heard about advisory work going on in Aberdeen, Lincolnshire, Cumbria, Dartmoor and the Isles of Scilly.
Next up I spent time catching up on some research into specific products used in potato storage to inhibit sprouting, where they come from and what their carbon footprint might be. This was followed by an hour to respond to some user queries around how to enter data in our Calculator (including questions on batches of chickens, how to include anaerobic digestion, and requests for new specific brands of fertilisers to be included).
I squeezed in a conversation with a project partner who is helping us improve the interoperability of our Calculator so that users will be able to do more with their data, as well as one with an agronomist in Italy to discuss the needs of footprinting farms outside the UK.
After lunch it was onto a weekly meeting to check in with our software developers who are working with us to improve the interoperability of our Calculator, solving issues and scheduling the testing for the week.
There’s a lot to keep track of in the Calculator and people use it in all sorts of different ways. My next meeting was with another project partner for whom we are footprinting, not only the farms who supply them with fresh produce, but also the rest of the downstream supply chain. Engaging the whole supply chain is important if we are to understand the opportunities for decarbonisation, reduce GHG emissions and support farmers in the long run.
Towards the end of the day, I was sent some news about the release of an academic paper on hedgerow carbon sequestration, so I made sure that that reached a colleague and then rounded off the day with some prep for welcoming Michael Oldman, our new Technical Support Officer, feeling very excited that we are growing the team at FCT.
Meet all the FCT team
Find out more about Lizzy and the rest of our friendly team here.
I was lucky enough to attend two events in May which got me thinking – the first being an afternoon seminar hosted by the Dutch Embassy in London and LEAF (Scaling up Regenerative Outcomes-tackling the challenges to mobilise change on May 3rd) and the second hosted by CiWF (Extinction or Regeneration on 11th-12th May). At both events there were distinct areas of commonality, mainly around how we produce food in the future, with livestock farmers involved with both events and key questions around how we need to produce food to respond positively to the climate and nature crises we are in.
A key driver for change amongst farming businesses requires a greater level of understanding of the impacts of regenerative or agroecological farming practices; a greater understanding of their financial impact and better mechanisms for monitoring the impact of changing farming practices on farmland biodiversity. At the moment without such evidence the case for change is not obvious to all and hinders action.
The future role of grazing livestock is another key area of debate, but increasingly there is acknowledgement that if we are to reduce our reliance on artificial fertilisers which lead to emissions of nitrous oxide then we need animal manures. Alongside that we know that grazing livestock provide for other wildlife to flourish on farms as well as consuming food that cannot be processed by humans (namely grass) and large parts of the UK are incapable of producing harvestable crops. Taking this together with the high quality of food produced by ruminants for humans (high quality protein and micronutrients) the case for grazing livestock is strong. Less strong is the case for intensive livestock production where those animals consume food which could be eaten by humans and where their production has negative impacts on farmland biodiversity and degrades soil. For the sake of human health we should reduce our overall consumption of meat products and where possible move to “better” products from extensive systems.
At both events it was clear that doing nothing is not an option.
Linked to the need to change how we produce food for the sake of all of us is the need to consider what future farming supply chains need to look like to support this revolution. It is not clear that we can make the changes we need to in production systems without changes to how supply chains work. At the moment it is those businesses buying from farmers who are leading on how they want farming practice to change, yes, to support a positive response to the climate and nature challenges we face, but, also to ensure that they can reach the self imposed targets they set themselves through such initiatives as the “Science Based Targets”.
Linked to this is the question – can we separate the food that farmers produce from the potential new income streams which farmers may be able to tap into such as the voluntary markets for carbon, biodiversity net gain and nutrient neutrality? In response to this a new farming cooperative has been formed called the Environmental Farmers Group. It brings farmers together to harness scale and member cooperation to secure the best environmental results and financial returns for a wide range of natural capital goods and services. This is the first such group in the UK and operates nationwide.
Alongside ensuring that farmers are properly rewarded for the changes in practice they make to increase biodiversity and store carbon, the key requirement for agriculture which is often being lost at the moment is how best for individual farm businesses to forge their own path to net zero. The first requirement is to know your baseline and one of the best ways to establish this is to use the Farm Carbon Calculator provided free to farmers by the Farm Carbon Toolkit. Once you have established your baseline you can start to look at all the opportunities to both reduce emissions and store more carbon on your farm. Farm Carbon Toolkit offers a comprehensive toolkit providing information on all the main ways to reduce emissions and showcases how farmers are already making changes and the benefits they are finding.
