Download kg/ha/yr - Clinton Devon Estates

CLIMATE AND LAND ENERGY PROJECT
2008
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
-2–
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
Foreword: John Varley,Director, Clinton Devon Estates
It is clear that agriculture and land management will be more directly affected by
climate change than almost any other sector. The sectors have potentially a
greater contribution than any other to mitigating climate change 1 – reducing the
long-term impact of emissions - and the greatest challenge to adapt to the
impacts which are now inevitable.
Clinton Devon Estates recognises that we need to start by reducing our
environmental footprint, in particular emissions of greenhouse gases into the
atmosphere. While agriculture is responsible for only a relatively small share of
carbon dioxide emissions, the sector does emit significant volumes of more
powerful greenhouse gases, in particular nitrous oxides and methane 2.
But we need to look beyond damage limitation to consider how we can contribute
to mitigation of climate change – positive action to reduce its long-term impact.
As farmers and foresters we can help to lock up vast quantities of carbon in soils
and growing timber, substitute timber for metal and concrete in construction,
grow crops for non-food uses which reduce our reliance on oil-derived plastics,
and displace fossil fuels with renewable forms of energy.
We do this primarily because we have an overriding obligation to future
generations 3. It is a responsibility which for generations past has been the
stewardship role of land managers who have conserved the best, and planned
and planted for future generations. But like other land owners and managers, we
will also need to ensure we can derive income from our new role. For land
managers, climate change is potentially an economic opportunity too.
1
The Greenpeace report “Cool Farming” by Professor Pete Smith and others sets out the direct and
indirect contributions agriculture has on climate change, and concludes “The most important finding is the fact that
agriculture has the potential to change from being one of the largest greenhouse gas emitters to a net carbon sink.”
(http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/cool-farming.pdf , January 2008)
2
Agriculture was responsible for 7.9% of total GHG emissions in 2006, according to the UKCIP report to Parliament in
July ’08 (http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/ukccp/pdf/ukccp-ann-report-july08.pdf).
UK emissions of the greenhouse gases (GHGs) carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) in 2005
were 554,200 kt, 128 kt and 2,348 kt, respectively (Defra, 2007b). In terms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), this
equates to 39,680 kt for N2O and 49,308 kt for CH4.
Land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) accounted for a net reduction of total UK CO2 emissions of
approximately 2,100 kt, or 0.4% of total CO2 emissions. However, agriculture was the source of 67% of UK emissions of
N2O in 2005 (Defra, 2007b, equivalent to 26,400 kt CO2e), with 62% of N2O emitted from agricultural sources arising
from direct soil emissions and 32% from indirect sources (N deposition and nitrate leached).
Similarly, agriculture was the source of 37% of UK emissions of CH4 in 2005, with 749.5 kt CH4 (15,739 kt CO2e) from
enteric sources (mostly ruminants) and 119.5 kt CH4 (2,509 kt CO2e) from waste (mostly manures and slurries). Source:
IGER / ADAS 2007.
Responsible stewardship is one of the Clinton Devon Estate’s five strategic aims, to ensure that we hand over something
more valuable than we have today, providing for future generations while achieving results, maximising returns, securing
business opportunities and environmental and social outcomes through partnerships.
3
-3–
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
If we are to maximise our future contribution, we need to start by assessing and
quantifying our current contribution both to greenhouse gas emissions and to
sequestration of carbon and mitigation, or reducing the impact of change.
Climate change is already beginning to transform the economics of farming. In
the last two years, we have moved out of the era of surplus production – of
intervention and set-aside - to one where the political debate is again focusing on
food as well as energy security. The prospect of scarcity has transformed
commodity markets, with food prices closely linked to burgeoning oil prices which
briefly approached €150 a barrel in 2008 before falling back sharply to less than
$50 a barrel – dragging down with it the viability of renewable energy options.
There is a prospect of much greater change in the future as emission permits
become more restrictive under the European Emissions Trading System (ETS 4)
and the price of carbon rises, and the mechanisms start to come into place for
realising the value of the carbon we can save.
As climate change makes agricultural production more challenging in large parts
of the world 5, farmers in UK have an obligation – and an incentive – to produce
for food and energy, rather than diverting land for leisure and other uses.
Biodiversity must be protected, but no longer at the expense of production. If we
produce less intensively in UK, we need to consider whether others will make up
the difference, perhaps by taking more land into production or by greater reliance
on oil-based inorganic fertilisers. Climate change is a global problem, we need to
reduce our footprint without relying on others to produce more, at perhaps
greater cost to the planet.
4
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/emission/implementation_en.htm
A study in Science journal, January 2008 concludes “Climate change could cause severe crop losses in South Asia and
southern Africa over the next 20 years, and Southern Africa could lose more than 30% of its main crop, maize, by 2030,
while in South Asia losses of many regional staples, such as rice, millet and maize could be more than 10%. The effects in
these two regions could be catastrophic without effective measures to adapt to climate change.” According to lead author
David Lobell of Stanford University, agriculture is "the human enterprise most vulnerable to climate change". See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7220807.stm
5
-4–
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
Clinton Devon Estates climate and land energy project (ECLEP)
Contents
Page
1.
2.
3
4
Front cover: Clinton Devon’s award-winning new offices
Foreward – John Varley, Director, Clinton Devon Estates
Summary and key findings
Project overview
Climate change and rural estates (background to the project)
Climate change and global warming
5
Emissions trading for agriculture, forestry and land use sectors
6
7
8
9
Emissions trading for the future
Mitigation methods for agriculture
Forestry and climate change
Clinton Devon forestry – carbon storage and sequestration
3
6
10
16
18
Appendices:
Appendix 1 – Forestry compartments, Clinton Devon Estates
Appendix 2 – CALM calculations for GHGs and sequestration
Appendix 3 – GHG emission calculations – IGER basis
Appendix 4 – End notes
-5–
Helical Group 2009
32
39
42
46
50
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
1. Summary and key findings:
The Project has confirmed the key role which agriculture and land management
has in mitigating climate change. Farmers, as on the Clinton Devon farms, need
to start by ensuring that their systems – particularly the cultivations, feeding
system and diary equipment – are as energy efficient as possible. These are the
quick wins, which have the immediate attraction that they can result in significant
savings in costs, increasingly important in view of the spiraling price of fuel and
related inputs, such as inorganic fertilizer.
Although farming’s contribution to CO2 itself is relatively small, at Clinton Devon
as on other farms, the findings confirm that the farms do emit significant volumes
of the more powerful greenhouse gases, methane and nitrous oxides, the latter
making up nearly 58% of total emissions when expressed in CO2 equivalence.
Farmers should not expect that the current situation, with agriculture emitting
over a third of methane and two thirds of nitrous oxides, will be allowed to
continue, even if the initial focus of the Climate Change Act and the new
Committee on Climate Change is on carbon dioxide.
Like UK farming generally, the Home Farms at Clinton Devon will need to show
that voluntary measures can succeed in reducing these emissions if more
draconian and costly compulsory measures are to be averted.
Recent reviews 6 have highlighted eight main mitigation methods currently
available for farmers. On the Clinton Devon Estates we have made progress
with a number of these methods:
By (1) adapting to crop Nitrogen requirements, (2) making full use of manure
Nitrogen supply; and (3) Spreading manures at the most appropriate times, The
Home Farms have effectively eliminated the use of inorganic Nitrogen, thus
reducing both the CO2 in its production, and a proportion of the nitrous oxides
associated with cultivations.
As a separate strategy we have assessed the potential of anaerobic digestion of
farm “wastes” (the sixth method identified in the Defra review) to reduce GHG
emissions on the Home Farms. As that report 7 showed, this has potential to
reduce GHG emissions through the production of renewable energy, reduced
methane emissions, further substitution of chemical fertiliser and reduced nitrous
oxide emissions, although the last of these has yet to be quantified. That study
showed potential savings of over 5,000 tonnes CO2 equivalent from a farm-scale
digester, or 11,500 tonnes if fertiliser savings which have already been made are
taken into account (option 2).
6
AC0206 “A Review of Research to identify Best Practice for Reducing Greenhouse Gases from Agriculture and Land
Management” see Chapter 8 below.
7
Clinton Devon Estate – Feasibility study (phase 1) for an Anaerobic Digestion Plant (Helical Group with PlanAction
Denmark for Clinton Devon Estates 2008).
-6–
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
The Defra review also highlighted the main knowledge gaps, some of which are
directly relevant to the Home Farms and the Clinton Devon Estate woodlands:
the potential of dietary manipulation to reduce enteric emissions, along with a full
life-cycle analysis for the GHG benefits of AD; and quantification of the benefits
of arable reversion and reduced tillage (now abandoned on the Home Farms) on
soil carbon storage of CO2.
The Home Farm dairy units have been converted to organic production over the
last four years. While this has enabled the Home Farms to eliminate the use of
imported inorganic nitrogen, it has also resulted in increased levels of methane
emissions due the increase in the number of cows necessary to maintain
production levels. Furthermore, any benefits of minimal tillage (which are
themselves disputed in UK, though more widely accepted elsewhere in the
World) have been lost as the Farms have reverted to rotational ploughing.
The net benefits of the switch to organic dairy production on the Home Farms
have been assessed using data developed by IGER (formerly the Institute of
Grassland and Environment Research 8), which shows that, although net
emissions have been reduced, emissions per litre of milk produced have risen:
Conventional dairy
production (400 cows)
Organic dairy
production (500 cows)
Organic dairy
production with
anaerobic digestion
Carbon dioxide
(kg per litre CO2e)
48
Nitrous oxide
(kg per litre CO2e)
112
Methane
(kg per litre CO2e)
118
58
88
144
55
90
101
This table also shows the extent to which methane emissions would be reduced
by the adoption of anaerobic digestion – to below the levels per litre of
conventional production. The full effects on nitrous oxide emissions of associated
changes in cultivation practices have yet to be assessed – one of the knowledge
gaps in establishing mitigation strategies for agriculture.
More data is emerging about the extent to which forests and soils lock up
significant quantities of carbon 9.
In addition, carbon sequestered in GB forests is substantial 10, and the value of
carbon sequestered in private broadleaf woodland is greater than that of the
8
See Appendix 3.
See "Review of existing information on the interrelations between soil and climate change", publication due April 2009 (
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/publications_en.htm ). This draft synthesis of information on the links between soil
and climate change underlines the need to sequester carbon in soils, which it says is "cost competitive and immediately
available, requires no new or unproven technologies, and has a mitigation potential comparable to that of any other sector
of the economy".
9
-7–
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
whole Forestry Commission Estate. The total quantity of carbon stored above
ground in the Clinton Devon Estates woodlands is estimated in this report to be
nearly 95,000 tonnes, or 57.6 tonnes per hectare.
The GHG emissions from the current system of farming on the Home Farms, at
about 5000 tonnes per annum CO2 equivalence, or 5.5 tonnes per hectare of
land farmed, is more than offset by the annual sequestration effect of the Estates
woodlands at about 6250 tonnes CO2 equivalent from about 1600 hectares of
woodlands.
This report shows that Clinton Devon Estates makes a net contribution to
sequestering carbon, mainly in forests and forest soils. The full benefits of soils in
locking up carbon have yet to be assessed, but emerging data (summarised at
chapter 8) shows that the true figure may be much greater.
But there is no room for complacency, particularly on farms where emissions may
not be offset by significant areas of forestry. Farming remains intensely
dependent on fossil fuels whether for fuels or fertiliser. Developments underway
or under consideration at Clinton Devon show the potential for renewable energy
(and renewable fuels) combined with changes in farming practices to reduce
GHG emissions.
But the targets being set by the Committee on Climate Change for 60 – 80%
emission reductions for other sectors would not be achievable in British
agriculture at current levels oif scientific knowledge, and significant reductions
may only be possible at the cost of production levels.
The risk is that in the short term, emission reductions would result in reduced
production levels, emissions effectively being exported for agriculture as they
have been for the manufacturing sector, and possibly leading to greater global
emissions.
In the longer term, as global warming will now inevitably render production
difficult or impossible in many latitudes, the priority must be to find production
methods which make it possible for UK agriculture to sustain or increase total
production whilst reducing emissions,
Agriculture in UK can move from being a net emitter of Greenhouse gases to
making a significant contribution to climate change mitigation, For this to happen
requires farms and estates to start by assessing their own emissions and the
scope for reductions; and to commit to generating renewable energy on a much
greater scale.
10
See report, “Carbon sequestration benefits of Woodland”, Brainard, Lovett and Bateman 2003 which assessed tha
value of this carbon at nearly £6 billion at £14.70 per tone – see chapter 9
-8–
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
This will only happen if significant progress is made in dealing with some of the
knowledge gaps identified in this report; and if the fullest range of incentives,
including carbon trading, are made available to UK agriculture, together with
effective communication to farmers and land managers.
-9–
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
2. Project overview:
The main purpose of the climate and land energy project has been to identify the
impact of the Clinton Devon Estate's activities on greenhouse gas emissions (in
CO2 equivalence terms) and the potential value of the contribution which the
Estate can make in locking up carbon and displacing the use of fossil fuels.
The project is also intended to put the Estate in a strong position to secure an
economic return from current and future activities, in particular from carbon
trading as the rules of the EU emissions trading scheme evolve.
2.2 Project outline:
The project has been conducted in four stages:
Firstly, a "concept note" set out the potential benefits of such an approach to
climate change mitigation and to the rural economy generally in the South West.
The Estate has financed much of the core work, but it has done so in the
expectation that the benefits in terms of methodology and learning will be of
significant value across the region.
2.3 GHG emissions audit:
Secondly, an estimation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions was carried out,
using established and emerging methodology 11 to assess the inputs and outputs
from the Estate in terms of climate change impact.
The Home Farms have converted to organic dairy production over the period
2005 -08, not as part of this project but based on a hard economic assessment of
the long-term profitability. This has a significant impact on GHG emissions, not all
of them positive in the early years 12.
Cow numbers on the Home Farms have risen by nearly 25% to sustain
production levels, with a significant impact on methane emissions. The minimum
tillage techniques which had helped to lock up carbon in the soils have been
abandoned in favour of rotational ploughing, and diesel consumption has
increased accordingly. On the other hand, the farm’s reliance on imported
inorganic nitrogen has been greatly reduced.
We have sought to assess the impact of these changes, using a number of
calculation methods before and after the changes. In particular, we have used
11
The methodology used here is based on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol), developed by the World
Business Council for Sustainable Development, which is the most widely used international accounting tool for
government and businesses to quantify and manage greenhouse gas emissions. See http://www.ghgprotocol.org/
12
See Appendix 1 for CALM data and results for the Home Farms and Estate woodlands.
