We shall have a stand there (stand 413) and we will be offering individual 15 minute sessions to farmers to help you to understand farm carbon footprinting. We can answer any questions you may have, and show you how to get started on your own farm carbon footprint.
When:
The times for the 15 minute consultations at the drop in ‘surgery’ are:
Publication of information resource on remote sensing and probe based technologies for farmers seeking to enter the voluntary carbon market.
Farm Carbon Toolkit (FCT) has published information to assist landowners and farmers when choosing how to monitor their soil carbon stocks. FCT is announcing the release of a document that breaks down the methodology and verification of some of the major remote sensing and probes based technologies that offer soil carbon quantification services.
Many farm businesses are starting to look at baselining carbon storage on their farms. Where they are looking to enter voluntary carbon markets it is necessary to do this baselining accurately. For these businesses the costs associated with baselining soil carbon levels can be prohibitive. Responding to this cost barrier, a number of remote sensing and novel technologies are coming onto the market. However it can be very difficult for businesses to know which technology to go with and indeed what level of accuracy is required.
Farm Carbon Toolkit’s document reviews some of the major remote sensing and probe based technologies that are delivering soil carbon quantification services by describing the methodology and detailing any verification process the organisation has undertaken. The aim is to help farmers to make more informed decisions should they wish to measure soil carbon storage and engage in the voluntary carbon market.
This 18 page document is set within the context of the release of the new minimum standards for the UK Soil Carbon Code, which is aligned with the Peatland Code and UK Woodland Carbon Codes. These codes set out the minimum standards for monitoring and measuring carbon stocks within peatlands, woodlands and soils which should be adhered to when entering the voluntary carbon market.
Farm Carbon Toolkit is an independent, farmer-led Community Interest Company, supporting farmers to measure, understand and act on their greenhouse gas emissions, while improving their business resilience for the future.
For over a decade, Farm Carbon Toolkit has delivered a range of practical projects, tools and services that have inspired real action on the ground. Organisations they work with include the Duchy of Cornwall, First Milk,Tesco, Yeo Valley and WWF. Their Farm Carbon Calculator is a leading on-farm carbon audit tool, used by over seven thousand farmers in the UK and beyond. To find out more visit www.farmcarbontoolkit.org.uk
In this 40 min long podcast titled ‘From the Ground Up: How Important is Soil Health to our Future Food System‘, This is Altruistiq‘s host Jamie Dujardin asked questions delving deep into issues surrounding:
The challenges and opportunities of soil carbon measurement
The commercial opportunities for actors across the value chain (farmers to retailers)
What a future farming system looks like
They talk about key levers that businesses and farmers can take to scale soil health initiatives and offer some positivity and enthusiasm for the road ahead.
Hear how the work we do at FCT supports farmers by giving tangible, practical and applicable ways to build soil carbon and reduce emissions, whilst also building on farm resilience without affecting productivity. Also, hear how this relates to the ongoing work at Yeo Valley, where Tim Mead and his wider team are not only producing healthy nutritious food, but building soil health, reducing their emissions and addressing issues regarding resilience in the farming sector.
Listen here:
The podcast is available here and on most major podcast platforms.
The second in our series of farm walks was with David Miller in Hampshire. This year’s Arable Soil Farmer of the Year, David is keen to demonstrate how a regenerative system can be both simple and profitable even on challenging soils. Managing 700ha of majority Grade 3 land in a purely arable rotation, David focuses on four of the main pillars of regenerative farming – keeping the soil covered, diversifying the rotation, maintaining a living root and minimising soil movement – proving a regenerative system without livestock.
The 700ha farm has been managed under a regenerative system for the previous 7 years, focusing on minimising tillage and incorporating diverse cover crops into the rotation. The move was triggered by rising input costs without the reciprocal rise in expected yield – a change of system was needed to improve profitability and farm resilience. David explains,
“The overriding ambition is for our soils to be much more biologically active and more resilient. Resilience can be defined as, being able to function and produce a healthy crop with minimal interference, either mechanical or chemical and to continue to do this year after year”.
Initially cautious to make the transition, due to the perceived cost of a system focusing on the soil, David conducted a series of trials over a 5 year period; following this the investment was made for a no-till drill to maximise the benefits of the cover crops within the rotation.
With the farm located around 600 ft above sea level and containing large quantities of flint, the soil David manages is challenging from many perspectives. Moving to the no-till system has seen vast improvements to the fixed costs of the farm,
“We have much less depreciation on machinery and save a lot of diesel compared to our previous practices.”
David reveals that prior to their transition when conventionally farming they averaged 85 litres/ha of diesel for the whole year compared to only 50 litres/ha now. The current system also means there is a lower staffing requirement, with the 700ha farm only having one full time member of staff supported by two part-time workers to assist with spraying and harvesting.