Contact us
If you would like more information for your business please contact [email protected]
Written by Rob Purdew, one of our Farm Carbon and Soils Advisors.
A few weeks ago I was lucky enough to attend the final farm meeting wrapping up an Innovative Farmers trial looking at the use of diverse forage mixtures for overwintering. Apart from being the perfect demonstration of how empowering farmers to be able to trial new practices on their own farms can produce results far greater than the sum of their parts (especially when compared to multi-million pound research projects) the big take home message for me was how powerful diversity is in our farming systems, at all levels.
A diverse mix of plant species above ground is reflected in increased diversity below the soil surface and the benefits this brings are many fold. Increased organic matter, nutrient availability and the ability of the soil to hold water are just a few. When out on a farm you can always guarantee that the best soils occur where the above ground diversity is greatest, relative to the surrounding area. This is one of the reasons that herbal leys have received a lot of much deserved attention over the last 10 years.
Having had firsthand experience grazing large groups of animals on herbal leys I can certainly vouch for their benefits, and spending a lot of time digging holes on farms has only reinforced this. And where the establishment of new herbal leys don’t fit or are unaffordable, simple changes to grazing management or stitching additional species into existing pasture can be equally effective in bringing diversity into your sward. These are the things that get me up in the morning, that and the views from one of the many fields I’ve been soil sampling in recently.
Find out more about Rob Purdew and the rest of the team here.
Written by Hannah Jones, Research Manager at FCT, as part of the demo farm trials happening in our Farm Net Zero (FNZ) project.
Overview
Recommended cereal varieties are bred to look identical; the genes between individual plants have only minor levels of variation. The regulations around breeding and the sale of seed ensure consistency as well as ensuring different varieties are unique and suitable for the use (or group) stated.
Wheat, barley, and oats mainly self-pollinate which results in offspring being highly similar to the parent plant. Rye is a bit different; it is cross pollinated. Thus, a field of rye is in fact a population of rye where very plant is considerably different from its neighbour in terms of genes and sometimes in appearance.
Landraces
Seed that has been saved by communities of farmers within one particular region are called landraces. These landraces were locally adapted to specific conditions including soil type, local pests and diseases as well as management such as type of seed bed preparation. In landraces, since each plant is genetically different, the plants best suited to a given climate produced more seed. If the seed is saved and resown, the best adapted plants take up a greater proportion of the subsequent generation.
Evolutionary breeding
Over many generations, successive seed saving and resowing results in adaptation of a crop population, and thus this is called evolutionary breeding or population wheat (or barley). Evolutionary breeding can take place by default with landraces, or a population can be created.
Composite cross populations
The creation of a crop population involves cross pollinating a range of varieties that have interesting characteristics. This cross pollination needs to be done by a plant breeder. One such composite cross population was created from 20 varieties which had either good yielding or quality characteristics: the “YQ population” and was carried out by a team at The Organic Research Centre and John Innes Centre in early 2000 led by Martin Wolfe. The rules for selling grain have been designed according to the standard rules of uniformity of crop. Recent changes in regulations have now allowed the sale of population wheat if there is certified traceability.
Built-in resilience
The physical and genetic diversity within a population can increase the crop resilience to extremes in stress. Crop populations generally perform above the average of the original varieties. For example, if a particular race of a plant disease dominates in one year there will be some plants that have resistance; there will be some yield despite high disease pressure. Alternatively, deeper rooting will ensure under drought conditions there will be some plants that yield grain, whereas the shallow-rooters may be sterile.
Tim Williams (pictured below) at Erth Barton (one of our FNZ demo farmers) is trialling population wheat with his pasture cropping. The wheat has the potential to adapt to local conditions as well as being sown into an existing sward. To follow updates on our Farm Net Zero trials and hear more news, sign up to the FNZ newsletter here.
Defra published its Agri-climate report last week. The report sets out the trends in agricultural Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions over the past 30 years, the changing intensity of emissions and the results of the 2022 Farm Practice Survey questions relating to farmers intentions and actions on reducing GHG emissions.
The headline figure is that UK agriculture was responsible for 11% of total UK emissions in 2020. The time series is revised each year to take account of methodological improvements in the UK emissions inventory. It’s also worth noting that these are production-based emissions, rather than consumption-based which adjusts for trade.