- 10 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
the IGER 13 calculator to show the possible effects of the organic conversion and
other changes, and have applied the CLA’s CALM (Carbon aware land
management) calculator as a check 14.
Emissions audits rely on data drawn up for the purposes of national inventories,
and are as yet unreliable measures of the outputs at an individual farm level. So
far as possible, we have tried to consider the overall impact of production
decisions, looking for instance at the effect of reduced reliance on inorganic
fertilizers on the emissions from production as well as on the emissions at farm
level.
We have tried to consider for instance the effect which good dietary practice can
have on actual methane emissions from cattle, rather than merely assuming
average emissions levels 15. But it has to be admitted that data on this is limited
16, and the Project has to some extent merely identified the gaps in our
knowledge.
In particular, published data does not support any firm conclusions as to whether
the climate change benefit of converting to organic production outweighs the
additional methane emissions. We have assumed in our calculations that overall
production is to be maintained – and the problem is not merely to be exported to
other farms or other countries.
13
Institute of Grassland and Environment Research. See appendix 3 for calculations.
As the CLA states in its notes to CALM (Carbon Accounting for Land Managers), “We believe that before you can do
anything about the quantities of GHGs emitted from your businesses it makes sense to measure what they are and see
how they arise … CALM raises the awareness of the greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions caused by land management
activities and focuses management attention on ways of reducing those emissions or increasing the carbon storage
or sequestration.”
14
15
Ruminants contribute about 18% of the world production of methane and have long been targeted as a source which is
one of the few easily manipulated. A ruminant that grows slowly, as against the potential of finishing it at between 12–18
months, may produce up to 4 times the amount of methane per unit of product. Potentially any technology which improves
the efficiency of conversion of feed into livestock products lowers the number of animals required to produce meat, milk,
wool and other products, which can have a significant effect on methane emissions. (“Application of biotechnology to
nutrition of animals”, FAO - http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/T0423E/T0423E07.htm).
Research at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen indicates that the average cow contributes as much to global
warming as a family car that travels 12,000 miles per year. In trials, adding fumaric acid to feed in lambs can trap
hydrogen produced by their digestive systems, preventing its conversion to methane. While results of trials in lambs have
far exceeded expectations, cutting the volume of methane by up to 70 per cent, it has proven difficult to reduce emissions
in cattle to the same extent. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/03/20/eacows120.xml.
The Keenan Hi-Fibre system claims to reduce losses to the environment through improved utilisation of feed nutrients, so
that the fermentation process in the rumen is improved, more nutrients go to the production of milk and less go to
methane emissions. According to Professor David Beever, this system can deliver a 20% reduction in methane emissions
on the great majority of UK dairy and beef farms. See
http://www.keenansystem.com/downloads/pdf/20070624%20RoyalSocietyREVISED2406%20DB.pdf .
Trials at the Federal Research Station of Agroecology and Agriculture (FAL), Liebefeld, Berne, in Switzerland suggest that
manure storage significantly contributes to total methane emission from dairy husbandry, and that the identification of
effective dietary mitigation strategies has to consider both the digestive tract of the animals and the resulting manure. See
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/emas/2002/00000079/00000002/00393853 .
As the notes to CLA’s CALM calculator put it, “There is much uncertainty about some mitigation practices, especially
around soil management practices which will not show up on your CALM balance.”
16
- 11 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
So our emissions audits serve only, as they were intended, as a starting point for
more sophisticated and targeted calculations to follow 17.
2.4 Potential for carbon sequestration:
Thirdly, the project has sought to assess the realisable potential for carbon
sequestration on the Estate, in particular through farming, forestry, heathland
and soil management, and to assess the implications of emerging emissions
trading policy. The current Kyoto protocol places particular emphasis on carbon
fluxes associated with afforestation, as well as deforestation which is of less
relevance to UK, but requires only those due to forestry activities since 1990 to
be included in national inventories 18. It is likely that soil carbon will need to be
treated separately from forestry and new methods will be needed to include
carbon stored in forest products.
For this purpose, the Project has commissioned the specialist services of Sandy Greig to
assess the impact on carbon sequestration of the forests on the Clinton Devon Estate.
As his report shows (see section ), the total amount of carbon currently stored above
ground in the Clinton Devon estate woodlands is estimated at just under 95,000 tonnes,
or 57.6 tonnes per hectare.
In addition, we have used other proprietary calculators – all based on standard IPCC
data - to assess the carbon footprint of the Estate as a whole 19.
2.5 Impact of renewable energy projects on climate change mitigation:
Fourthly, the project has assessed the contribution which existing and
proposed renewable energy projects on the Estate make in terms of displacing
fossil fuel use and reducing GHG emissions.
In particular the project has assessed the actual and potential contribution from
 the biomass heating for the new office 20 and the other potential for
biomass heating projects based on woodchip from the Estate, and
17
CLA President Henry Aubrey Fletcher said (in respect of the Natural England carbon baseline survey using CALM on
200 farms – see appendix 1): “The project by Natural England is a good first step but there needs to be much more work
done to develop the baseline further so that more sophisticated advice can be given to land managers who are doing
carbon accounts.” Dairy farms were found to have the highest emissions (excluding specialist horticulture businesses)
with an average of around 10 tonnes of CO2-equivalent (CO2e) per hectare. See
http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/press/news2008/300608.htm
18
See “Uncertainties, IPCC Default Methods and New Flux Categories for Carbon in the UK Inventory”, R Milne, T Brown
and T Murray, Institute of Terrestial Ecology
19
The C-FLOW 98 calculator includes soil carbon with forest biomass and develops default values for yield class (YC) 12
Sitka Spruce and YC 6 Beech – which are considerably below the yield classes for the Clinton Devon Estate. See also
appendix 1 re CALM data for the Estate.
The Rolle Estate Office boasts numerous environmentally friendly features, including a woodchip boiler which provides
renewable energy to heat the building in a sustainable fashion, using timber from local woodlands. A wind turbine, which
would have produced all the office’s electricity needs, was trialled in the parkland with a view to installation, although in
the event the average wind speeds were so much lower than predicted, leading to a payback period of well over 30 years,
that this was not felt to be worthwhile (“Wind Resource Analysis for Bicton Arena” - report by Heidra Ltd, July ‘08) . Air
- 12 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project

the potential for anaerobic digestion of slurry from the two dairy herds on
the Estate (now enlarged to 250 cows each as part of the conversion to
organic production), and possibly from other sources to produce biogas as
a source of energy either in the form of heat or to generate electricity to
feed back into the grid.
conditioning has been replaced with a passive cooling system and designers have ensured minimal use of artificial lights
by making the most of natural daylight. Recycled materials have been used wherever possible and the roof of the building
is planted with sedum. See photo on front cover of this report.
The carbon footprint of the new £1.65 million Estate Office has been calculated as being about 75 per cent lower than that
of the former estate headquarters in East Budleigh. The proposed installation of a wind turbine in Bicton Park linked to
power consumption in the Estate Office and related facilities would have further reduced the carbon footprint of the Estate.
- 13 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
The emissions audits for the dairy units have taken into account not only the
effects of organic conversion, but also the potential effect of digesting the cow
slurry to produce biogas (mainly methane) which can be used to generate
energy.
No decisions have yet been taken on the anaerobic digestion (AD) project, which
is the subject of a separate feasibility study. However, it is clear that the potential
benefits of that project could be of greater climate change significance than
almost all the other changes combined. AD will reduce methane and probably
nitrous oxide emissions 21 – whereas most widely adopted strategies focus on
carbon dioxide emissions which are less significant factors for farms; in addition,
the energy generated will displace significant amounts of energy derived from
fossil fuels, both on and off the Estate.
21
The extent to which AD, by further reducing reliance on inorganic fertilisers, reduces NO2 emissions has yet to be
established by trials work, and will in any case depend on related decisions on cultivation methods, etc
- 14 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
The Estate has looked at other renewable energy projects, in particular a wind
turbine which was considered, in the light of further research, to have an unduly
low performance and long payback period.
During 2006, the Estate produced more than 5300 lites of biodiesel from various
sources, used both in estate cars and in local taxi services. However, this was
discontinued.
The fact that both wind energy and biofuels have to date proved unviable does
not mean that they could not be worthwhile at a different scale on the Estate in
the future.
Meanwhile the Estate has not only adopted woodfuel heating for its own offices,
but is supplying it to a wide range of local homes and businesses, with a
significant impact in reducing GHG emissions by substituting fossil fuel usage in
the area.
- 15 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
3. Background to the project: climate change and land management
There is widespread agreement that agriculture is more directly affected by
climate change than any other sector of the economy other than energy
generation, that its own emissions (particularly of nitrous oxides and methane)
need to be addressed with some urgency 22. The potential contribution to climate
change mitigation of agriculture, forestry 23 and land management is significant.
This report assumes that the fullest range of incentives will need to be brought to
bear if the necessary investments are to prove worthwhile and plans are to be
drawn up and implemented to deliver these benefits in a reasonable timescale,
both at Clinton Devon and on other UK farms and estates.
The economic incentives may include the ability to secure new sources of income
by offsetting emissions, both from within agriculture and by working with related
sectors, such as the food and drink sector which is currently responsible for
nearly 30% of total UK GHG emissions 24.
Agriculture has a major role to play in mitigating climate change, starting with
radical reductions of its own emissions of two of the most polluting greenhouse
gases, methane and nitrous oxides. A limited result can be obtained by changing
management practices, particularly fertiliser application techniques, cultivation
practices 25 and livestock diets, and by capturing some of these emissions for
use as a form of renewable energy, as well as by locking up carbon dioxide in
growing crops and forests.
Carbon offsetting has the potential to become an increasingly important source of
funds, providing effective incentives for farmers and landowners and improving
the return on necessary investments. Farmers tend to look for grant aid for new
See for instance speech by Secretary of State Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP to Oxford Farming Conference, January ’08 and
again in January ‘09:
“Part of the debate about what we produce concerns food security and self-sufficiency. Will we be able to produce enough
or get our hands on enough food as the world’s population increases by 50% and the climate changes?”
(http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/ministers/speeches/hilary-benn/hb080103.htm)
and speech by Lord Rooker, Minister of State for Sustainable Farming and Food, to BIAC lunch in House of Lords, 18th
April 2007 (http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/ministers/speeches/jeff-rooker/jr070418.htm).
23
“The forest estate of the UK covers an area of 2.8 million hectares, or 11.6% of the land surface, an area about the size
of Wales. Growing trees absorb carbon dioxide and retain carbon as biomass. The wood and leaves making up these
forests contain a quantity of carbon roughly equal to offsetting one year of carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil
fuels … in this country” Dr Mark Broadmeadow, Forestry Commission (see “Carbon, Climate Change and UK Forests the Facts” http://www.forestry.gov.uk/newsrele.nsf/AllByUNID/DBEC819B5F3DF37680256D60003B2D76).
24
See speech by Secretary of State David Miliband to the Oxford Farming Conference, January 2007: “The FAO report
that the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions than transport, and over 30% of European GHG
come from the food and drink sector…. There is only one direction for the price of carbon and that is up; there is only one
direction for emissions trading and that is to embrace ever more sectors and greenhouse gases”
(http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/ministers/speeches/david-miliband/dm070103.htm).
25
Greenhouse gas emission from soil is an area of concern, in particular the significant emissions of nitrous oxide from
soil as a result of nitrogen fertiliser application and residue incorporation, and it is suggested that as these emissions are
the direct results of farming practice they should be included in emissions calculation (source: Anna Evans for Prof N
Mortimer of North Energy Associates, commissioned for ECLEP October 2007)
22
- 16 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
investments. While there may be some grant aid for bio-energy projects 26,
uncertainty remains.
It now seems clear that electricity generated from certain renewable sources,
which will include biomass CHP as well as anaerobic digestion, will be eligible
not just for renewable obligation certificates (ROCs), but for two ROCs per unit of
electricity under powers contained in the Energy Act 2008 27. The net effect of
this is discussed in later sections, but the effect of double ROCs added to the
electricity sales means that UK now has one of the highest price regimes for
electricity from renewable resources in Europe, and worthwhile investment
returns can be secured in the absence of grant aid.
Agriculture has a role too in supplying bio-fuels for the transport sector – a role
which has become much more controversial since it may compete with food
production - as well as other sources of renewable energy for heating, cooling
and electricity; and in growing local food which reaches the consumer close to
where it is grown, thus minimising transport distances or “food miles”.
26
At the time of writing there are four emerging sources of grant aid for anaerobic digestion plants, for instance –
Defra’sfund for demonstrator plants, the Bio-energy Capital Grant Scheme and WRAP’s proposed landfill-tax based grant
aid – all of which are now closed to applications.In addition the possibility of grants for commissioned projects from RDAs
under the rural development regulation remains uncertain pending decisions as to whether such grants might have to be
paid back if they are found to be in breach of state aid rules.
27
Minister for Energy and Climate Change Joan Ruddock MP moved the draft Renewables Obligation Order 2009 in the
House of Commons Committee on Delegated Legislation on 17th March ‘09. She said "if we are to meet the challenging
targets we have set ourselves for increasing the proportion of our electricity that comes from renewables, we need a
greater contribution from technologies that have been less deployed, such as biogas”
- 17 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
4. Climate change and global warming:
Since the Industrial Revolution atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide
(CO2) have risen by over one third, concentrations of nitrous oxides (N2O) by 15
%, and those of methane (CH4) have doubled 28. CO2 in the atmosphere is at
levels not seen for at least 600,000 years and continues to increase. These
increases are believed to have raised the world’s average temperature by 0.6 °C
(1 °F) over the last century. Continuing this trend will lead to a rise of 1.4 to 5.8
°C (2.5 to 10.4 °F) by 2100 as compared to 1990 29. Small average temperature
changes can have large consequences, a 5 °C (9 °F) temperature change
separates our current climate from the end of the last Ice Age 30.
The Stern Report 31 concluded that inaction to combat global warming would
result in an economic loss to the global economy of 5 - 20 percent annually of
global GDP by the later part of this century, while the economic cost to avoid the
most serious consequences of global warming are estimated to be about 1
percent of GDP annually .