Reducing inputs has been a key focus of David’s throughout the journey so far. Historically DAP (diammonium phosphate) has been used to establish crops alongside applications of potassium however now with the cover crop system in place this is deemed no longer necessary.
“The harder you push a farm conventionally with high inputs the harder it is to come back”
– David suggests.
Inputs were steadily reduced over time as the system came into balance, he explains
“The cycling phosphate and potassium was actually at a deficit for a few years as it was tied up in our cover crops. Over time this system has equalised and now we are self-sufficient, cover crops mine the nutrients that were once unavailable within soil that we need for the arable system”.
The farm has had no phosphate or potassium fertiliser for 7 years and has reduced nitrogen fertiliser by 25%, when explaining how he has achieved this he states,
“We have adopted a nitrogen dose reduction strategy alongside making cropping changes (spelt wheat or spring milling wheat rather than winter wheat) whilst lowering chemical costs through a more targeted approach combined with a more flexible risk strategy – we put less money at risk in each crop and therefore we are able to budget for lower yields and margin is our driver.”
David is a believer of testing theories and trialling ideas on the farm, a fertiliser rate trial demonstrated that up to half of the total nitrogen applied was used to produce the last tonne of yield (9 tonnes to 10 tonnes/ha) –
“We are trying to get a consistent yield from a consistent application of fertiliser, if we can understand what’s going on in the soil a little bit more we are likely to be able to reduce our synthetic fertiliser even more”.
Reducing the spray program has also made great savings from both an input and fuel perspective. Insecticides are rarely used on the farm despite the large OSR acreage, instead relying on providing habitats for invertebrate species and beneficial predators to deliver pest control. This has been encouraged by establishing 4 metre margins around all the fields with indigenous species such as mayweed, speedwell and wild carrot which historically would have been considered arable weeds, but provide the habitat to encourage the species within their own local ecosystem. David describes this thinking,
“A healthy, active soil is just one component of a healthy, active environment – getting the biological balance in the soil requires, or results in, getting a balance of invertebrates, predators, beneficials and pests”.
An example of this promotion of beneficials and biological influence on the cropping system is the companion crops used during establishment of the oilseed rape, David explains,
“We try and keep the companions in for as long as we can to help with the mycorrhizal fungi but we avoid having them in the crop at harvest as it can make combining tricky – the species we choose are either not tolerant to the frost or can usually be taken out with the normal herbicide program.”
Establishing the crop using this system has meant no insecticide has been used in 4 years, with no requirement for starter fertiliser, “The seed and companion crop are about £30 per hectare, so if we loose a little bit it is not the end of the world – we’ve given up trying to keep a bad crop of rape”.
Aardvark oilseed rape drilled on the 20th of August, which is farm saved following euric acid testing. Drilled using the Horizon with only the front set of cultures to give 40cm rows which has been drilled with a companion crop of buckwheat, berseem and crimson clover.
Having moved away into a no-till drilling system has itself presented new challenges with crop establishment as David tells the group
“As we no longer apply fertiliser at drilling and have very little mineralisation of nitrogen through cultivation establishment can be much slower. However, once crops are established they seem far more resilient and having had a dig they have a far more developed root architecture than in our previous system.”
The rooting patterns now achieved on the farm also provide the crops with a better foundation during tricky weather, with David observing that in particular the wheat can now stand longer periods of drought. Growing crops such as the spelt can leave a lot of straw residue behind after harvest, David explains that a proportion of the straw will be baled but the majority is chopped and left to biology to disperse,
“If we are confident that we have a good worm population that helps with the straw management following harvest as they take it down into the soil and decompose it.”
When discussing cover crop choice and management David has a key strategy,
“The cover crops which are deemed to be the ‘best’ are those with big top growth and leafy canopies. I however am interested in what’s going on below ground – big cover crops with a lot of above ground biomass use a lot of the available nitrogen in the soil and we don’t tend to see the same benefit to the following crops”.
David blends his own cover crop mixtures from straights, aiming to spend approximately £30/ha on the seed.
A field of oilseed rape established with an in-row companion crop of buckwheat, phacelia and vetch.
David discusses his thinking in choosing cover crop combinations,
“We used to have a lot of radish in the covers in the early days, we found this led to finding a massive amount of slugs. So we therefore decided to remove brassicas from the mixes for a few years, we are now just starting to put a couple back into the mix as they seem to dominate very quickly.”
Crops are established either using a Horizon DSX drill or on occasion a Horsch C04 if there is a large quantity of straw when drilling cover crops. In regards to establishing the following crop after the cover David describes his approach,
“If we get a chance in the winter with a hard enough frost we will come out with a set of cambridge rolls to start to terminate some of the leafier covers, but eventually we will use a low rate of glyphosate (2-3 litres of 360g) before we drill in the spring”.
