There’s a perception in some quarters of the industry that if we keep our head down carbon accountability is going to pass us by.
By carbon accountability, I mean knowing a farm’s overall carbon balance and having that information available for your customers when they ask for it.
The truth is that every farmer will have been asked for their carbon footprint within three years, and you are not going to get paid for doing it. The main reason for this is that it’s in our own interests to know.
See also: Emily Norton – farmer ‘drama kings’ out in force over IHT
About the author
At the moment, nobody really knows exactly how bad – or good – farming is.
The government and its climate advisers are guesstimating our carbon footprints using globally set “standard emissions factors”. Nationally appropriate data would clearly be better.
Benchmarking businesses such as the Soil Association Exchange have now done carbon footprints (alongside other metrics including soil health and biodiversity) for more than 800 farms, meaning that more accurate national data is within reach.
The AHDB is also attempting to create a better national carbon baseline.
However, farm-specific data is best. There are three reasons for this.
The first is that the information will allow you to identify cost savings, such as reducing carbon-intensive artificial fertiliser and fuel bills.
Work with an adviser to help understand the results and align them with practical measures on farm.
The second is that you can use the information as a baseline to demonstrate improvements over time, which is the bit that you might get paid for.
There is legitimate opportunity for land management to be a solution to the climate and biodiversity crises.
The third reason is that carbon accountability should help you think about your farm as a production system embedded in nature.
The better the condition of the natural capital underlying your farm, the more nature will be working with you, rather than you working against it. Improving soil health is the simple example.
I’m speaking at a series of natural capital roadshows for the AHDB this winter, travelling to venues across England to help farmers understand what natural capital is all about and what to do about it.
Natural capital is about much more than carbon, but it’s carbon that has raised tempers at nearly all the sessions so far.
There is still a long way to go to bust some common carbon myths.
For example, the contested methodology around methane calculations is not a reason to ignore your carbon footprint.
I’m taking a QI-style klaxon to all the AHDB events for the first person to raise the GWP*/GWP100 problem. Calculate your footprint using both methods if you’re worried.
It also doesn’t matter that there is not a single Defra-approved calculator, nor that different carbon calculators give different results.
Just be consistent with the one that you use and use the best information you have available to you. Rubbish in, rubbish out.
This government is doubling down on net zero so the pressure on our customers to disclose and act on their total carbon footprints is not going away.
Knowing your carbon footprint is good business, but don’t get sucked into carbon tunnel vision.
Farmers need to know the true picture across a balanced range of metrics, so we can begin to collaborate on improving outcomes and securing our markets.
This post was originally published on here