Insert photo of Lord Stern speaking at the Copenhagen climate change
conference, March ’09 32
Accredit to http://www.flickr.com/photos/36075063@N03/3349007684/
EPA; NOAA, 2005. The UK Climate Change Programme 2006 “Tomorrow’s Climate, Today’s Challenge” attributed 46%
(since reduced to 35%) of methane emissions and 66% of nitrous oxide emissions to agriculture – important as methane
is over 20 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide 300 times as powerful as GHG.
29
US NRC, 2001
30
UNEP, 2005
31
Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, October 2006, http://www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm
“each tonne of CO2 that we emit now is causing damage worth at least $85 – but these costs are not included when
investors and consumers make decisions about how to spend their money. Emerging schemes that allow people to trade
reductions in CO2 have demonstrated that there are many opportunities to cut emissions for less than $25 a tonne. In
other words, reducing emissions will make us better off. According to one measure, the benefits over time of actions to
shift the world onto a low-carbon path could be in the order of $2.5 trillion each year.”
32 The International Scientific Congress on “Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions” in Copenhagen,
28
March ’09 was attended by more than 2,500 delegates from nearly 80 countries. A key finding of the conference was that
“the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realized, and there is a significant risk that many of
the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts”.
http://climatecongress.ku.dk/newsroom
Nicholas Stern, now Lord Stern of Brentford and Professor of Economics and Government at the London School of
Economics, said he feared that politicians had not grasped the seriousness of the crisis. "Do the politicians understand
just how … devastating four, five, six degrees centigrade would be? I think not yet”. Looking back, he said the Stern
review had underestimated the risks and damage from inaction.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/13/stern-attacks-politicians-climate-change
- 18 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
4.2 Combatting or mitigating climate change:
The Stern report also concluded that actions undertaken to combat climate
change will significantly expand business opportunities, creating new markets for
low-carbon technologies, goods and services. These markets could grow to
hundreds of billions of pounds annually by mid-century. On the other hand, failure
to act to combat global warming could create hundreds of millions of
environmental refugees by mid-century, principally due to coastal flooding and
desertification of farmlands.
According to a report from the World Bank, the global carbon market tripled in
size to $30 billion in 2006, from $10 billion the previous year, and some market
participants believe that figure to be an underestimate, putting the real size of
market as much as 25% higher 33.
The Stern report states that, "Climate change is the greatest market failure the
world has ever seen…” Three elements of an effective policy response are then
outlined:
 pricing carbon emissions at their true cost by using taxing, trading or
regulation mechanisms,
 supporting innovation and the deployment of low-carbon technologies, and
 removing barriers to energy efficiency and educating the public about the
value of increasing energy efficiency.
Past emissions of GHGs have already committed the Earth to some warming and
sea level rise and will continue to do so for decades or longer after atmospheric
GHG concentrations have stabilised, if indeed that is still achievable 34.
Stabilising GHG concentrations requires reducing emissions or removing and
sequestering GHGs, primarily CO2 from the atmosphere. GHG emissions can be
reduced through more efficient use of energy and materials; use of renewable
and nuclear energy; and adoption of certain land-use, agricultural, and forestry
practices. Carbon sequestration through biological means (such as reforestation)
33
In relation to developing countries, the World Bank says "The CDM rules should also consider why opportunities in the
agricultural and forestry sectors demonstrating real reductions should not be encouraged in the same way as some
opportunities in mitigation from the energy and industrial sectors are". They continue "Carbon assets from Land Use,
Land-use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) remain at 1% of volumes transacted so far. Their regulatory complexity and
limited market access to the EU is likely to limit their demand (at least from private compliance buyers and their
intermediaries). On the other hand, the proven community benefits and competitive cost ... may result in some additional
demand from public buyers, including European governments. .... Large classes of LULUCF assets including possibly soil
sequestration, fire management and avoided deforestation ... remain attractive opportunities to promote sustainable
development in Africa and in other natural resource-based economies, but are still systematically excluded from the CDM
and other regulatory markets."
Source: WBCSD (http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId=MjQ0NzU)
See also
http://www.business.vic.gov.au/busvicwr/_assets/main/lib60219/table%202%20global%20carbon%20market%20world%2
0bank%20may%202008.pdf for 2008 update on the value of carbon allowances traded on various global markets,
including the EUETS in 2007.
34
IPCC, 2001
- 19 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
or physical processes (such as pumping CO2 into deep aquifers, oil and gas
formations, and coal seams) can mitigate the impacts of continued fossil fuel use.
If the target is to limit climate change to that caused by a doubling of atmospheric
concentrations of GHGs over their pre-industrial levels (ie. a global temperature
rise of 1.5 °C to 4.5 °C), then a reduction in net CO2 emissions of 50 to 90
percent from current levels by the end of the 21st Century would be required 35.
Some scientists point to the need for immediate action to avoid reaching a
climatic “tipping point” that would result in severe irreparable changes 36.
4.3 EU and UK targets for GHG emissions and renewable energy:
The European Council (summit) confirmed on 9th March 2007 its agreement to
cut carbon emissions by 20% by 2020 37 “in a bid to avert potential human
calamity”. This figure could go up to 30% if countries outside the EU agree to
match the commitment. Heads of State also agreed to a 20% increase in energy
efficiency, a 10% target for the use of biofuels and a binding 20% target for the
use of renewable energy sources.
35
36
IPCC, 2001
Hansen, 2005
37
See Europa (http://ec.europa.eu/news/environment/070309_1_en.htm) for report of the summit agreement. For a
summary of EU Directives on the promotion of energy from renewable resources, see
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/climate_actions/doc/2008_res_citizens_summary_en.pdf.
The European Council on 12th December ’08 eached agreement on the energy/climate change package The Energy and climate change package (see earlier updates) implements the commitments entered into by the EU in
March 2007 and March 2008, especially the target of a 20 % reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020., and
confirmed the EU's commitment to increasing its reduction commitment for GHGs to 30 % within the framework of a
comprehensive global agreement in Copenhagen on climate change for the period after 2012 - on condition that the other
developed countries undertake to achieve comparable emission reductions.
Environment News Service http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2008/2008-12-12-02.asp
- 20 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
Figure 1: percentage ot total energy generated from renewable sources in EU27
UK, which has made less progress on renewable energy than most other
member states, has agreed to a 15% target for renewable energy by 2020, which
effectively means a significantly higher percentage – probably over 40% - of
electricity being generated from renewable sources by that date. As the UK
report to the Commission states, “renewable energies are an important part of
the UK climate change strategy and are supported by a green certificate system
(with an obligation on suppliers to purchase a certain percentage of electricity
from RES) and several grant programmes.
Progress towards meeting the target has been significant, and electricity
generation from renewable energies has increased by around 70%
between 2000-2005, mainly driven by the development of wind energy capacity,
although “there is still some way to go to meet the 2010 target” 38. At present, UK
derives well under 2% of total energy from renewable sources.
38
Source: UK renewable energy fact sheet
(http://ec.europa.eu/energy/climate_actions/doc/factsheets/2008_res_sheet_united_kingdom_en.pdf), January 2008.
- 21 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
4.4 Biofuels and biogas:
In April 2008 the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation took effect to help ensure
the UK meets its 2010 target of 5% of transport fuel from biofuels 39. Certificates
can be claimed when biofuels are supplied and fuel duty is paid on them,
enabling certificate trading to take place. In 2006, biodiesel and bioethanol
received a 20p per litre fuel duty incentive, though it was confirmed in the 2008
budget that this is to be discontinued after Spring 2010.
A number of recent reports have pointed to the fact that, taking account of the
land use change involved, some sources of biofuels could in theory be worse for
climate change than fossil fuels, although sustainability criteria to be used in
sourcing fuels should ensure that such sources are not used to fulfil RTFO
targets. It is sometimes forgotten that for transport the main alternative to biofuels
is fossil fuels, and that emissions attributable to transport, currently 22% of total
emissions, are continuing to rise.
“The United Kingdom’s policy regarding RES consists of four key strands:

obligatory targets with tradable green certificate system (Renewables Obligation on all electricity suppliers in
Great Britain to supply a specific proportion of RES-E). The non-compliance ‘buy-out’ price for 2007-2008 was
set at £33.24/MWh (approx €48.20 /MWh), which will be annually adjusted in line with the retail price index.

Climate Change Levy: RES-E is exempted from the climate change levy on electricity of £4.3/MWh (approx.
€6.3 /MWh)

Grant schemes: funds are reserved from the New Opportunities Fund for new capital grants for investments in
energy crops/ biomass power generation (at least £33 million (€53 million) over three years), for small-scale
biomass/CHP heating (£3 million or €5 million), and planting grants for energy crops (£29 million or €46 million
for a period of seven years). A £50 million (€72.5 million) fund is available for the development of wave and tidal
power, the Marine Renewables Deployment Fund.

Development of a regional strategic approach to planning and targets for renewable energies.

A five-year capital grant scheme for biomass heat and biomass CHP systems was launched in December 2006.
Wood fuel and waste strategies were published in March and May 2007 respectively.”
39
This falls short of the EU transport fuels target of 5.75% under Directive 2003/30/EC
- 22 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
Table 1: GHGs from alternative transport fuels (Note: these figures do not take
account of the alternative land uses which might be displaced in some
circumstances). Source: Hilkka Summa, European Commission 2007.
Few reports on biofuels have taken into account the health and other benefits.
40In some markets, for instance on inland waterways and in other sensitive
environments, the fact that biodiesel is biodegradable can also be important.
It is partly for these reasons that the European Commission has maintained its
biofuel targets in the face of an intensive campaign against “agro-fuels”. In the
long-term, biofuels will have a significant role but will only displace a proportion,
perhaps as much as 15% of projected fossil fuel usage in UK.
Bio-fuels derived from by-products and wastes 41 are likely to play a larger role in
the future than those which depend on displacing food crops. It is possible that in
UK, as in Sweden and some other Northern member states, biogas derived from
anaerobic digestion may have a role as a transport fuel 42 as well as a source of
heat and electricity, although it is hard to see the necessary infrastructure and
40
Biodiesel has 50% lower emissions of smog-forming low-level ozone than conventional diesel, lower carbon monoxide
and particulates, and up to 75% lower emissions of potentially carcinogenic PAH compounds. These can be important
features as emission levels in some inner city locations are reaching – and in some case regularly exceed – statutory
limits.
41
For instance, it is possible to convert waste plastics to road quality diesel by a process of pyrolysis, or to convert
recovered waste vegetable oil (much of which, if not sent to landfill, is currently put down the drain where it helps to
reduce sewer capacity) into biodiesel at a cost which enables it to be sold at 5 – 10p per litre below pump diesel prices.
42
The first UK biogas filling station at Wincanton was opened in early 2008. In Sweden, many municipal authorities runs a
significant proportion of their buses on biogas, and many cars can switch automatically from biogas to petrol.
- 23 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
commitment to sustainable fuel sources being significant factors in the UK market
for many years.
Figure 2: gross electricity generation by fuel (2005) in UK 43
4.5 Greenhouse gases from agriculture and forestry.
Agriculture is the largest single source of Nitrous Oxide (N2O), accounting for 67% of
total emissions in 2004, and N2O emissions account for nearly half of the total
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agriculture. Since N2O is approximately 300
times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2, the reduction of these emissions is
a key issue for agriculture.
43
Source@ Renewable energy factsheet 2008
(http://www.energy.eu/renewables/factsheets/2008_res_sheet_united_kingdom_en.pdf)
- 24 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
Figure 3: sources of nitrous oxide emissions (Defra 2005)
Reductions could be achieved by improving efficiency of fertiliser and manure
applications. Defra research has identified the most cost effective measures to reduce
on-farm ammonia emissions to include covering of slurry lagoons and immediate
incorporation of slurries and manures following application to arable land. Increasing
nitrogen uptake by crops (mainly by improved breeding) and applying nitrogen when the
crop has the highest uptake potential can reduce nitrous oxide emissions from
agricultural land.
Methane is also an important GHG, being over 20 times as powerful as carbon dioxide
as a greenhouse gas. Over 35% of UK methane emissions come from agriculture 44.
80% of this methane is reckoned to come from enteric fermentation in the digestive
system of animals, mainly cows i and 20% from animal waste.
44
UK Climate Change programme 2006 (chapter 7, para 32).
- 25 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
Figure 4: sources of methane emissions (Defra 2005)
Methane and nitrous oxides from livestock could be reduced by feed changes in
livestock farming. About 20% of all UK methane is derived from animal digestion
systems.
Precision farming can help not only in the adaptation to reduced water availability but
also in the reduction of nitrous oxide emissions. Greater efficiency of fertiliser use and
better use of slurries, manures (whether or not digested for energy) can lead to reduction
of nitrogen outputs from the soil, as can reduced tillage 45 and use of cover crops.
4.6 Contribution of farms and estates to national and regional programmes:
In the UK climate change programme 2006, the Government set out its intention for the
agriculture, forestry and land management sector to:
 promote resource efficient farm management in order to reduce agriculture's
contribution to greenhouse gas emissions; and
 examine the scope and feasibility of an emissions trading ii scheme for the
agriculture and forestry sector.
45
Defra commissioned ADAS and Rothamsted to review the effects of reduced tillage practices on the carbon content of
arable soils (Project SP561). The report would appear to have concluded that there is limited scope for additional soil
carbon storage / accumulation from zero / reduce tillage practices and organic material applications, over and above
present day normal farm practice. Indeed, the report questioned the implications of such practices for nitrous oxide (N 2O)
emissions and the overall balance of greenhouse gas emissions. The report concluded that only the application of
biosolids (treated sewage sludge and digestate from anaerobic digestion), compost and paper crumble appear to offer
significant levels of CO2-C savings. If reduced tillage is to be encouraged, the report recommends that it should be for its
protection of existing soil organic carbon (SOC) levels and benefits to soil water retention and prevention of erosion, as
well as reduced production cost and energy use, rather than for additional carbon storage per se.
The report considered the potential increases in SOC following the application of a range of organic materials at 250 kg /
ha total N. Farm manures at 10.5 t/ha gave a potential increase in SOC of 630 kg / ha / yr, compared with 8. 3 t/ha of
digested biosolids which gave a potential increase in SOC of 1500 kg / ha / yr.
- 26 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
The Kyoto Protocol 46 acknowledges carbon uptake associated with forests planted after
1990 (the ‘Kyoto forest’), but does not include the growth of forests planted before this
date. International and national carbon trading schemes have been established, but
there remains some uncertainty as to what happens if or when the forests are felled 47.