David explains his thinking behind an overwinter crop of sunflowers, phacelia, buckwheat, gold of pleasure, radish and vetch before planting spring wheat for milling.
David maintains flexibility within the system by not having a set rotation and also using environmental stewardship options to aid trickier areas of ground, he explains
“I would say that our soil structure is improving across most of the farm – some heavier fields which have been more reluctant to accept no-till have been included in our stewardship scheme and planted with AB15 or a 2-year legume mix. Also, active clovers in place for 2 years have formed very strong tap roots and improved the soil structure a lot.”
Since converting from a high-input, conventional system there has been many notable changes in the quality and condition of the soil, David explains
“It has probably taken 4 or 5 years, but the soils are now visibly more friable and better structured – this is underpinned by the old and living roots as well as the many worm channels. Observational changes can happen in the first couple of years but the quantifiable changes become far more apparent after around 5.”
David is keen on assessing the land through many different approaches to measure the resilience and functionality of the soil, he says
“Slake tests are showing soils are less fragile and hold together better when we get heavy rain, this is seen in the fields as our infiltration rates have definitely increased and the fields are much cleaner following downpours.”
David is also a strategic farm for the AHDB where he looks to be able to quantify some of the anecdotal theories in partnership with NIAB, increasing the confidence in the practices for other farmers considering converting,
“The regenerative system is such a long-term journey it is sometimes difficult to know what to try and measure, let alone how”.
In particular being able to understand the best approach to lessening the usage of fungicides and nitrogen alongside the impact healthy soils has upon the nutritional density of the food produced.
The 2023 Soil Farmer of the Year competition launches on the 5th of December 2022. Established in 2015, the competition is run by the Farm Carbon Toolkit and helps find, promote and champion UK farmers who are passionate about their soils. With awards presented annually at Groundswell Agricultural Show, the competition is widely recognised within the industry and beyond as a fantastic platform for farmers to share their knowledge and experience. If you are interested in entering the competition or would like to read further articles about previous winners please visit the Farm Carbon Toolkit Soil Farmer of the Year website here.
The group in a field which has been direct drilled for 9 years, it is now planted with Extase winter wheat following a previous crop of beans. The wheat was established by straw raking the bean stubble and then drilling straight in.
Countryside COP is a hybrid conference held to align with COP to create space for the agricultural sector and rural economies to push ahead on climate change and sustainability. It was established to allow rural communities to come together and illustrate the opportunities that are available, along with contributions that are already underway to reach net zero. The event is also an opportunity to explore adaptation options, something of increasing importance as our weather patterns become more extreme, as seen so starkly seen this year.
The first Countryside COP was set up in 2021 by the Agriculture & Land Use Alliance (formerly Greenhouse Gas Action Plan GHGAP). Organisations in the Alliance include:
ADAS
Agricultural Engineers Association (AEA)
Agriculture & Horticulture Development Board (AHDB)
Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC)
Country Land & Business Association (CLA)
Linking Environment & Farming (LEAF)
NIAB
National Farmers Union (NFU)
In an NFU article leading up to Countryside COP1 the Alliance said
“This journey is complex, but there is no shortage of professionalism and knowledge within the rural community, and all who support food and farming. This is the time to utilise and invest in this expertise so we can help contribute to the government’s net-zero target, all while continuing to produce fantastic, affordable food for people at home and abroad”.
This year Farm Carbon Toolkit was one of a range of organisations including universities and farming bodies contributing to CCOP2. Through a plethora of 15 events running from the 10th-14th October all across the UK CCOP2 speakers were hosted from as far afield as Australia, Ghana and Zambia.
At Farm Carbon Toolkit we teamed up with our project partners at Yeo Valley who kindly hosted us, to talk about making the transition towards regenerative agriculture and about the findings so far in the project. The event was attended by a range of participants including farmers, education providers, NGOs and the general public.
FCT’s event on ‘Soil Health and Water Security’ discussed the benefits that agroforestry can bring to grassland systems. It was demonstrated that the presence of trees can buffer extreme weather conditions such as the drought experienced this summer by supporting grass growth and therefore livestock performance, as it has done at Yeo Valley. Agroforestry can enable soils to retain more moisture, limiting the impacts of both droughts and flooding, so has a direct climate change mitigation potential.
Other findings demonstrated at the event included discussing how research carried out with Yeo Valley farmers has suggested that soil management practices, such as growing herbal leys, can increase soil carbon deposition below 10cm. The amount of carbon this is sequestering due to the range of practice uptake on trial sites is significant – it demonstrates a carbon stock improvement of between 20-40t/c/ha.
The event also showcased how significant discussions and events like this one can be in improving carbon literacy amongst attendees, crucial in moving forward together.