During this 30-year period emissions of all greenhouse gases from agriculture have declined:
Total GHGs decreased by 16%
Nitrous oxide decreased by 20%
Methane decreased by 15%
Carbon dioxide decreased by 15%
However, it is important to note that most of this reduction occurred in the 2000’s, arising from a drop in ruminant numbers and less use of synthetic fertilisers. Since then reductions have all but stalled.
Some farmers are frustrated that the efforts they are making to reduce on farm emissions through practice change are yet to be recognised within the UK emissions inventory. This is due to the ability to accurately reflect the reductions through the current mechanisms for measurement, which are primarily measuring output versus inputs and livestock numbers and areas cultivated. This is changing as the quality of evidence on the impact of practice change becomes available.
In the meantime those same farmers are increasingly asking their suppliers for accurate emissions data on the products they buy, which is driving those suppliers to look far harder at the products they supply, which will in time lead to greater accuracy of measurement which is very welcome.
In the same report farmers were also asked their beliefs and motivations around reducing their GHG emissions. Interestingly, only 44% of farmers thought that reducing emissions would improve farm profitability in 2022, a decrease from 47% in 2021.
Of the 58% of respondents already taking action to reduce GHG emissions, the survey asked about their main motivations for doing so. This showed:
84% considered it good business practice
74% by a concern for the environment
48% to improve profitability
33% to meet regulations
23% to meet market demands
It’s FCT’s experience that improving GHG emissions and sequestration on farms is good for business and good for the environment. We also experience that markets are increasingly incentivising action, such as increasing the accuracy of input use, improving input use efficiency and making much better use of legumes and clovers across the farm.
Farmers were also asked about the barriers to reducing on farm emissions. Here, there was a clear view that lack of information and incentive are significant barriers, even amongst those who have taken action, alongside being unsure exactly what they can do to reduce farm GHG emissions.
At Farm Carbon Toolkit we can help farmers to better understand the actions they can take to reduce GHG emissions as well as providing free access to completing a farm carbon report for their farm business. We have developed a toolkit to assist farmers to identify the best GHG reduction strategies for their farms. For more information on our carbon calculator and to start your own farms report please see here.
This article was written by FCT Director Andrew Rigg for the RSA blog in December 2021. We are reposting it here with permission:
Farmers have a huge part to play in the fight against climate change. Andrew Rigg, FRSA, a farmer, and Director of the Farm Carbon-Cutting Toolkit CIC, explains how his community is taking carbon out of the atmosphere and putting it back in the soil. But, he cautions calculating the net gains and losses is far from simple.
In 2020 the RSA awarded The Farm Carbon-Cutting Toolkit Community Interest Company a Catalyst Scaling-up Grant to look at carbon sequestration on farms. We have a long name, but it does tell you what we do, and it underlines our approach to our farming community: we’re run by farmers for farmers. The award came at a time when interest in farms and carbon, and in particular soil carbon, was rising rapidly. To us, this was no surprise as the biological world, and so of course farming, offers one of the very few effective mechanisms for drawing down carbon from the atmosphere. Put simply, the total size of the soil carbon reservoir exceeds the total mass of carbon in vegetation and atmosphere combined. There is room for more to be stored, and with about 45 per cent of global soils under some form of agricultural use, farming has a vital climate mitigation role to play.
The grant enabled us to scale up our existing soil carbon sampling, develop improved measurement protocols, and examine how farmers might be remunerated for climate services. We talked to a lot of people over the year as interest grew in the subject. While some questions were answered, many more emerged and assumptions got challenged amidst a wide array of parties and conflicting interests in carbon measurement.
Satellite companies are seeking to measure soil carbon from space, some are flying drones over farms to assess carbon locked into hedgerows. Former derivative traders are trying to work out financial instruments to allow trading of reliable farm carbon offsets. Food companies are trying to understand how carbon flows from field to fork, and farming service companies are seeking to integrate carbon into their services for their farming clients. Meanwhile, farmers are looking to not only improve their soil, but to see if their lost EU payments can be replaced by payments for carbon.
As carbon increases in value, the question “Who owns the carbon” is of increasing importance.
There is a race to get to net zero. Measurement of carbon in natural systems is complex, so how will we know, not only when we are making progress, but how to prioritise the most effective strategies? Farm Carbon Toolkit has developed a farm carbon calculator for farmers to better understand how carbon flows through their farms. This is a “tool” rather than an “audit”. So, recent lower yields and a damp harvest (requiring extra energy to be used to dry grain in store) means the author’s wheat footprint in 2021 is much higher than in the dry and high-yielding harvest of 2020. Variability is everywhere.