A UK emission trading scheme (ETS) was established in April 2002 but the current
scheme excludes carbon credits from forestry 48. Defra has commissioned research to
For the UK, the ‘Kyoto target’ is a 12% reduction of the 1990 level of carbon emissions levels by 2008-2012, amounting
to 19 million tonnes of carbon per year. The national target is a 20% reduction.
46
47
Forest ecosystems make an important contribution to the global carbon budget. This is because of their potential to
sequester carbon in wood and soil but also because of their potential to release it if forests are cleared. Many countries
and organisations, including the UK Government and the Forestry Commission, are cautious about promoting carbon
sequestration as a means of reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide. The size of the potential gains is uncertain and the
accounting procedures complicated. Moreover, there is a limit to the amount of carbon that woodland can sequester, and
there is a risk that the sequestered could be released – through, for example, felling, forest fires or outbreaks of pests and
diseases.
In the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol (2008-2012) some land use, land-use change and forestry
(LULUCF) activities may be counted towards part of industrialized countries’ obligations to reduce their net greenhouse
gas emissions, both within their borders and internationally.
Forests and woodlands in the UK remove about 4 million tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere every year, compared
with total UK emissions of around 150 million tonnes of carbon (as carbon dioxide) every year – mainly due to the
combustion of fossil fuels. So the forest carbon sink is offsetting about 3% of annual carbon dioxide emissions at current
rates. Carbon sequestered in UK forests is still an add-on to the many other benefits that can arise from forestry. (Source:
Forestry Commission, http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/INFD-6VLKKM)
Research at the University of Helsinki found that increases in tree planting in the EU27 countries absorbed an extra 126
million tonnnes of carbon between 1990 and 2005 – the equivalent of 11% of EU emissions The researchers concluded
carbon credits for forestry would play “a decisive role” in cutting European GHG emissions. Professor Pekka Kauppi
concluded that forests were absorbing carbon at more than twice the rate previously thought (journal Energy Policy
November ’07)
48
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol recognise the role of carbon
sinks, such as forests, in offsetting greenhouse gas emissions and impose responsibilities on Parties to protect and
enhance carbon sinks. The role of forests in carbon sequestration can be promoted including by the application of
appropriate forest management techniques. Carbon sinks can also be enhanced by changes in land management,
including reducing tillage in arable farming. Arable soils usually have very low carbon stocks because of intensive
management involving ploughing and other disturbances to the land. If the intensity of these operations is reduced, the
carbon in the soil can be increased.
Some US scientists have found that the contribution of no-till cultivation to carbon sequestration can be substantial.
Steven Apfelbaum and John Kimble, in “Soil Carbon Management: economic, environmental and societal benefits”
conclude Farmers report that no-till agricultural practices increased crop yields by 10% and reduced fossil fuel usage by
90%”, and that because it leaves leftover plant matter on the land, “no-till agriculture could add 1.3 inches of soil materials
and organic matter per acre over the next 50 years”. This would have a significant though unquantified effect on soil
carbon. This contrasts with UK studies that no-till would only contribute an insignificant amount of soil carbon per year,
with a small saving in fuel offset by an increase in herbicide usage. In addition, they found that most UK farmers adopt min
till rather than no-till systems, which further reduces carbon accumulation; and that since most UK farmers plough after
about 3 or 4 years to control weeds, and carbon build up would in practice be lost (Prof David Powlson – private
correspondence). This view is endorsed by Met Office sources, who say that not only are soil C benefits of min-till often
overstated, but there is relatively little consistent information on soil C stocks, whereas many US studies consider only the
top 5 centimetres of the soil (Pete Falloon, Met Office - private correspondence).
The potential gains from carbon sequestration via forestry are likely to be small relative to total carbon emissions.
However, the carbon sink associated with UK forests can make a contribution to the range of policies to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Because of the short-term and potentially reversible benefits of carbon neutrality measures
based on forestry, one option might be to involve them in projects that deliver a 'package' of benefits, for example
providing a source of renewable wood fuel or products in the longer term. (source: Forestry Commission
- 27 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
assess the most effective option for bringing agriculture, forestry and land uses within an
emissions trading scheme.
In the future, carbon rights may provide additional opportunities for forestry, though
consideration will need to be given as to whether land owners should be able to claim
grant funding in addition to selling the woodland’s carbon rights.
The NFU, in its response to the Government’s draft Climate Change Bill, welcomed the
opportunities the Bill will provide farmers through the production of renewable fuels and
bioenergy, storing carbon in soil and vegetation and by producing biogas from digesters.
While the NFU recognises the role of agriculture also as a GHG emitter, particularly of
nitrous oxides and methane, it calls for further research before measures to reduce
these emissions can be implemented 49.
4.7 Carbon offsets:
Carbon offsets enable individuals and businesses to reduce the CO2 emissions they are
responsible for by offsetting, reducing or displacing the CO2 in another place, typically
where it is more economical to do so 50. Carbon offsets typically include renewable
energy, energy efficiency and reforestation projects.
Voluntary schemes are currently being operated in the UK by some organisations, who
are buying up substantial areas of forest every year, and selling the carbon rights to
individuals or organisations who wish to become ‘carbon neutral’. The market is at a
very early stage in UK iii, typically these offsets appeal to companies wishing to offset
flights taken by their employees. The European Commission and more recently Defra
have proposed that such schemes should be accredited.
Carbon offsetting has the potential to provide a valuable additional source of revenue
funding for bio-energy as well as forestry. It may be possible to extend the EU and in due
course the UK ETS to renewable energy projects also, providing a valuable new and
ongoing income source to initiatives which might otherwise struggle for viability.
4.8 Renewables obligation certificates (ROCs):
Any system of carbon trading needs to be considered alongside the effect of the
renewables obligations (ROs 51), which place an obligation on all electricity suppliers to
source a specific proportion of their electricity supplies from renewable energy sources
or contribute to a 'buyout' fund. Eligible renewable generators receive renewable
obligation certificates (ROCs) for each MWh of electricity generated. These certificates
NFU President Peter Kendall said: “... The joint committee has recommended a need for close monitoring and reporting
of other greenhouse gases besides just carbon dioxide to ensure complacency does not set in. The NFU acknowledges
this, and that the farming industry needs to take responsibility for these gases, but will need sound research and
development before measures to reduce them should be implemented.”
49
The UK is developing a Government Carbon Offsetting Fund (GCOF) to meet the Government’s commitment to offset
carbon dioxide emissions arising from official and Ministerial air travel from April 2006
51
The RO applies to eligible renewables, without the special 'technology bands' that existed in the previous Non Fossil
Fuel Obligation (NFFO), which provided extra funding for selected newly emerging technologies. This shortfall has been
addressed by R&D grant aid.
50
- 28 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
can then be sold to suppliers, to fulfil their obligation iv. ROCs have significantly
increased the profitability of renewable energy generation as the certificates can sell for
more than the power 52.
The UK government signalled in the Energy Review 2006 that it would put forward
proposals to band the Renewables Obligation, thereby effectively selecting winners and
losers from an array of renewable technologies and awarding them differentiated
renewable obligation certificates. The Energy Bill, which at the time of writing has
completed its Committee stage in the House of Commons, confirms this, providing two
ROCs per unit of electricity generated from anaerobic digestion.
4.9 Biomass and land use:
It is a matter of controversy whether the substantial rise in the use of biomass from
agriculture, forestry and waste for producing energy might put additional pressure on
farmland and forest diversity as well as on soil 53 and water resources. The recent EEA
study 54 concluded that significant amounts of biomass can be available to support
ambitious renewable energy targets, even if strict environmental constraints are applied.
Energy White Paper –
Table 2: key points
in the Biomass
Strategy (Energy
Biomass
Strategy
‘07White Paper 2007):
…significant potential to expand the UK supply of biomass without any
detrimental effect on food supplies and in a sustainable manner by:
– sourcing an additional 1 million dry tonnes of wood per annum from
currently unmanaged woodland in England, and from …managed
woodland and wood waste products across the UK
– increasing the amount of perennial energy crops – potential to use
up to a further 350,000 hectares across the UK by 2020 (ie. total
land availability for biofuel and energy crops to around 1 million
hectares = 17% of total UK arable land);
– increasing supply from organic waste materials such as manures
and slurries (ie. Anaerobic digestion / AD)
Even on a conservative basis, the biomass potential increases to around 15% of the
projected primary energy requirements of the EU-25 in 2030, compared to a 4 % share
for bioenergy in 2003 55.
52
See Fourth report from House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology
(http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldselect/ldsctech/126/12607.htm)
53
Soil is the largest carbon reservoir in the UK, storing about 6 billion tonnes of carbon. About 3 billion tonnes of this is
stored in peats and other organic soils which cover about 30 per cent of the UK’s total land area (source: Forestry
Commission).
How much bioenergy can Europe produce without harming the environment?” Tobias Wiesenthal, Aphrodite
Mourelatou, Jan-Erik Petersen (EEA) and Peter Taylor (AEA Technology) for European Environment Agency, EEA Report
No 7/2006, published 08 Jun 2006
54
55
15% is equivalent to 295 million tonnes of oil equivalent (MtOE) in 2030. This compares to 69 MtOE used in 2003
- 29 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
The resulting reduction in greenhouse gases depends on the way the biomass is
converted into heat, electricity and / or transport fuels, which fossil fuels are replaced,
the way the biomass crops are grown, and the extent to which artificial fertilisers are
used.
Biomass heating systems are not fully “carbon neutral” due to CO2 in harvesting,
transport, processing and in construction of the boiler, but:
g/kWh CO2
25
8
194
265
291
Wood fuel emits about
Wind energy
Gas
Oil
Coal
So on a full lifecycle basis, it is reasonable to say that biomass (specifically woodchip)
for heating emits about one tenth of the CO2 emission levels of oil heating.
4.10 Anaerobic digestion (AD):
Anaerobic digestion (AD) of methane is widely used for the purification of industrial and
municipal waste waters. However, AD is little used as a method of treatment for farm
“wastes” in UK, whereas in Germany it is reckoned that there are more than 3500 farmbased AD plants, and they are widely used elsewhere in Northern Europe.
Figure 5: Greenfinch AD plant in Scotland
- 30 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
Anaerobic digestion has multiple benefits, it can help to contain smell from livestock
“wastes” and reduce pollution as well as producing bio-gas in the form of methane which
can be used directly or as a source of heat and power v. Biogas is CO2-neutral energy
and when it replaces the use of fossil fuels, overall CO2 emissions are reduced. The
digestate from the process has an enhanced and predictable nutrient value, enabling
more accurate fertiliser scheduling and applications to be carried out. This can be
particularly important in the case of organic production systems.
Climate change, rising oil prices (until June 2008) and concerns over energy security
have led to a growing interest in the potential of using bioenergy as a transport fuel. The
transport sector is responsible for around 21% of the EU's greenhouse gas emissions, a
proportion which continues to increase year by year. Biodiesel can be used as a direct
substitute for mineral diesel, though to date vehicle manufacturers have been reluctant
to extend warranties where more than a small percentage (5 – 30%) of biodiesel is used.
Table 4: CO2 equivalent emissions
Fuel type
Net greenhouse gas emissions (grams of CO2
equivalent emissions per kWh electricity)
Willow SRC (from within 50 km
radius of generator)
77
Gas
411
Coal
1,054
Source: RCEP, Biomass as a Renewable Energy Source, Table 4.3.
- 31 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
5. Carbon trading for the agriculture, forestry and land management sector:
Changing land use practices to improve agricultural efficiencies can make a
significant contribution to reducing GHG emissions. Little attention has focused
on methane capture from agricultural activities, an area that could provide
measurable progress 56.
Agriculture and forest management can offset GHG emissions by increasing
capacity for carbon uptake and storage in biomass, wood products and soils biological carbon sequestration. The net flux of CO2 between the land and the
atmosphere is a balance between carbon losses from land use conversion and
land management practices, and carbon gains from forest growth and
sequestration in soils 57.
Improved forest regeneration and management practices such as density control,
nutrient management, and genetic tree improvement can promote tree growth
and result in additional carbon accumulation in biomass. In addition, wood
products harvested from forests can serve as long-term carbon storage pools.
Agricultural practices such as conservation tillage and grassland practices such
as rotational grazing can also reduce carbon losses and promote carbon
sequestration in agricultural soils – although as will be seen there is no scientific
consensus as to which agricultural practices will actually lead to reductions in
GHG emission levels. These practices offset CO2 emissions caused by land use
activities such as conventional tillage and cultivation of organic soils. Agriculture
and forestry provide opportunities to reduce GHG emissions through targeted
management 58.
Innovative practices to reduce GHG emissions from livestock include modifying
livestock feed, inoculating feed with agents that reduce CH4 emissions from
digestive processes, and managing manure in controlled systems that reduce,
recover for energy, or eliminate GHG emissions. Anaerobic digestion is a
promising technology for capturing and using CH4 emissions from livestock waste
as an alternative energy source. In addition, GHG emission from soils can be
reduced with improved nitrogen use efficiency, involving both reduced nitrogen
applications and improved nitrogen uptake by plants.
56
See for instance Virginia State Advisory Board greenhouse gas working group report, January 2007.
57
IPCC 2001
Virginia State Advisory report on GHG emissions, January ’07.
58
- 32 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
5.1 Principles of carbon trading:
Carbon trading involves capping carbon emissions so as to create a market for carbon
which would otherwise be emitted into the atmosphere. It is seen by some EU leaders 59
as a key to creating incentives for major polluters, particularly in the developing world, to
build in carbon saving technology and choose less damaging development options when
they are available.
Carbon trading often gets a very bad press 60. It has been suggested, for instance, that
“thus far, both (the major carbon) markets have earned fortunes for speculators and for
some of the companies which produce most greenhouse gases and yet… have
delivered little or no benefit for the environment” 61.
The principle obstacle to carbon trading as a means of creating a market for reduced
emissions is that the US remains opposed to any suggestion that emissions should be
capped. Although the Clinton administration signed up to Kyoto in 1997, and some US
States (notably California) have effectively committed themselves to the principles, no
international agreement on a successor agreement seems likely under the current US
administration 62.
59
According to the Financial Times (20th May), Gordon Brown believes emissions trading, rather than higher taxes, is the
best way to tackle global warming. However, he seems to prefer the UK’s own Energy Performance Commitment scheme,
announced in the Energy White paper, to the EU ETS as the basis for this.
60
The founder of Climate Care, Mike Mason, told the environment audit select committee in February ‘08: “I think planting
trees is mostly a waste of time and energy.” And yet Climate Care relies for some 20% of its online sales on forestry.