To read more about the other events in the series and the insightful recommendations that came from them please see here.
As part of our commitment to being the best carbon calculator for farmers and growers in the UK, we have just launched another upgrade. This comes hot on the heels of another major upgrade in November, and shows our commitment to the many thousands of users that value the Farm Carbon Calculator.
To ensure we are reflecting the latest science, this upgrade features major improvements to emissions factors and methodologies for the livestock, crops and fertiliser sections. Using the latest IPCC and UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory data, we always aim to provide users with the most up to date emissions and sequestration factors.
For users though the biggest changes will appear in the interface, which has received a major design overhaul. Focussing on how users can better understand results, what they need in terms of outputs, and how the data input process flows, we believe we’ve got the best version of the Farm Carbon Calculator yet.
Carbon balance is clear and easy to understand
A new feature is benchmarking, so farmers and growers can see where they are compared with other users, total emissions or carbon balance per tonne of product and per hectare. This applies to overall business emissions, and if working on a product basis, then against other similar products (e.g. wheat) also.
Understanding your carbon footprint (orange) against other users
Data entry has been improved to give a clearer layout, and useful information to help users understand what information is required and what it will be used to calculate.
Data entry, showing improved charts with understanding of proportions and amounts of carbon for each itemUseful information is in the ‘i’ buttons when you hover-over them
Emissions are now also shown in detail, by Scope (1,2 and 3), and Greenhouse Gas type (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide) for each section.
Detailed emissions breakdown table
The Farm Details page is much more clearly laid out, also with helpful tips.
Farm details section
There is clearer navigation in the Reports section too, where you can Edit data, Download your report as a PDF or CSV, compare against other reports you’ve done, or Share your report with others. At any time you can go back to your reports.
The Nitrogen Module is clearer now and gives you a better understanding of the Nitrogen flows through your farm.
Nitrogen Balance
We hope you find the tool even more useful than before. There are lots of FAQs on the Calculator home page, and if you get stuck you can always contact us for more help.
We’re pleased to announce the launch of a new guide for monitoring soil carbon. This practical field, farm and lab guide aims to answer key questions for robust on-farm field monitoring of soil carbon and associated indicators of soil health.
This guide has been produced as part of the Soil Carbon project and written in collaboration with Duchy College, Plymouth University, Rothamsted Research and the Farm Carbon Toolkit. It is designed and printed with kind support from the Farm Net Zero project, funded by the National Lottery Climate Action Fund.
Who is it for?
This practical guide is relevant to farmers seeking to measure and understand their soil carbon stocks – as well as landowners, advisors and researchers.
Supply chains and organisations seeking to reward farmers for improving soil carbon stocks will also find this guide helpful. However it should be noted that it’s not written as a formal standard or detailed protocol. The guide will be accompanied with detailed supplementary materials stemming from the ERDF Agri-Tech Cornwall funded “Soil Carbon Project”(2018 to 2021).
Why is this important?
Robust estimates of soil carbon stocks can be complicated. Not least because soil carbon levels are constantly in-flux with in-field variation. Estimates are also heavily influenced by the way in which we collect, process and analyse soil samples. In the Soil Carbon project, we’ve been working with research partners to investigate how soil carbon estimates are influenced by variables such as when the samples are taken, how many samples are taken and at what pattern across the field.
What does the guide cover?
The guide consists of answers to the following core questions:
When to conduct your soil carbon sampling?
What fields to select on your farm?
How to sample within those fields?
At what depths should samples be taken?
How often should you repeat your sampling?
How to collect and prepare your samples?
What are the options for the lab analyses?
What are the main soil health indicators that should be monitored?
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!
A new paper has been released in Nature Sustainability this month which highlights the potential for soil carbon sequestration as a climate solution. You can access the full paper here. The abstract is below.
Mitigating climate change requires clean energy and the removal of atmospheric carbon. Building soil carbon is an appealing way to increase carbon sinks and reduce emissions owing to the associated benefits to agriculture. However, the practical implementation of soil carbon climate strategies lags behind the potential, partly because we lack clarity around the magnitude of opportunity and how to capitalize on it. Here we quantify the role of soil carbon in natural (land-based) climate solutions and review some of the project design mechanisms available to tap into the potential. We show that soil carbon represents 25% of the potential of natural climate solutions (total potential, 23.8 Gt of CO2-equivalent per year), of which 40% is protection of existing soil carbon and 60% is rebuilding depleted stocks.
Soil carbon comprises 9% of the mitigation potential of forests, 72% for wetlands and 47% for agriculture and grasslands.
Soil carbon is important to land-based efforts to prevent carbon emissions, remove atmospheric carbon dioxide and deliver ecosystem services in addition to climate mitigation.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. 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