Nevertheless, we need the measurement, recording, verification and the appropriate allocation of carbon. Codes exist for woodland creation and peat-land restoration. We are members of a team working on a Farm Soil Carbon Code, and recently started work on a code for hedges. These codes are vital to give confidence to any organisation that may be entering a financial contract with respect to carbon. DEFRA is looking at “blended financial instruments”: how might public payment for public goods be combined with private sector offsets to best achieve carbon drawdown, the removal of carbon from the atmosphere? This is particularly relevant where biodiversity and carbon interests overlap.
Even with a robust set of codes, many questions remain around carbon offsets. Measuring small amounts of carbon absorbed per field is costly both to verify and to aggregate into a financial “instrument”. Consideration needs to be given to the length of the agreement, and the fact that offset values may vary as the price of carbon changes. The permanence of the management changes must be secured; legal agreements need to be drawn up.
If the offset is delivering other co-benefits such as biodiversity gains, does this alter its value? If the sequestration has been achieved because of other funded activity it is perhaps not allowable? Importantly, would an offset interfere with other supply contracts that the farmer wants to sign; can their produce still be considered low carbon if they have also sold carbon offsets?
Crucially, will the offset provide real net gain? A switch to a farm management practice that delivers carbon sequestration in one place, may, if the result is less food being produced, have the effect of creating a bigger carbon footprint elsewhere. This is known as the “leakage issue”. As we achieve local carbon sequestration, can we be sure that collectively these national improvements are not actually making the global situation worse? We in the UK have off-shore some of our manufacturing footprint to China. Can we be sure that a UK offset is not actually increasing the problem? Imported food may have a bigger carbon footprint than home grown produce.
There is a great deal to consider, and complexity to manage, but putting in place financial incentives in order to accelerate carbon sequestration while continuing to produce food is an urgent and important task.
Land use change can be one of the biggest emitters of carbon in agriculture as previously locked-up carbon is released. The potential extent of land use changes implied by the extra food needed in Africa (the UN projects there will be twice as many people in Africa by 2055 than in 2025) makes it imperative that farmers globally not only understand their most carbon-efficient way of farming, but also integrate sequestration into their farm management. In addition to carbon, there are also social and ethical reasons why the global food trade needs to be better managed. But avoiding land use change is possibly the most critical issue in the food chain, for both biodiversity and climate reasons.
Climate futurist Alex Steffen writes that “We’re not yet ready for what has already happened.” We need to also prepare for what is about to happen. The balance between population, diet, climate and biodiversity is set to dominate the next decade. In the UK’s parochial race to net zero, we must not lose sight of global net gain.
Collectively we all need to get a whole lot smarter about how carbon flows through the food chain so we can develop effective strategies for change.
Our work in accounting for carbon within our farming communities continues; you can find out more on our website here.
As well as being Director of the Farm Carbon-Cutting Toolkit, Andrew Rigg farms a 400-acre family arable farm in Hampshire. He co-founded the Environment Centre in Southampton in 1992 and was its chair for 18 years.
COP26 in Glasgow brought a sharp focus on human activities that create greenhouse gases. There were many welcome announcements on reducing methane from oil and gas, cutting coal, limiting deforestation, “keeping 1.5 alive”, and a whole other host of measures. While many campaigners and leaders agree that the pledges do not go far enough, progress has been made, momentum must continue and these pledges must now be translated into action on all scales from grassroots to governments, across the world.
Building carbon in soils is a win-win for farmers and society
But one major issue was not given adequate attention – food and farming. Representing around 21-37% of global carbon emissions and something so fundamental to our daily lives, the lack of discussion is baffling. Is it because farming is a knotty problem and governments think there aren’t easy solutions? There could be many reasons for this lack of discussion, but the net effect is a lack of policy and action driving the collective carbon footprint of food and farming in the right direction.
At Farm Carbon Toolkit we’ve been working on the ground, encouraging, informing and enabling farmers and growers to cut their carbon and increase sequestration on their farms for more than 10 years. We enable them to measure their carbon footprint, using the Farm Carbon Calculator, and point them to tried and tested solutions, advice, inspirational events and other learnings through the Toolkit.