“Truth about Kyoto: huge profits, little carbon saved” (Guardian 2nd June ‘07,
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2093815,00.html). It is alleged that collusion between UK carbon
trading firms and Chinese factories is allowing them to make big profits without any significant reduction in carbon
emissions. HFC-23, a potent greenhouse gas far more toxic than carbon dioxide, is awarded many more credits than
carbon dioxide allowing chemical factories, mainly based in China, that fit “scrubbing” equipment to reduce the gases to
be awarded millions of carbon credits, generate huge profits through UK trading firms and flood the market with cheap
credits bought by highly polluting governments in developing countries. Under the current Kyoto protocol this loophole is
perfectly legal.
61
62
The U.S. government rejected any prospect of a deal on climate change at the G8 summit in Germany in June 2007.
Despite Tony Blair's declaration that Washington would sign up to "at least the beginnings" of action to cut carbon
emissions, leaked notes showed the US position to be "fundamentally opposed" to the proposals” (for a cap on emissions)
and went on to say that any deal on this would "run counter to our overall position and cross multiple 'red lines' in terms of
what we simply cannot agree to". The Obama administration has yet to set out its full position. Speaking in December
2008, before taking office, Mr Obama said “Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all, Delay is no longer
an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response.”
The concept of an international agreement involving the G8 industrialized nations, and some of the poorest but most
polluting countries such as India and China, was first mooted by Blair at the G8 summit in Gleneagles in 2005.The plan
drawn up by the Germans presidency with British help for the G8 summit would involved setting up a network of carbon
trading schemes. Washington specifically rejected the sections on carbon trading, saying to back trading schemes would
imply acceptance of emission caps.
In Australia, the former Howard Government, which had also been opposed to carbon trading now appears to be modified
its position, and proposed a regional carbon emissions trading scheme that would include China and the US. Following
the change of Government in the Australian election, the incoming Labour government has been more favourable to
carbon trading has now signed up to the Kyoto process.
- 33 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
5.2 The EU Emission Trading System (EU ETS):
In 2005, the European Union introduced a Europe-wide market in carbon dioxide
emissions for major greenhouse gas emitting industries. This is the forerunner to a
similar system that will operate for signatories to the Kyoto Protocol from 2008. The EU
ETS is designed to prepare European nations for Kyoto.
The scheme is based on the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances, called
EU Allowances (EUAs), to specific industrial sectors through national allocation plans
(NAPs) with oversight by the European Commission (EC). These allowances can be
traded. The first phase of the EU ETS covers the period 2005-2007, while the second
phase coincides with the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period, from 2008 to 2012.
The first phase of the EU ETS applies to 7,300 companies and 12,000 installations in
heavy industrial sectors in the EU. These include energy utilities, oil refineries, iron and
steel producers, the pulp and paper industry as well as producers of cement, glass, lime,
brick and ceramics.
Each EUA gives the owner the right to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide. Companies that
don't use up all their allowances, and emit less than they are entitled to, can sell them.
Companies which exceed their emission target must offset the excess emissions by
buying EUAs, or pay a fine of €40 a tonne.
To manage the trade in allowances and verify holdings, the ETS requires member states
to create a national emissions allowance registry holding accounts for all companies
included the scheme.
A market now operates through brokers and on electronic exchanges where EUAs are
traded on a daily basis. Most of the trade is in "forward contracts", that is, EUAs for
delivery by the end of the calendar years to which the allowances relate.
There are two broad types of emissions trading schemes, “cap and trade” and “baseline
and credit”. The EU ETS operates as a cap and trade system, as does the UK’s own
system, and UK has opposed any use of a baseline and credit system (which might be
easier to set up when caps may be hard to agree and to allocate).
Holders of CERs (Certified Emission Reductions) 63 are entitled to use them to offset
their own carbon emissions as one way of achieving their Kyoto or EU ETS emissions
reduction target. "Credits", which are created when a project is undertaken elsewhere
that reduces greenhouse gases, can also be traded.
63
CERs or Certified Emission Reductions, are 'carbon credits', or 'carbon offsets', issued in return for a reduction of
atmospheric carbon emissions through projects under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), an
initiative under which projects set up in developing countries to reduce atmospheric carbon generate tradable credits
which can be used by industrialised nations to offset carbon emissions at home and meet their Kyoto reduction targets.
The projects include afforestation, reforestation and “clean fuels” technology projects. One CER equates to an emission
reduction of one tonne of CO2.
- 34 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
Although the initial carbon phase of the EU emissions trading scheme (ETS) is regarded
as having performed badly in terms of reducing emissions 64, carbon trading has started
to generate very real sums for investment, including in the US. The UK Government has
made it clear that the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is "the cornerstone of the
Government's policy framework to tackle climate change."[1]
The Council of Environment ministers agreed at the end of June 2007 "that the
European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is and will remain one of the
most important instruments for the EU's contribution towards achieving ... significant
emissions reductions" 65.
5.3 Does the EU ETS work?
The Review of Environmental Economics and Policy journal 66 concludes the EU ETS is
“by far the most significant accomplishment in climate policy to date” and serves as a
model for any emerging global carbon trading regime. This followed an assessment of
the scheme by an international group of economists in a series of articles published in
the journal. They found there was clearly an initial over-allocation of emission permits,
which undermined the first phase of the scheme 67.
The authors concluded that the EU ETS has a promising future for reducing emissions in
Europe but its long term success depends on a global carbon trading framework
emerging to secure similar worldwide reductions.
5.4 Why are agriculture and forestry excluded?
The European Union decided to exclude carbon credits from forestry projects in its
Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). There has been recent pressure to include forestry,
mainly so as to provide an incentive to developing countries to halt deforestation and
damage.
Defra, in its submission to the Environment Audit Select Committee inquiry, said “it is evident from 2005 emissions
results that more allowances were available than were required for compliance with the Scheme, hence deflating the
value of allowances, and, consequently, diminishing the financial incentive to reduce emissions over buying allowances”
65
Further changes to the ETS were agreed in January 2008, including:
- a single EU-wide cap on the number of emission allowances instead of 27 national caps, and a larger share of
allowances to be auctioned instead of allocated free of charge;
- the inclusion of a number of new industries (but not agriculture or forestry at this stage) together further gases (including
nitrous oxide); and
- provision for Member States to exclude small installations from the scope of the system, provided they are subject to
equivalent emission reduction measures.
See http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/35
64
66
The Review of Environmental Economics and Policy is published by Oxford University Press and edited by 26
academics from institutions around the world including Harvard and University of California. Lead authors Dr Denny
Ellerman (MIT) and Dr Barbara Buchner (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei) said the excess of allowances over emissions
can be attributed both to over-allocation in some countries and sectors, and to emission reductions in response to the
price of allowances in 2005. The price of allowances in the first year of the scheme nonetheless secured a reduction
inemissions by the industries concerned by about 7%.
67
FT 29/05/07
- 35 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
Land use change, dominated by deforestation in the tropics, contributes nearly 20% of
global GHG emissions, as well as being the leading cause of species extinctions
worldwide and a significant source of water and air pollution and soil erosion. Land use,
land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) projects have the potential to mitigate climate
change, while at the same time addressing these other pressing social and
environmental challenges 68.
Activities in the LULUCF sector can provide a relatively cost-effective way of offsetting
emissions, either by increasing the removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere
(e.g. by planting trees or managing forests), or by reducing emissions (e.g. by curbing
deforestation). However, there are drawbacks as it may often be difficult to estimate
greenhouse gas removals and emissions resulting from activities of LULUCF. In
addition, greenhouse gases may be unintentionally released into the atmosphere if a
sink is damaged or destroyed through a forest fire or disease 69.
5.5 What is the scope for including forestry in the EU ETS?
The UK Climate Change Programme (CCP) 2006 commits Government to: “Examining
the scope and feasibility of a market based mechanism to facilitate trading of
greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions from agriculture, forestry and other land management
sectors.”
Defra has commissioned research on the most appropriate mechanisms. In its guidance
to contractors, Defra stated:
“The Agriculture, Forestry and Land Management (AFLM) sector is responsible
for emitting three major GHGs: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous
oxide (N2O), but it is also responsible for sequestering large quantities of carbon
in forestry and grassland and providing biomass feed stock which can be used
for biofuel production, and heat and power generation, all of which can help
mitigate CO2 emissions through fossil fuel substitution.”
The European Council invited the Commission to consider a possible extension of the
scope of the EU ETS to land use, land-use change and forestry, as well as to surface
transport, "exploring all necessary implementation aspects as well as advantages and
disadvantages and questions of practicability"; and asked the Commission to suggest
key criteria for the inclusion of new sectors or gases in the EU ETS 70.
68
Conservation International.
69
Source: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), see
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/2877.php
Under Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol, the parties decided that greenhouse gas removals and emissions through
afforestation and reforestation since 1990 are accounted for in meeting the Kyoto Protocol’s emission targets.
Conversely, emissions from deforestation activities are subtracted from the amount of emissions that an Annex I Party
may emit over its commitment period. Under Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol, parties could elect additional humaninduced activities related to LULUCF, specifically, forest management, cropland management, grazing land
management and revegetation, to be included in its accounting for the first commitment period.
70
The EU ETS began on 1 January 2005, following on from a recommendation in the report (June 2001) of the European
Climate Change Programme (ECCP), established by the European Commission (the Commission) "to help identify the
most environmentally and cost effective additional measures enabling the EU to meet its target under the Kyoto Protocol,
namely an 8% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2008-2012." The European Commissioner for
- 36 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
However, UK and a number of other member states see the inclusion of European
forestry and land use as a lower priority within the EU scheme, and point to the problems
of measuring.
For these reasons it is likely to be 2013 before agriculture and forestry can secure any
return from EU ETS, but informal but accredited alternatives may be possible to create in
the meanwhile.
Discussions are continuing in Brussels about the next stage of the EU ETS, and it is not
too late to secure inclusion for forestry – in EU as well as in developing countries. Poland
and France are pushing for this. The EU Council meeting in March 71 asked the
Commission to consider including forestry in the ETS
UK does not appear to have taken a view on the principle, but is pushing for monitoring
and verification issues to be sorted before a decision is taken 72. The Defra view appears
to be that if verification can be sorted out, forestry could be included in the UK emissions
trading scheme, as banks and supermarkets were in the Energy White Paper of May ’07
73
.
Environment, Stavros Dimas, describes the EU ETS as "the European Union's single most important measure for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions".
The EU ETS currently covers around 11,000 power stations and industrial installations across all 25 Member States of the
European Union (including over 1,000 sites in the UK), together responsible for approximately 45% of the EU's carbon
dioxide emissions and a similar proportion of the UK's emissions.
For Presidency conclusions of the European summit on 8th and 9th March ’07, see
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/93135.pdf , in particular:
“35. Given the central role of emission trading in the EU's long-term strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the
European Council invites the Commission to review the EU Emissions Trading Scheme in good time with a view to
increasing transparency and strengthening and broadening the scope of the scheme and to consider, as part of the EU
ETS review, a possible extension of its scope to land use, land-use change and forestry and surface transport.”
As far as UK is concerned, Defra is likely to be guided by a study completed by NERA Economic Consulting 2007, which
looked at the feasibility of GHG emissions trading for agriculture, forestry and land management,which indicated that a
“cap-andtrade” scheme is unlikely to be a cost-effective option at this
stage as the administrative and abatement costs could outweigh the emission reduction benefits, but that a project-based
scheme could have greater potential (source: UKCIP report to Parliament, July ’08).
71
72
See also annex C to energy White Paper (http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file39578.pdf) for UK position on the EU ETS,
including:
“2. Emissions trading is the UK’s carbon price instrument of choice and a key component in a comprehensive UK policy
framework to effectively mitigate climate change….”
“We welcome the progress on the inclusion of aviation, and urge the EU to consider whether sectors that are not
currently in the EU ETS should be brought in, including surface transport (the UK position makes no mention of forestry).
The inclusion of other greenhouse gases should also be considered…. where a sector is not suitable for inclusion in the
EU ETS, it should face a carbon price through some other route”.
73
For Energy white paper, see http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file39564.pdf
The UK Government position includes “We … want a strengthened EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) to deliver a
market price for carbon and to be the basis for a global carbon market. This will enable carbon emissions to be reduced in
the most cost-effective way.”
“Large non-energy intensive public and private sector organisations in the UK such as hotel chains, supermarkets, banks,
central Government and large Local Authorities account for around 10% of the UK’s emissions. Emissions trading could
deliver significant energy savings in this sector. We have therefore decided to introduce a mandatory cap and trade
scheme, a Carbon Reduction Commitment, which will apply to the largest organisations in this sector; those whose …
electricity consumption is greater than 6,000MWh per year. “
73
Nera (2007). The “ALULUCF sectors” referred to are the Agriculture, Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry
sectors. The NERA report concludes:that a "cap and trade" scheme (like the EU ETS) for forestry might not be cost
- 37 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
5.6 The next steps?
A recent review of research by ADAS/IGER 74 to identify best practice for reducing
GHGs from Agriculture and land management attempted to quantify the potential
effectiveness in GHG emission reductions from different abatement options, although the
related costs were not estimated. In addition, as part of a scoping study to assess the
feasibility of an emissions trading scheme in the agricultural sector, Defra has
commissioned a marginal abatement cost curve for the ALULUCF sectors 75, with a
preliminary cost benefit analysis of different mitigation options.
effective due to administrative costs; that payments would be made available where farmers and land managers
undertake particular projects which sequester carbon - but only to the extent they go beyond "business as usual", and that
therefore only new forestry planting on fresh ground (and without the benefit of grant aid) should be counted?
This was an initial feasibility study and it did not include – for example - consideration of ancillary costs and benefits of
measures. It also considered only a limited set of mitigation options. Nor does it attempt to estimate costs of abatement
options in the future.
74
Defra report AC0206, October 2007. A follow on project, AC0207, will look at barriers to uptake of mitigation options
and costs to farmers.
Defra is also looking at soil sequestration (as part of Soils Strategy) but does not believe that the benefits of sequestration
of carbon in soils can be quantified or substantiated.
65
- 38 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
6. The future of emissions trading:
The global carbon-trading market is doubling in size every year, putting it on
course to become one of the biggest earners for energy desks and raising the
question of whether emissions trading is environmentally effective or just another
revenue stream for investment banks 76.
