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 whilst 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, bring woodland cover up from 13% to 17%. George Eustice recently announced that 7,000 ha will be planted each year by the end of this Parliament, May 2024. And 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. How much carbon the trees can sequester can then be calculated depending on the species and management. Land managers can then take part in a reverse auction to sell the units, three of which were held last year. 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 ten year intervals.
It is thought that the average successful bids were around £20 per unit, although no trees have yet been planted. The Forestry Commission is said to be under-resourced and overwhelmed by the demand. Another criticism is that the scheme only applies to new planting and not to the continuing carbon capture of 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 significant lack of subsequent management. For example, planting trees on peat soils actually increases carbon emissions as the trees dry out the peat. At least the Woodland Carbon Guarantee should avoid this as the payment is entirely dependent on the outcome achieved.
Restoration of peatland is another priority for carbon sequestration. A Peatland Code has been published, a voluntary certification standard for UK projects that aim to sell the climate benefits of restoration, but the market has yet to fully develop. Indeed, 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 and increase sequestration. Unilever, for example, has recently announced a new €1 billion 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 ten billion tonnes of carbon, the equivalent of eighty years of emissions. But most arable soils have lost 40% to 60% of organic carbon over recent decades as they have become degraded. Replacing that would bring a significant boost to soil health and fertility and could be achieved by growing crop mixtures in rotation that increase soil organic matter. One study suggests that grassland can sequester five to twenty tonnes of carbon per hectare per year, especially when well managed with extensive livestock grazing.
Yet there seems not to be any universally accepted way of simply 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 headlong 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, for one, would regret a huge move away from grazing livestock with the grassland all planted back to forest, particularly in the downland of Southern England. We also need more habitat for wildlife to reverse the decline of recent decades. Well-developed schemes and carbon trading markets for grassland and arable would improve productivity considerably whilst enhancing wildlife and carbon storage. Whilst 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, the level that many scientists think is necessary. 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.