The level of interest in our work has increased hugely over the past 18 months and we see that as very encouraging. Many farmers and growers want to reduce their carbon footprint, and can see the benefits. Legislation might well demand it soon, and some supply chains are already requiring their farmers to start going on a path towards net zero carbon, many of which point towards 2030 as an end date. Eight years from now…that’s not long.
How can farms be net zero?
All farms have greenhouse gas (carbon) emissions, such as from fuels, fertilisers, livestock, bought in materials, and soils. These all have to be accounted for, and steps must be made to minimise these emissions. Reducing emissions is the first step and every effort must be made to go as low as possible.
However farms are one of just two main industries in the UK that can also sequester (absorb) carbon – the other being forestry. The soils, hedges and woodlands of our farms can, when managed in the right way, lock-up carbon over a long time and keep it there. In the case of soils, when farms build organic matter it not only sequesters carbon, but also improves soil fertility, crop growth, water management, and biodiversity.
When the carbon emissions and sequestration are added together – the carbon balance, it’s quite possible for farms to be net zero, or better still ‘sub zero’ where they absorb more carbon than they emit. Or should that be ‘carbon positive’?!
Farms that have already made it
Plenty of farms that are using the Farm Carbon Calculator are already net or sub zero, including livestock, arable and horticultural businesses. Through a combination of reducing emissions and maximising sequestration, these farms are showing that farms can produce quality food, run successful businesses, and be part of the solution to the climate crisis.
Farmers and growers have a wide range of actions open to them, such as generating excess renewable energy and exporting it, reducing cultivations (which both saves fuel and increases soil organic matter), planting and better maintaining hedgerows, building soil organic matter, reducing fertiliser use (which also saves money), and changing the way livestock are fed.
There are huge business advantages to being net or sub zero – reducing costs, access emerging market trends, being in line with future subsidy systems, and morally doing the ‘right thing’.
Farming to be part of the solution
When farms transition to sub zero they are actually becoming a part of the climate solution in a very active way. When farms absorb more carbon than they emit, carbon dioxide is sucked out of the atmosphere providing a mechanism of helping to reduce the climate crisis.
This is clearly a positive in environmental terms, but also socially because it provides an empowering connection with customers to say that your business is doing such a good thing for society and the planet. And for customers to have the opportunity to buy carbon negative (or positive – the terms can be confusing!) food.
The bigger picture
We believe that many more farms could and should transition to sub zero carbon as soon as possible. It is certainly possible, the benefits are clear, and the planet requires it. So what’s stopping it?
Part of it lies with farmers and growers themselves, in having the knowledge and drive to do so. Learning new techniques, knowledge-exchange with peers, and rethinking business models and practices. We have seen many forward thinking and dedicated farmers achieve fantastic transformations in the carbon performance of their businesses.
Farmers learning about good soil management
But critically, there is also a policy context in how the environment in which businesses work can be tweaked to favour low carbon practices. Some change is happening but much more is needed, and faster. The legal framework for business is important, ensuring that environmentally damaging practices are outlawed , whilst assessing the equivalence of imported produce. The subsidy regime must support sub zero farming in the future. Supply chains need to require and support businesses to meet net (or sub) zero targets.
The whole food system needs reform, from the farmers and growers who produce food, through the packhouses, retailers and processors that sell us food, through to us all who eat the food we buy. A systemic shift towards a better food system that values low carbon, low impact, quality food over merely price and convenience. The same level of thinking that got us into this mess will not give us the solutions we need to fix the problems.
Perhaps what’s missing though is the big picture. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and maybe what’s needed is a movement. Going back to COP26, what was important was the political context. One success of Glasgow is that the need to act is not in dispute now, it’s the how. The same doesn’t feel true in the farming industry…yet.
Taking a lead
Leadership is crucial for the advancement of critical issues, and in the area of farming and the climate crisis leadership does not appear to be in abundance. Equally, leadership by businesses collectively can lead to huge change, and this is being shown to be true with the climate crisis in other industries. Farmers and growers could become that lead in this sector.
Improving the carbon performance of a farm can go hand in hand with a whole host of other benefits, including more biodiversity (above and below ground), water management, reduced inputs, better soil management, and better food quality. These qualities, and many more, are also key to improvements in the environmental and social impacts of our farming and at FCT we see these wider benefits as critically important too, and know that many farmers and growers care deeply about this also.