Proponents of carbon trading programs, such as the European Union's
Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), say they are the most effective way of cutting
emissions while limiting the financial impact on industry. But critics have
dismissed carbon trading as ineffective, hard to enforce and susceptible to
political pressure from the big oil and electricity companies it is intended to
control. They question whether these schemes really lead to a significant
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, portraying them as a way for industry to
pay lip-service to the green agenda.
6.2 The price of carbon:
The price of the benchmark EUA (European Union Allowances) contract closed
at €25.15 on the European Climate Exchange (ECX) on 29th May ‘07. The Dec
08 contract closed at €22.60. These are the highest prices since a plunge in April
2006, when emissions verification reports revealed a surplus of EUA permits in
phase one of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The European
Commission is taking a hard line with draft national allocation plans, cutting them
back by an average of almost 10% since then.
Market Watch, May ’07 (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/energy-desks-betting-bigfuture/story.aspx?guid=%7BD81A7B6C-E9F7-4896-B704-75881E5D2392%7D).
“More than $40 billion of carbon-dioxide permits will be traded this year -- small fry compared to oil or other energy
markets. But almost everyone agrees it won't stay that way for long…. "Conservatively, we think it's going to be worth $3
trillion (in 20 years’ time)," said Peter Fusaro, chairman of Global Change Associates, an energy consulting group. To put
that into perspective, $3 trillion is roughly the size of the combined markets for oil, natural gas, electricity and coal today.
Others also see significant growth in the shorter term as well. Point Carbon, another consultant in the emissions-trading
field, believes the market could reach as much as $200 billion by the end of this decade, according to its director Henrik
Hasselknippe.”
76
- 39 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
Figure 6: EU ETS prices for end May '07 and end March ‘08 77
6.3 Other carbon trading options:
There are already a number of private carbon trading schemes, most of them
unaccredited. Again, these schemes have had a bad press, and some see them
as an “excuse to carry on doing what we are already doing but feel good about
it”. The only four schemes accredited to Defra at present involve offsetting in
developing countries.
Private offset schemes are widely used, including by Defra ministers, to offset
emissions from flights. This again is sometimes criticized, it is suggested that, by
77
Source: Carbon Positive (http://www.carbonpositive.net/viewarticle.aspx?articleID=98)
- 40 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
helping people to feel they have cleaned the slate of the impact of their lifestyles,
such schemes encourage people to carry on making flights whereas many would
argue the important thing is to reduce or contain CO2 emissions from flying
rather than to offset it. Some are starting to accuse companies who use these
sites of "greenwash" 78. There are even allegations that some offsets are being
sold over and over again.
Tim Yeo, chairman of the all-party environment audit select committee,
commented at the start of their inquiry into the carbon offset market that there is
"a very strong suspicion that the environmental gains are dubious." Yet the
committee concludes that they “support emissions trading as the most
environmentally effective and economically efficient way to tackle the climate
change impacts of aviation.”79
6.4 The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX):
Carbon trading for agriculture has made more progress in North America than in
Europe. The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is “the world’s first and North
America’s only active voluntary, legally binding integrated trading system to
reduce emissions of all six greenhouse gases”. Eligible projects include
agricultural methane as well as methane from landfill and coal mines, and
agricultural and rangeland soil carbon, forestry and renewable energy. Soil
carbon offsets are available for projects involving sequestration of carbon in soil
resulting from the adoption of conservation tillage and activities in designated
states of North America.
For instance, enrolled producers in Illinois may be issued offsets at a rate of 0.6
metric tons of CO2 per acre per year and producers in central Kansas may be
issued offsets at a rate of 0.4 metric tons CO2 per acre per year, the difference
reflecting the carbon sequestration ability of the soils. Prices have ranged from
below $1 to above $5 per metric ton, and volumes traded since January 2007
have averaged in excess of 100,000 metric tons per day 80. The US National
Farmers Union's Carbon Credit Program has roughly 2.7 million no-till and grassseeded acres in 30 states under contract, and earned more than $2.5 million for
producers in its first year of operation 81.
78
See for instance Peter Newell's comments in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1984762,00.html)
and Charles Clover in the Daily Telegraph
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/15/ngreen15.xml)
79
Government Response to the Committee’s Sixth Report of Session 2006–07: Voluntary Carbon Offset Market
(http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmenvaud/418/418.pdf)
80
CCX Soil Carbon Management Offsets, see
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/docs/offsets/CCX_Soil_Carbon_Offsets.pdf
81
“Ohio farmers make extra money by not tilling land”, Associated press 19th March ’08
(http://media.www.bgnews.com/media/storage/paper883/news/2008/03/19/State/OhioFarmers.Make.Extra.Money.By.Not.Tilling.Land-3274402.shtml )
- 41 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
7. Mitigation options for agriculture:
7.1 Practical mitigation options:
As part of a recent report to Defra 82, ADAS and IGER have now identified mitigation
methods currently available for farmers to use as best practice to reduce GHG
emissions, particularly nitrous oxide (N2O – four methods) and methane (CH4 – two
methods, one of which may also result in reduced N excretion and hence contribute to
reduced emissions of N2O), and carbon dioxide (CO2 – two methods related to land
use change).
The report categorized the methods under three headings:
 Management practices and agronomy – where farmers can improve on what they
already do;
 New or different technology – where farmers and land users would need to be
willing to make bigger changes; and
 Structural changes to the farming business – where farmers and land users
would need to make large changes, such as using land differently, change
manure management systems etc.
The eight main mitigation methods identified are:
1. Do not exceed crop N requirements 83 - by management practices;
2. Make full allowance of manure N supply 84 by management practices;
3. Spread manure at appropriate times/conditions by management
practices;
4. Increase livestock nutrient use efficiency – by new technology uses;
5. Make use of improved genetic resources by new technology uses;
6. Make use of anaerobic digestion technology for farm manures and
slurries;
7. Change land use - to establish permanent grasslands/woodlands
8. Change land use - to grow biomass crops.
We have considered the application of methods 2, 3 and 6 combined on the Clinton
Devon Home Farms.
The report also identified a number of methods that offer the potential to reduce
emissions of N2O, CH4 and CO2, but which are currently at a stage where further
evidence of their efficacy and/or long-term consequences is required.
Of these, we have considered the use of reduced / zero tillage methods, bearing in mind
that these methods have been replaced by rotational ploughing as a consequence of the
“A Review of Research to Identify Best Practice for Reducing Greenhouse Gases from Agriculture and Land
Management” AC0206 – ADAS and IGER
http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=AC0206_6675_FRA.pdf
See also “The carbon footprint of British Agriculture” – options for greenhouse gas mitigation in UK farming”, Chris Pollock
– formerly Director of IGER, Chief Scientific adviser to First Minister, Assembly for Wales, emeritus professor,
Aberystwyth university of Wales, launched at Nuffield Carbon Farming conference, Stoneleigh 30/04/08
82
83
As set out in RB209/PLANET
Based on MANNER, a decision support system that can be used to accurately predict the fertiliser nitrogen value of
organic manures on a field specific basis. MANNER has been developed using results from the latest research, funded by
DEFRA, on organic manure utilisation on agricultural land.
84
- 42 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
conversion of the dairy units to organic; and use of methods to increase dairy cow
efficiency (nutrition and breeding).
7.2 Cultivations and recycling of organic materials to land:
Both reduced tillage and the recycling of organic materials to land have been promoted
as a means of increasing the storage of carbon in agricultural soils. Stern (2006) cited
the example of the Chicago Climate Exchange, where a minimum four-year commitment
to continuous zero-tillage on enrolled areas was valued at $1-2 per acre per year
(approximately £1.25-£2.50/ha).
There are approximately 4.5 million ha of tillage land in England and Wales, so even
small increases in soil organic carbon (SOC) storage per hectare of agricultural land
could overall lead to important increases in carbon storage at a national level.
A recent review for Defra 85 estimated that the Carbon (C) storage potential of zero
tillage under UK conditions is just over 300 kgC/ha/yr. This equates to about 0.35% of
the typical carbon content of an arable soil in England and Wales. Reduced tillage was
estimated to have half the C storage potential of zero tillage at just over 150 kgC/ha/yr.
These estimated C storage potentials can only be regarded as the initial rate of increase
(in the first 20 years or so), as annual rates of SOC accumulation will decline (eventually
to zero) as a new equilibrium is reached by about 100 years. The report argued that
much (if not most) of the stored C from reduced/zero tillage practices will subsequently
be released as a result of the increased soil disturbance caused by periodic ploughing.
Reduced tillage has many benefits, besides protecting existing SOC levels and
potentially increasing SOC; it can increase soil water infiltration rates and reduce water
erosion, enhance soil water retention, and decrease production costs and fossil fuel
(energy) consumption. CO2-C savings associated with reduced energy consumption
have been estimated at 22 and 16 kg/ha/yr CO2-C for zero and reduced tillage systems,
respectively, compared with conventional tillage.
However, zero tillage has also been shown to increase direct emissions of nitrous oxide
(N2O) by up to 190 kg/ha/yr CO2-C (compared with conventional tillage), due to an
increase in topsoil wetness and/or reduced aeration as a result of less soil disturbance.
This means that increased N2O emissions may completely offset the balance of
greenhouse gas emissions compared with the amount of C potentially stored through
changing from conventional to reduced/zero tillage practices.
The recycling of organic materials to land provides a valuable source of nutrients and
organic matter, and could potentially increase SOC levels. Currently, around 90 million
tonnes of farm manures, 3-4 million tonnes of biosolids (treated sewage sludge) and 4
million tonnes of industrial ‘wastes’ are applied (on a fresh weight basis) annually to
agricultural land in the UK.
There have been a number of long-term experiments investigating the effect of various
organic material additions on SOC. The estimates of potential SOC increases given in
the Table below should be regarded as the initial (c.20 years) rate of SOC increase.
85
The extent to which reduced tillage practices and organic material returns could increase the organic carbon content of
arable soils under English and Welsh conditions (SP0561 - ADAS and Rothamsted 2008)
- 43 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
It is debatable whether increases in SOC following the application of farm manures and
soil incorporation of cereal straw can be considered genuine additional carbon storage
(against a present day baseline), as nearly all of these materials are already applied to
land.
Table . Potential increases in SOC following the application of a range of organic
materials at 250 kg/ha total N
Application rate
Potential increase in SOC
% of SOC stocks
Organic material
Farm manures
Digested biosolids
Green compost
Paper crumble
Cereal straw
(t/ha dry solids-ds)
10.5
8.3
23
30
7.5
(kg/ha/yr/t ds)
60
180
60
60
50
(kg/ha/yr)
630
1500
1400
1800
370
in England & Walesc
0.69
1.64
1.54
1.98
0.41
The application of organic materials to agricultural soils can, however, help to maintain
and enhance existing SOC levels. Most organic materials that are applied to land also
provide a valuable source of plant available nutrients, as with digestate from anaerobic
digestion, thereby reducing the need for inorganic fertilisers. This provides both cost and
energy (fossil fuel) savings involved in manufacturing inorganic fertilisers (particularly N).
Reductions in inorganic fertiliser N usage (and hence direct N2O emissions) offset most
of these losses following organic material additions.
The report found that the application of biosolids, green compost and paper crumble
offer the best opportunities for CO2-C ‘savings’ - though only if the organic materials are
diverted away from landfill can the increased SOC be regarded as genuine additional
carbon storage.
It is probable that land-use change from for example, arable cropping to permanent
willow/poplar biomass cropping, permanent grassland or woodland, offers the greatest
potential for increased soil C storage and overall mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions
from agricultural land, with estimated C storage/saving rates of over 1800 kg C/ha/yr.
However, of equal importance is the preservation of existing SOC stocks, particularly by
avoiding the ploughing out of existing permanent grasslands.
There is limited scope for additional soil carbon storage/accumulation from zero/reduced
tillage practices and organic material applications, over and above present day normal
farm practice. Indeed, there are questions over the implications of such practices for
nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions and the overall balance of greenhouse gas emissions
(expressed on a CO2-C equivalent basis). Only the application of biosolids (treated
sewage sludge and digestate from AD), compost and paper crumble appear to offer the
same level of CO2-C ‘savings’ that have been predicted for land-use change options
(e.g. reversion of arable land to permanent grassland, woodland or willow/poplar
biomass production).
If reduced tillage is to be encouraged, the report concludes “it should be for its protection
of existing SOC levels and benefits to soil water retention and prevention of erosion, as
well as reduced production costs and energy use, rather than for additional carbon
- 44 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
storage per se." This conclusion, which runs contrary to the recommendations of the
Stern review, which advocated minimum tillage as a strategy based on scientific work
elsewhere, is of significance to the Clinton Devon Home Farms, where minimum tillage
was the preferred cultivation technique until conversion to organic production
necessitaed the return of rotational ploughing.
7.3 Mitigation options for the future:
In addition, the report considered a number of speculative methods that are still at the
concept stage, where some evidence for the potential to reduce GHG emissions exists
86
. In the light of the conclusions reached by ADAS and IGER, we have taken the view
that it would be premature to consider the application of these methods to Clinton Devon
estate.
The report also identified the main knowledge gaps in establishing mitigation methods
for agriculture, to include:
 Nitrous oxide – the need to develop mineral N fertilizer application rate and timing
policies, and manure/anaerobic digestate timing policies;
 the need to carry out field-based research on the potential of nitrification
inhibitors to reduce N2O emissions;
 Methane – the need to further understand the potential of dietary manipulation
(including forages and supplements) to reduce enteric and manure emissions,
and to carry out full lifecycle analysis of the GHG benefits of anaerobic digestion;
 Soil carbon storage – the need to quantify the benefits of peatland restoration
and management, arable reversion and reduced tillage on soil carbon storage
and emissions;
 Modelling – the need to develop integrated models that are able to quantify GHG
emissions from whole farm systems under a range of scenarios, to enable
potential best practices to be chosen and implemented;
 Inventory – the report found that the structure of the UK GHG inventory is
insensitive to many of the potential mitigation methods highlighted.
86
These include methods for improved animal feed characterisation, vaccination of ruminants against methanogenic
rumen bacteria, modification of the rumen population by antibiotics and natural products, and natural nitrification inhibitors
produced by crops.
- 45 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
8. Forestry and climate change:
Trees capture CO2 from the atmosphere as part of the process of photosynthesis, and
release a small amount through respiration, leading to a net accumulation of carbon,
referred to as carbon sequestration. Carbon is locked up in wood and wood products,
which contain between 15% and 30% carbon content, until released into the atmosphere
through decay or combustion.
