Race to reach carbon target
Huge investment in increasing UK’s woodland cover, but we mustn’t neglect grasslands
The farming column and Country Matters articles are written by Andrew Davis, who welcomes suggested topics for coverage. He can be contacted on (01635) 564526, or email editor@ newburynews.co.uk
FOOD production may be the most significant use of rural land in this country, but there are many others that provide benefits, notably nature conservation, public access and mitigation of climate change.
As the environment sits at the top of many political agendas, so these other land uses are promoted.
The UK’s secession from the European Union and thus the Common Agricultural Policy means that we are developing our own agricultural and environmental policies.
Direct subsidies to farmers are being phased out, to be replaced by public money for public goods, but funding is increasingly coming from the private sector too.
This has been established in certain sectors for some time. Assurance schemes require a level of wildlife habitat while food processors such as Jordans set minimum standards for their conservation grade.
Water companies pay farmers to reduce diffuse pollution and grow buffer strips alongside watercourses.
But climate change has become the top priority, especially with the Cop26 conference being held in Glasgow next month.
And yet, the market for carbon trading is still in its infancy.
When considering how changes in land use can reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and sequester carbon, the overwhelming emphasis has been on cutting ruminant livestock numbers for the former and planting trees for the latter.
The Government has set a target of planting 30,000 hectares of new forest every year by 2050, bringing woodland cover up from 13 per cent to 17 per cent.
Yet, to date, planting has been woefully below target.
On top of the grants provided by the Forestry Commission for tree planting, the Woodland Carbon Guarantee, a scheme to pay landowners for the carbon capture of new woodland was launched in 2019.
The Woodland Carbon Code sets out the Forestry Commission’s standards and outlines how to measure carbon units.
Land managers can then take part in a reverse auction to sell the units. If a bid is accepted, a 35-year contract is drawn up.
Five years after the contract date, the amount of carbon sequestered is measured and the landowners paid accordingly. Subsequent verifications take place at 10-year intervals.
It is thought the average successful bids were around £20 per unit, although no trees have yet been planted.
The Forestry Commission is said to be overwhelmed by the demand.
Another criticism is that the scheme only applies to new planting and not to existing woodland.
It has been suggested that this headlong dash to increase forest cover will result in the wrong species being planted in the wrong place with a lack of subsequent management.
For example, planting trees on peat soils actually increases carbon emissions as the trees dry out the peat.
Restoration of peatland is another priority for carbon sequestration.
The Woodland Carbon Guarantee is the only regulated market yet in existence but there are many companies seeking to improve their reputations by investing in schemes to reduce emissions.
Unilever, for example, has recently announced a new €1bn Climate and Nature Fund.
Yet woodland and peatland cover a relatively small area of rural land.
Arable and grassland offer great potential too if markets can be developed.
It is estimated that UK soils contain some 10bn tonnes of carbon, but most arable soils have lost 40 to 60 per cent of organic carbon over recent decades as they have become degraded.
Replacing that would bring a significant boost to soil health and could be achieved by growing crops in rotation that increase soil organic matter.
Yet there seems to be no accepted way of measuring the carbon captured by plants and stored in the soil.
Natural England has recently published an updated paper on the relative carbon storage and sequestration by habitat, but it is very complex and fails to come up with any easily applicable recommendations.
Before we dash into planting millions of trees, having an irreversible impact on the landscape, surely this research should be undertaken and simple carbon markets developed.
No doubt there are numerous views on how our countryside should look, but I would regret a huge move away from grazing livestock with the grassland all planted back to forest.
Schemes and carbon trading markets for grassland and arable would improve productivity while enhancing wildlife and carbon storage.
While the current price for European projects is around £25 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent, it is expected to rise to around £70 over time.
That income from the private sector to complement Government grants would also be most welcome to farmers as they adjust to a world without direct subsidies.