So why not build momentum for Zero Carbon Farming 2030 in the UK? Is it possible to achieve? Maybe. Should it be achieved? The moral argument is hard to refute. Sometimes a vision and target is what’s needed, then work out how you get there. No one is pretending it will be easy, painless or cheap. But the planet is facing a crisis and we in farming should be part of the solution, not the problem.
There’s a rise in farmers and landowners interested in getting paid for carbon sequestration. Yet in the UK, an absence of robust guidance, protocols and industry experience makes this space feel like the “wild west”. Farmers are at risk of being misled, while NGOs and industry groups are struggling to form clear positions in what’s a fast-moving and confusing landscape.
At the Farm Carbon Toolkit (FCT), we help farmers to measure, understand and act on their greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). It’s our mission, as a farmer-led organisation, to help farmers become knowledgeable and empowered on this topic, building profitable and resilient businesses that also help to restore our fragile and deteriorating ecosystems. Reducing GHG emissions from farms is a priority and all farmers can begin now.
Therefore we take a close interest in the emerging opportunities for farmers and landowners to access payments for carbon sequestration and storage on their farms. Through our work, we are witnessing more carbon payment opportunities coming through supply chains, grant-funded projects, as well as future options within ELMs and in voluntary carbon offset markets.
With our deep understanding of GHG emissions in agriculture, combined with on-the-ground experience of measuring farm and soil carbon, we are helping to inform various schemes and start-ups. What we witness is mixed. Some schemes are well-designed and robust in their approach to supporting farmers and having impact. While some are less carefully designed, with limited transparency and a possibility of unintended consequences. Farmers, landowners and organisations have limited guidance on best practice and a lack of standards make comparison between schemes challenging.
Context: how a Net Zero paradigm is renewing interest in offsets
As climate breakdown becomes ever more visible, many people and organisations are scrambling to make major cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. In recent years, there has been a proliferation of “net zero” carbon commitments from some of the world’s biggest companies and institutions. To meet these ambitious targets, organisations will need to use every tool at their disposal. This means not only reducing emissions as far as possible, but also investing in activities such as “nature-based solutions” to cover any residual emissions.
Achieving net-zero across society means a gigantic shift in business practice; reinventing business models and shifting the products and services available to citizens. Culturally, industries are in different places on what this means. Some industry leaders are recognising and preparing to implement radical changes, yet can often be working alongside others who are constrained by a tendency towards business-as-usual. What many companies have in common though, is a desire to buy offsets in the short-term to help achieve net zero faster – and many are now turning to farm carbon.
For example, Microsoft recently purchased $500,000 of soil carbon credits from Wilmot Cattle Company, who own an 11,000 acre farm in New South Wales. In the US, various brokers exist to pay farmers for carbon, many using an agreed protocol and a proposed Growing Climate Solutions Act may require the USDA to help farmers access these carbon markets in the future.
Why Offset Schemes Require A Special Scrutiny
There are various ways in which farmers can be supported to shift towards more regenerative agricultural practices. For example, via government subsidies, philanthropic projects, landowner initiatives and through supply chains taking an “insetting” approach. The selling of carbon or biodiversity offsets is another route, coming with a greater need for accurate, trusted measurement and verification.
There is currently a lot of excitement around farm and soil carbon offsets in the UK and various new schemes are launching. A recent farmers’ attitude survey we conducted suggested that 30% of farmers are “very keen and willing” to partake in offsetting schemes. Meanwhile, 27% of respondents were uncomfortable and suspicious about this topic.
FCT survey results from May 2021: farmers’ attitudes towards selling carbon or biodiversity offsets
We urge farmers to recognise the risks that exist around these schemes and ask tough questions to any organisation seeking to “buy” your carbon. To support a more credible and robust environment for farm and soil carbon payments, we are part of a consortium of organisations working towards a UK Farm and Soil Carbon Code.
With carbon offsets – and any other mechanism to support change – there can be risks of driving unintended consequences, especially if we only focus on a narrow goal of carbon reduction. Instead, taking a “food systems” lens to the way we design projects can help us in building a healthier, more socially just food system.
3 Watch-Outs for Farmers Selling Carbon Offsets
To ensure farmers are empowered and clear on the terms in which their whole-farm or soil carbon credits are being sold, we believe farmers should demand the following from organisations seeking to pay them for carbon offsets:
1) What claims can you make in the future about your carbon footprint?
In a carbon offset, the sequestered carbon being sold is effectively taken off the farm or landowners carbon balance sheet and appears on the balance sheet of another business or individual: the “buyer”. This means that the buyer has an exclusive claim to the carbon reductions or removals made by the farm.