Because the carbon dioxide emitted by burning wood (like other forms of biomass) is
matched by carbon taken up during the growing cycle, biomass is often referred to as
carbon neutral. In the case of forest products, this is fairly accurate description, since no
fertilizer and relatively little fuel will have been consumed during the process, although
for many other energy crops, these need to be taken into account within a “whole
lifecycle analysis”.
Forest soils are also a major carbon store, and trees sequester carbon in their roots.
Forest soils tend to have a higher carbon content than agricultural soils, although the
capacity of agricultural soils to take up carbon should not be underestimated 87.
The UK Climate Change programme (2006) estimates the amount of carbon stored in
UK forests (excluding soil) at 150 million tones, annual sequestration in UK forests at 4
million tonnes carbon. This compares with UK carbon emissions as a whole at 150 - 160
million tonnes per annum, so UK forests currently offset rather over 2.5% of total UK
emissions, and the amount of carbon stored in UK forests is about the same as the total
UK annual carbon emissions 88.
Sustainable forests make a significant positive contribution to reducing carbon
emissions, and in addition wood has an important contribution in substituting for building
materials such as concrete or brick, since these materials use a lot of energy in
production. Every cubic metre of red brick replaced by sawn timber in construction can
avert emissions of over 1 tonne of carbon 89.
87
The Pew Centre in US estimates that improved soil management practices combined with the Conservation Reserve
program in US sequester about 23 million metric tons of carbon per year in mineral soils, offset by net emissions from the
cultivation of peat soils and from agricultural liming, leading to a small net sink of 12 MMT per year from US soils
(www.pewclimate.org/docuploads/Agriculture%27s%20Role%20in%20GHG%20Mitigation%2Epdf)
88
“Carbon issues in UK forestry”, Sandy Greig, Quarterly Journal of Forestry 2007.
89
For every m3 of heavy concrete substituted by sawn timber there is a GHG emission benefit of 750 – 800 kg carbon, 500
– 550 kg for every tonne of steel or plastic substituted (Tipper at al, 2003). Other estimates show considerably higher net
emission benefits from timber substitution.
- 46 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
8.1 Forestry carbon budgets:
Detailed carbon budgets for Kielder and East Anglia Forest Districts show that carbon
sequestration exceeds carbon emission by a ratio of more than 50:1. Sequestration is
increased by with yield class (ie. Higher yield species on better soils and sites). Taking
the Treasury value of the “social cost” of carbon at £85 per tonne, the sequestration
benefits of 80 tonnes per ha annual sequestration in trees (or 2.05 tonnes per hectare)
in Kielder Forest could lead to benefits of £170 per hectare of forest; taking the current
ETS carbon value of about $25 per tonne, or say £13 per tonne, the value of this benefit
would be more like £26.50 per ha – and this takes no account of any adjustments to be
made before forestry and other land uses are included in the EU ETS, probably in 2013
Sandy Greig (op cit) points out that if the carbon sequestration benefits of forestry are
assessed at £50 per tonne – being the social value placed upon them in the Stern report
– then carbon sequestration would be very clearly top of the list of the non-market
benefits of forestry.
8.2 The relevance of carbon trading to agriculture and forestry in UK:
It seems sensible to consider the potential application of various forms of carbon trading
to new and existing woodlands in developed countries such as UK. To make the case for
the inclusion of forestry within the formally accredited schemes, it is helpful to start by
assessing the potential benefits of the sector in terms of carbon sequestration – locking
up carbon which would otherwise be emitted into the atmosphere.
Government advice is that "where carbon-offset schemes or activities aimed at claiming
carbon credits are under consideration, caution should be exercised as sequestration
through afforestation is finite, potentially short-term and reversible, and verification
procedures are not well developed at present." 90.
“A social and environmental benefit of woodland is the extent to which it can
contribute to the policy objective of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere by locking up
carbon through carbon sequestration”. “Carbon stored in existing woodland and carbon
accumulating into existing and new forests create social benefits by keeping that carbon
out of the atmosphere” 91.
The 2003 study by UEA raised two principal issues: the net carbon sequestration under
forestry; and the value per tonne of carbon sequestration. As they reported, “carbon
storage associated with woodland land use occurs primarily in live wood, soils and
harvested products. The carbon locked into live wood is directly linked to timber volume
which itself is a function of tree species. Timber volume information is generally available
for Forest Enterprise-managed areas, but not for private woodland holdings 92.
90
Forest Research Centre information note "Forests, Carbon and Climate Change"
(http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/fcin048.pdf/$FILE/fcin048.pdf
91
“CARBON SEQUESTRATION BENEFITS OF WOODLAND”, a report to the Forestry Commission by Julii Brainard,
Andrew Lovett and Ian Bateman (Centre for Social & Economic Research on the Global Environment, School of
Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia) 2003
92
Yield class, species, planting year and rotation data were vital inputs to the carbon sequestration models. Where these
variables were missing, for instance in mixed woodlands, the authors assigned them using the observed proportions in
known FC subcompartments.
- 47 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
Even at the highest discount rates (6%) and the lowest social value (£6.67 / t C), the
report concluded that the carbon sequestered in Great Britain’s trees is worth at least
£1.7 billion. Using the median social value of carbon (£14.70 in 2003) and median
discount rate (3.5%), the total value of carbon in GB forests was assessed at £5.92
billion. Overall, private woodland has nearly three times the carbon sequestration value
of the FC estate. Much of this is due to ancient woodlands, as well as less private
planting on peatlands. The value of carbon held in private broadleaf woodland in
England is especially significant, at £1.8 billion - greater than the carbon sequestration
value of the entire FC estate in Great Britain (£1.6 million).
Figure 7: social value of carbon in woodlands of GB regions (Brainard et al, 2003)
- 48 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
Figure 8: predicted yield classes for GB deciduous woodlands (Brainard et al 2003):
The report also concluded that carbon held in soils can be much greater than that in
trees or products; and that the rate of sequestration (or loss) is at least as important as
the cumulative totals. They concluded that, on non-peat soils, about 50 tC/ha might be
gained post-afforestation in upland areas 93, and about 100 tC/ha for lowland areas.
In a more recent report looking at the benefits of sequestration in Sitka spruce
plantations 94, the same authors said ”growing more trees has been suggested as a
possible means of reducing atmospheric CO2, and thus mitigating global warming. The
tactic has limitations, and is most useful as a short-term stopgap rather than a long-term
solution”.
93
For the purposes of this study, “upland areas” were those at 150m elevation or above.
“Sensitivity analysis in calculating the social value of carbon sequestered in British grown Sitka spruce”, by Julii
Brainard, Andrew Lovett, and Ian Bateman (Centre for Social & Economic Research on the Global Environment, School of
Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia), published August 2006.
This research confines itself to the impact of carbon sequestration on global warming, and takes no account of forestry or
soil greenhouse-gas emissions other than carbon/carbon dioxide. Of particular importance is the role of peat soils as a
sink or source of the other main GHGs, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Although smaller in sheer volume of
releases, these GHGs have immense potential to alter climate.
94
- 49 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
9. An assessment of Carbon Storage and Sequestration in the Clinton
Devon Estate Woodlands
This section of the report was commissioned 95 to provide Clinton Devon Estates with a
better understanding of the amount of carbon stored in the estate’s woodlands, and the
annual addition to the store as the trees grow (sequestration).
Due to differences in woodland types the report deals separately with the Clinton and
Beer woods and the Heanton woods. The crop data used to calculate carbon storage
and sequestration is summarised in the Excel spreadsheets at appendix 4.
95
Report prepared by Sandy Greig, Sandwood Enterprise Ltd for Clinton Devon Estate. The basis of the report is the
crop data, including species, age and yield class, provided by Clinton Devon Estate Head Forester John Wilding.
- 50 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
This report provides estimates of:
 Current carbon storage in above ground tree biomass, and
 Annual carbon sequestration in above ground biomass.
The report does not deal with the amount of carbon stored on the ground
(litter/deadwood) or in the soil. Below ground carbon storage is complex and there is no
local data on soil carbon levels. As the woods are in general long established it is likely
that soil carbon levels are high, compared to adjacent agricultural land, and reasonably
stable. It is also likely that the amount of carbon stored on and below ground exceeds
that stored above ground.
The amount of carbon removed annually in harvested wood products, and the carbon
emissions from forest management operations has not been dealt with at this stage.
Both would have to be assessed to gain a full picture of the carbon account for the
estate’s woodlands.
9.2 Above Ground Tree Carbon:
Estimates based on crop data and Forestry Commission yield models are shown in the
Excel spreadsheets at Appendix. They are summarised in Tables 1 and 2 below:
Table: Above Ground Carbon by Species Group and Age Class: Clinton and
Beer. Figures in tonnes carbon 96.
Species
Group
Oak
DF 18
DF 16
JL
SP/LP
CP
NS/SS
Totals
014
13
25
9
20
1524
651
2556
750
544
8
22
97
517
5018
2534
347
2609
171
1063
132
1662
373
6357
3544
730
1243
400
3656
1832
3399
1022
12282
4554
527
675
167
579
1246
106
499
3799
5564
274
6574
33
7584
697
212
108
141
73
39
447
256
199
329
1064
553
1191
8594
301
95104
>
104
6958
495
301
7453
Totals
10531
7108
2316
5970
4054
5891
2245
38115
The total above ground storage of carbon in the Clinton and Beer woods (696.6 ha) is
38,115 tonnes or 54.7 tonnes per hectare.
Table: Above Ground Carbon by Species Group and Age Class: Heanton.
Figures in tonnes carbon.
Species
Group
Oak
DF 20
DF 16
JL
SP
SS/NS
Totals
014
316
5
36
7
22
386
1524
44
2419
132
1111
491
1233
5430
2534
3544
20
6699
60
3209
919
2269
13176
27
5621
168
1875
552
4587
12830
4554
37
3487
44
277
390
439
4674
5564
89
1446
6574
141
29
24
7584
494
8594
940
95104
1691
>
104
8717
105
205
1522
4774
194
599
1145
3213
13491
40
28
1603
96
Totals
12200
20017
7039
6548
2387
8550
56741
Notes to tables: DF is Douglas Fir, JL Japanese Larch, SP Scots Pine, LP Lodgepole Pine, CP Corsican Pine, SS Sitka
Spruce and NS Norway Spruce.
- 51 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
The total above ground carbon storage in the Heanton woods (950.2 ha) is 56,741
tonnes or 59.7 tonnes per hectare. The total amount of carbon currently stored above
ground in the Clinton Devon estate woodlands (1646.8 hectares) is estimated at 94,856
tonnes or 57.6 tonnes per hectare.
The distribution of stored carbon by age class is shown for the combined Clinton Devon
Estate woodlands below.
30000
Carbon (tonnes)
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0-14
15-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
Age Class
- 52 –
Helical Group 2009
75-84
85-94 95-104 >104
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
9.3 Annual Above Ground Carbon Sequestration:
The estimates are provided in the spreadsheets at appendix and summarised in Tables
3 and 4 below:
Table 3: Annual Sequestration by Species Group and Age Class: Clinton and
Beer. Figures in tonnes carbon.
Species
Group
Oak
DF 18
DF 16
JL
SP/LP
CP
NS/SS
Totals
014
4
11
5
5
1524
54
201
147
99
5
7
37
81
582
2534
38
277
19
96
15
209
52
706
3544
56
82
26
204
135
214
81
798
4554
27
30
7
22
65
5
26
182
5564
6574
1
1
7584
17
7
3
5
2
1
12
5
3
13
29
15
26
8594
95104
7
>
104
78
7
78
Totals
283
601
214
429
237
517
179
2460
Annual carbon sequestration in the Clinton and Beer woods is 2460 tonnes or 3.53
tonnes per hectare.
Table 4: Annual Sequestration by Species and Age Class: Heanton. Figures in
tonnes carbon.
Species
Group
Oak
DF 20
DF 16
JL
SP
SS/NS
Totals
014
1524
2534
136
3
11
2
13
165
6
483
26
184
80
247
1026
2
712
7
284
105
250
1360
3544
2
361
11
100
41
283
798
4554
2
152
2
11
20
17
204
5564
3
44
6574
4
1
1
7584
12
8594
21
95104
31
>
104
98
1
2
13
26
6
13
23
44
124
Totals
1
1
49
181
1889
92
591
249
810
3812
Annual carbon sequestration in the Heanton woods is 3812 tonnes or 4.01 tonnes per
hectare.
Total annual carbon sequestration in the Clinton Devon estate woodlands (1646.8
hectares) is estimated at 6272 tonnes or 3.8 tonnes per hectare.
- 53 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
10. GHG emissions and sequestration on Clinton Devon Estates:
Two systems of assessment have been applied to the data for the Home Farms and the
forest enterprises on the Clinton Devon Estate.
The results are broadly compatible, The CALM (carbon aware land management)
calculator enables a crude assessment of the emissions from the farming operations to
be made, to which has been added our own assessment of the sequestration effects of
the forestry on the estate.
The direct emissions of CO2 are about 150 tonnes per annum of CO2 from energy use,
or 420 tonnes of CO2 per annum in total.
To this must be added relatively small volumes – less than 90 tonnes of methane (CH4)
and less than 10 tonnes of nitrous oxides (N2O). Most of the latter results from cropping.
Although the tonnages are small in relation to the CO2, when the relative global warming
potential of these gases is taken into account, the net effect is more than 3000 tonnes
CO2 equivalent from the dairy cows and a further 1400 tonnes CO2 equivalent from the
cropping and grass (to include nitrogen fertilizer – since largely eliminated due to the
conversion to organic farming).
The absolute emissions of methane and nitrous oxide, at 86 tonnes and 9.7 tonnes
respectively, seem at first sight small in relation to the emissions of carbon dioxide.
However, when the global warming potential is taken into account, methane emissions
are equivalent to over 1800 tonnes carbon dioxide (CO2e), and make up 35% of gross
emissions; and nitrous oxide, at over 3000 tonnes CO2e, makes up 58% ot total
emissions.
Natural England used the same CALM calculator to conduct a baseline survey of 200
farms, including 24 other dairy farms. Although organic dairy farms were excluded from
the survey, the data may be comparable with Clinton Devon Home Farms. The survey
found a range of total emissions from 4.3 to 10.7 tonnes pa CO2e per .
Insert photo from CD of cows grazing (“cows” - needs caption as to date and location)
- 54 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
The CALM assessment was carried out on the basis of the farming system during
organic conversion. For the effects of organic conversion of the dairy units, and also to
consider the likely impact of using anaerobic digestion for the stored slurry, we have
used the IGER calculator.
