“Carbon credits don’t help the environment”. We respond.

Farmers Weekly recently published an opinion piece criticising the voluntary carbon market as doing nothing for the environment. The author claims that the lack of “universally approved metrics” might lead to a crisis comparable to PPI.

Here is our response, which Farmers Weekly kindly published in their last edition:

By Dr Alasdair Sykes, Managing Director for Sustainability, Trinity AgTech, & former Chief Scientific Officer at Agrecalc 

In last week's Farmers Weekly, Charles Goadby claims 'carbon credits don't help the environment’, merely allowing 'wealthy companies to continue business as usual'.

We should be alert to corporate greenwashing, however, it's wrong to discredit the entire voluntary carbon market. High quality credits can only be generated for reductions/sequestration that would not otherwise have taken place. They also require organisations to have significantly reduced emissions prior to purchasing offsets. The market is playing a positive role in mitigating GHG emissions – if the right credits are being traded.

The best solutions allow carbon credits to be supplemented with environmental co-benefits (such as biodiversity and water quality), bringing broader environmental benefits.

Charles is correct that there is no universally approved metric for measuring emissions/sequestration;  a lack of scientific rigour in 1stgeneration carbon calculators is something we feel strongly about. However, this doesn't mean there are no independent means of assessing quality.

At Trinity, we follow the latest IPCC 2019 Guidelines, are ISO 14064-2:2019 accredited, and compliant with the Core Carbon Principles. Carbon credits we generate are independently verified by organisations that are part of the International Accreditation Forum and ISO 14065:2020 accredited. Our risk management framework – that provides protections to farmers – is as rigorous as long-established capital markets.

As yields look to be lower than predicted and input prices remain high, it's clear that there is no certainty in farming. Farmers are sitting on a valuable natural capital resource and deserve to be rewarded for stewarding & improving it. This could include hedging some carbon on reputable trades, retaining carbon to add value to provenance-backed produce, or BNG trading. 

What’s important is effective due diligence. Too often, inaccurate opinions are represented as facts, for example, the misconception that farms must be net-zero to trade. The industry has a responsibility to give farmers the facts they need to make informed decisions. And farmers who choose to trade must ensure they are paying fair & competitive commissions, are afforded adequate protections, and have the flexibility to respond to market and business drivers.