What is often overlooked or missing in the marketing materials of offset intermediaries, is that the farm may no longer be able to make claims about any associated produce being “low carbon”. While the farmer may be doing all sorts of positive practices, some or all of their sequestered carbon is on the balance book of the “buyer’ of carbon credits. A farm claiming it is low-carbon could be misleading, amounting to double claiming, propagating a false view of our overall progress against climate change.
For illustration, if all farmers in the UK sold their sequestered carbon via offsets to private companies (that often operate beyond national borders), then the NFU’s Net Zero farming ambition may become impossible to reach, as would the climate pledges of many food retailers and brands who have made Net Zero pledges covering their Scope 3 emissions.
This is a challenge and risk for farmers. Those selling direct-to-consumer may talk about their positive practices but may feel in a tricky position when explaining their carbon credentials, especially if their sequestered carbon has been purchased by an oil or airline company, who are some of the more prominent industry groups currently seeking offsets.
Farmers selling through their supply chains may also be in a weaker position. Retailers are increasingly wanting to buy low-carbon produce and cannot do this if the farm has sold much of it’s sequestered carbon via a private offset. If the farm carbon offset sector follows the recommended principles around double-counting and double-claiming, then farmers may find themselves less desirable to customers.
2) Does the scheme have a transparent, robust methodology on permanence, additionality, measurement and verification?
The credibility of a high quality offset can be tested through its approach to:
Permanence: In the ideal offset project, reversals of carbon emissions are physically impossible or extremely unlikely. Standard convention in offset markets has been to guarantee that carbon is kept out of the atmosphere for 100 years. Yet, this is not practical for soil carbon, which is considered as “short-lived” storage carrying a higher risk of reversal. In the USA, Nori manage permanence by offering short-term credits that expire after 10 years. In Europe, Soil Capital has a 5 year crediting period, in which farmers can earn and generate credits, followed by a 10 year retention period. Carbon Farmers of Australia must choose between 25 and 100 year permanence guarantee.
Additionality: This is about whether the payment the farmer receives plays a decisive role in helping remove carbon from the atmosphere. Additionality is essential for the quality and credibility of the carbon offset market. Yet, especially in farming, its determination is subjective and deceptively difficult. Is this payment providing the make-or-break difference?
Measurement, verification and scope: This is a complex area. For example, what’s included in the scope of the carbon footprint? Is the scheme considering the whole-farm’s carbon balance, or is it based on a per-hectare field basis? For example, in the USA, White Oak Pastures received scrutiny last year as their claims about having carbon negative beef neglected their wider, whole-farm footprint and landuse.
For measurement and verification, what protocols and tools are being used to measure and verify the sequestration? Is the payment based on actual field measurements (and if so, to what depth, to what lab test, resolution and frequency), or are they computer models of how carbon stocks are expected to change with different practices? How much of a buffer is in place for uncertainty? Can we trust those models, given how nascent our understanding is around soil carbon sequestration? Are they based on the UK context?
3) Demand transparency and having a choice in “the buyer“
It’s a common principle that organisations seeking to offset through farm and soil carbon should prioritise cutting their own emissions: minimising the need for offsets in the first place. As outlined in the Oxford Offsetting Principles, buyers of offsets should also publicly disclose their current emissions, accounting practices, reduction strategies and targets to reach net zero.
Furthermore, for the sake of the seller’s reputation, we believe farmers and landowners should also have some say or agreement to who’s buying the carbon offset. We believe geographically local carbon offsets are preferable, as it further assists with transparency and can provide an opportunity for the wider public to understand offsetting.
What next?
We are keen that farmers are incentivised and rewarded for farming sustainably. This may include payments for carbon reduction, building soil health and increasing sequestration. To this end, we’re aware our Farm Carbon Calculator is beginning to be used as a helpful tool to help guide such payments.
We will continue to draw on our practical, on-the-ground experience and expertise to contribute to projects in this space – always keen to support and advocate for robust and credible projects, schemes and marketplaces. Looking ahead, we have various innovations and services in the pipeline to support better, more accurate and meaningful carbon assessment. We’re also keen to continue contributing to the science and understanding of GHG emissions in agriculture. There’s lots to crack on with!
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. This includes analytics cookies to understand website traffic and how users interact with our website. We do not use any advertising cookies.
You may accept or refuse our use of cookies, or learn more at the link provided.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.
Recent Comments