The GHG emissions from the Home Farms (expressed in CO2 equivalence) are about
5000 tonnes per annum after taking account of the sequestration effect of recent land
use changes. This is more than offset by the annual sequestration effect of about 6250
tonnes per annum on rather over 1600 ha of Estate woodlands. However, it is important
to remember that the let farms on the estate have not been taken into account at this
stage.
- 55 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
The emissions from the Home Farms spread over the total cropped area work out at just
under 5.5 tonnes CO2e per annum per hectare, within the bottom quartile of emissions
for dairy units in the Natural England baseline survey.
The IGER system enables comparisons to be made for the Home Farm dairy units on a
before and after basis, estimating emissions of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide per kg of
milk produced on the Home Farms. Looking at the effect of organic conversion, the dairy
herd with 400 cows pre organic conversion was estimated to produce just under 50 kg of
CO2, 120kg CO2 equivalent of methane, and 110 kg CO2 equivalent of nitrous oxide
(N2O) per litre of milk produced.
160
140
120
100
CO2
N2O
CH4
80
60
40
20
0
Conv
Organic
Org + AD
Figure 9: emissions (kg CO 2e) per kg milk under conventional (400 cows), organic (500 cows) and
organic with AD systems
The calculations drawn up by IGER (the Institute for Grassland and Environment
Research) as applied to the dairy unit have enabled us to make some useful
comparisons in the emissions levels from the unit before and after the conversion to
organic (and the related increase in herd size). In addition, it has been possible using the
IGER system to estimate the effects on emission levels of an anaerobic digestion
system, were this to be adopted for the slurry from the cows on the Home Farms.
Figure 9 97 shows how methane emissions might be increased by organic conversion on
this size and type of farming system, taking into account the increase in herd size
needed to maintain production levels (in this case 25%, although experience has shown
that an increase in herd size of 15% might have been sufficient to maintain production
97
See appendix 3 for summaries of the IGER calculations.
- 56 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
levels at Clinton Devon Home Farms). It also shows how nitrous oxide emissions would
typically be reduced by conversion to organics, despite the increase in herd size.
Figure 9 also shows the reduction in methane emission levels – to well below the levels
emitted by 400 cows on a conventional system – which might occur as a result of the
introduction of anaerobic digestion of slurry within an organic system of production. The
calculations do not assume any further reduction of nitrous oxide emissions due to the
enhanced fertilizer value of digestate from an AD plant over conventional slurry.
Table 3: illustration of inputs and outputs of possible AD plant at Clinton Devon 98
Flow diagram
Project
Clinton Devon Estate
Prelimnary
Reception system
Manure
28.867 t/y
11% TS
Sludge
5.000 t/y
18% TS
Energy crops
8.000 t/y
35% TS
Feeding
Digester
42.367
7%
256
233
58
155
51
2.018
t biomass/y
TS in digester
t N/y
t NH4-n/y
t P/y
t K/y
Dec C
MWh heat
Glycerine
500 t/y
80% TS
Process electricity
405 MWh/y
46 kW (average)
Electricity production
8.563 MWh/y
977 kW (average)
Electricity for sale
8.158 MWh/y
931 kW (average)
Total gas production
2.272.670 m3 CH4
22.590 MWh
CHP
2.272.670
22.590
Heat for consumption
7.741 MWh/y
884 kW (average)
m3 CH4
MWh gas
Heat production
9.759 MWh/y
1.114 kW (average)
Secondary digester
Digested biomass
37.767 t/y
2.627 t TS/y
256 t Tot. N/y
233 t NH4-N/y
58 t P/y
155 t K
Process heat
2.018 MWh/y
230 kW (average)
Decanter separator
37.767 t biomass/y
2.627 t TS/y
Fibre
5.516
1.820
51
49
48
23
98
Heat for consumption
7.741 MWh/y
884 kW (average)
source: Lars Baadstorp for Helical Group.
- 57 –
Helical Group 2009
t/y
t TS/y
t Tot. N/y
t NH4-N/y
t P/y
tK
Liquid fertiliser
32.250 t/y
806 t TS
205 t Tot. N/y
184 t NH4-N/y
10 t P/y
132 t K
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
Appendix 1:
Forestry compartments at Clinton Devon
Heanton Woods
Species
Ha
YC
Oak
68.76
Ash
1.33
Beech
1.5
Hardwood Mix
30.22
Douglas fir
310.46
Douglas fir & larch
10.95
Japanese larch
163.82
Japanese larch & beech
20.79
Scots pine
62.08
Lodgepole pine
1.07
Norway spruce
25.68
Sitka spruce
91.91
Douglas fir & beech
33.37
Mixed conifers
88.63
Hybrid larch
0.33
Western Hemlock
3.71
Mixed conifers and broadlea
140.74
1055.35
Og
1.46
Weighted average YC
6
8
8
8
20
16
14
14
14
16
18
20
18
18
14
20
14
412.56
10.64
12
241.76
6209.2
175.2
2293.48
291.06
869.12
17.12
462.24
1838.2
600.66
1595.34
4.62
74.2
1970.36
16
Clinton Woods
Pines
Fir
Conifer mixtures
Larch
Hardwood/Conifer mixtures
Hardwoods
Spruce
Cedar
OG
Weighted average YC
164.16
109.05
91.17
99.4
74.72
106.52
29.8
3.88
692.96
14.26
14
18
16
12
14
8
18
18
2298.24
1962.9
1458.72
1192.8
1046.08
852.16
536.4
69.84
0
14
0
Beer Woods
- 58 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
Japanese larch
Hardwood/conifer mixtures
Corsican pine
Conifer mixtures
Norway spruce
Douglas fir
Hardwood
Lodgepole pine
Weighted average YC
43.45
24.77
9.49
8.35
7.65
5.27
2.55
2.39
103.92
14
14
16
16
16
18
8
14
608.3
346.78
151.84
133.6
122.4
94.86
20.4
33.46
14 (14.5 rounded down
- 59 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
Appendix 2:
CALM assessment
Insert tables 1 and 2 from doc. CALM CD Estate ii 0708.pdf
Notes to the CALM assessment:
Business boundaries for CALM:
Clinton Devon Estate includes residential and commercial enterprises, but CALM
has been designed to look at the land based enterprises i.e. farming and forestry
(woodland). While CALM is equally applicable for owner occupier or tenanted
farms, detailed information on energy and fertiliser use, together with the
stocking, cropping, and woodland of the business has been gathered for this
purpose only the in-hand farming and forestry operations of the estate. In line
with CALM notes, other businesses in buildings let on the estate are not
included. In line with the GHG Protocol Standard, our calculations have included
“Scope 1” and “Scope 2” emissions 99, but scope 3 emissions are excluded.
All outputs are shown in Carbon Dioxide equivalents (CO2e). Thus nitrous
oxide (N2O) is taken to have a global warming potential (GWP) 310 times greater
than CO2 and methane a GWP 21 times higher than CO2 100. Not only have
these factors been adjusted since they were set, but they are the estimated
impact over 100 years. In fact, methane (CH4 ) has an estimated life of 12 years,
which means that the initial impact is very much higher that the 21 GWP used for
the purposes of these calculations.
99
Scope 1 refers to direct GHG emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by the company. This includes
emissions from direct combustion of fuels in heaters, boilers, tractors and other vehicles used in the farm business, GHG
emissions from livestock and their waste, from cultivations and from the application of inorganic and organic nitrogen
fertilisers.
• Scope 2 refers to indirect GHG emissions, which are a consequence of the activities of the business but occur at
sources owned or controlled by another company, in this case emissions from the generation of electricity purchased by
the business.
• Scope 3 refers to other indirect GHG emissions. These are a consequence of the activities of the business, but occur
from sources not owned or controlled by the business. The prime example of scope 3 emissions for land-based
businesses is the emissions associated with the manufacture of fertilisers and feeds. These emissions can be significant
but there is little individual land managers can do to reduce such emissions in the fertiliser industry.
100
These conversion factors are stated in the 1995 Second Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel for
Climate Change (IPCC) and are used in the calculator to be consistent with the Kyoto agreement and the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). However, IPCC have now updated these factors to GWP 25
for CH4 and 298 for N20.
- 60 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
Summary of data for the estate:
1. EMISSIONS
Energy – information used is taken from invoices.
Gas oil / diesel: 105,034 litres (2006 / 07)
Electricity: 249,079 kWh
Fertiliser 345 tonnes at 34.5% N
Cattle slurry: Total 7,300 rising to 8,200 cu m per annum at average 10% dry
matter (of which a varying percentage is stored.)
Lime – Crop records and/or invoices.
Dairy cows, cattle and sheep – based on June census data and farm records.
500 Dairy cows - Friesian/Holstein 7,000 - 9,000 litres/head/year
(increased from 400 head in 2006 / 06)
Other cattle: 40 over 2 years (including bulls), 100 cattle 1 – 2 years, 100 head
under 1 year.
Sheep: 1337 Breeding ewes plus 55 rams, total 1392 sheep
2300 Lambs under 1 year (assume average 6 months on holding)
Crops and grass - Cropping history from farm records and/or June Census
forms. Sales receipts or estimates of crop stored for total yield.
W Wheat
263 ha
W Barley
Maize
Grass (and herbage seed)
8.5 t/ha
2 t/ha
64 ha
7 t/ha
1.5 t/ha
82 ha
35 t/ha
503 ha
Land use change (loss of soil carbon) – there has been no significant
movement of land from cropping / grassland to development, or from grassland
to development. However, approx 250 ha has been converted from arable to
grassland in the relevant period.
Organic soil (peat/fens) – there has been no drainage or cultivation of peat
soils
- 61 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
SEQUESTRATION
Forestry (commercial forests):
As shown by the separate calculations by Sandy Greig, sequestration on the
forestry estate more than offsets the 4800 – 5000 tonnes CO2e which is shown
as being emitted per year under the CALM calculations below:
CALM data (i)
Emissions and sequestration by broad category of source and by greenhouse
gas
Emissions
Energy
Carbon
Methane
Nitrous Oxide
Dioxide (CO2)
(CH4) tonnes (N2O) tonnes
tonnes
CO2
equivalent
tonnes
159.33
0
0
159
Energy used in
contracting
0
0
0
0
Fertiliser (nitrogen
only)
0
0
0
0
Imported or
exported organic
manures
0
0
0
0
Lime
132
0
0
132
Dairy cows, cattle &
sheep
0
87.33
4.01
3077
Other livestock
0
0
0
0
Crops and grass
0
0
4.57
1418
Land use change
(loss of soil carbon)
0
0
0
0
Organic soil
(peat/fens)
0
0
0
0
291.33
87.33
8.58
4786
Total emissions
carbon emitted (+)
4786
- 62 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
CALM data (ii)
Emissions and sequestration by detailed sources and activities, in CO2
equivalents
Emissions or
sequestration tonnes
CO2 equivalent
Source or activity
Percent
of totals
Emissions
Energy, Electricity
Energy, Gas oil (red diesel)
131
3
28
1
Fertiliser (nitrogen only), Ammonium
nitrate
0
Lime, limestone and chalk
132
3
80
2
189
4
90
2
Dairy cows, cattle & sheep, Breeding
sheep (ewes and rams)
472
10
Dairy cows, cattle & sheep, Lambs
under 1 year
298
6
1948
41
980
20
Dairy cows, cattle & sheep, Cattle over
2 years
Dairy cows, cattle & sheep, Cattle 1 to
2 years
Dairy cows, cattle & sheep, Cattle
under 1 year
Dairy cows, cattle & sheep, Dairy cows
- Fresian/Holstein Cows 7,000 - 9,000
litres/head/year
Crops and grass, Grass (and herbage
seed)
Crops and grass, W Barley
42
1
Crops and grass, Maize
169
4
Crops and grass, W Wheat
227
5
Total
4786
- 63 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
Appendix 3: IGER calculations for emissions from dairy units
IGER Energy CD conven 1107
IGER Energy CD organ 1107 and
IGER Energy CD organ AD 1107
Appendix 4: end notes and abbreviations:
- 64 –
Helical Group 2009
Clinton Devon Estates Climate and Land Energy Project
i
Methane: Cows produce as much as 500 litres of methane each per day, and there are
more than two million cows in the UK. They are the UK's biggest single source of
methane - a gas over 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide in terms of global
warming, and cattle are responsible for about 3% of all Britain's greenhouse gases.
Professor David Beever, an expert on nutrition, argues that by adjustments to silage
techniques, methane emission could be reduced from say 35 litres of methane per litre
of milk to say 20 litres. Other options under trial include inoculations, and the inclusion of
microbes and extracts of garlic in the diet. (BBC News report, 13th October ’06).
Emissions trading works by allowing countries to buy and sell their agreed allowances
of greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto protocol. Highly polluting countries can
buy unused "credits" from those which are allowed to emit more than they actually do.
Countries can also gain credits for activities which boost the environment's capacity to
absorb carbon. These include tree planting and soil conservation, and can be carried out
in the country itself, or by that country working in a developing country.
The EU emissions trading scheme (ETS) was launched in January 2005 to put a
ceiling on the total emissions by major industrial energy users, specifically carbon
dioxide. It is one of the EU’s main tools in reducing emissions by 8 percent below 1990
levels by 2012, as agreed in 1997 as part of the international Kyoto protocol on climate
change, and now reinforced by European Council decisions in March ’07.
According to Mogens Peter Carl, Director General of the Commission’s DG Environment,
the scheme might in the future include nitrous oxides (N2O) and methane (CH4). It is
likely that in future the allowances would be auctioned, instead of given out freely among
Europe's main polluting industries as at present and traded globally.
V
Carbon trading: A number of voluntary carbon trading schemes have been set up to
offset emissions. Websites help passengers work out the amount of carbon dioxide they
emit, then to identify projects that prevent the same amount of carbon dioxide from
entering the atmosphere. Some of these support accredited schemes in developing
countries under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), but there are as yet no
accredited schemes in UK.
British Airways has joined forces with Climate Care to enable passengers to offset the
CO2 emissions created during their flight. Passengers can use the BA calculator to work
out their share of the emissions created during their journey and the cost of neutralising
the impact of those emissions. They can then contribute this sum to Climate Care to fund
sustainable energy projects around the world – though not as yet in UK.
iv
Renewable Obligation certificates (ROCs): The Government has announced a
target of ten percent of generation to be renewable by 2010 and set the Renewables
Obligation at 10.4 percent in 2010-11.
- 65 –
Helical Group 2009