Nature Based Solutions Event
Background
This Business Declares event “Nature Based Solutions for Business: Unpacking the Complexity of the ‘Net‘ of NetZero” was held on July 8th 2021. The full recording can be accessed here.
This document sets out a summary of the key points discussed in the event.
Introduction
By way of introduction to the webinar, Ben Tolhurst, Director of Business Declares highlighted that;
whilst most businesses are adopting some form of carbon reduction in their strategies, approaches to improving biodiversity appear much less prominent;
addressing the biodiversity crisis is equally as important as rapid decarbonisation given the role ecosystems play in regulating the health of the planet;
some organisations may believe that decarbonisation positively impacts biodiversity – which is not always the case
Ben went onto conclude that there are a myriad of approaches when it comes to improving biodiversity, generally captured in the term “Nature Based Solutions”. Within this umbrella term is the concept of “off setting” - where a business pays money to another organisation to sequester or reduce carbon; and ‘insetting’- where a business would buy its own land and sequester carbon on its own behalf, either on its own or through its value chain.
Ben posed three questions to commence the webinar and set the scene for the session;
where do/should NBS projects fit in an organisation’s strategy;
how could the buyer be assured of the credibility and authenticity of an NBS project;
how does a buyer or seller of NBS projects account for its “benefits”?
Speaker 1: Emma Watson
Emma Watson, is the Senior Manager for Net-Zero at CDP and The Science Based Targets initiative, where she leads the development of the Net-Zero Standard.
Emma explained that the SBTi is an NGO formed in 2015 and launched just before Paris Climate Accords and has become the most recognised standard for setting corporate climate change targets. Emma spoke about the new standard being developed by SBTi in response to the lack of a consistent and agreed framework for companies to adopt net-zero targets. This new standard is being piloted over the summer of 2021 in time for being launched before COP26 in October.
Emma highlighted the challenge of the ‘net’ of net-zero and the need for companies to follow the mitigation hierarchy which is that they should reduce their operational and value chain emissions as far as is practically possible before engaging in mitigation activities such as nature-based solutions.
However, Emma also pointed out a distinction between those organisations with land sector emissions (forest, land and agriculture) and those who do not have land sector emissions. Emma highlighted the Greenhouse Gas Protocol is developing comprehensive guidance for corporate land use and removals accounting and in parallel, WWF is developing specific science-based target setting methods for companies with land-based emissions. This new guidance on accounting and target setting enables companies with direct land sector emissions to engage with NBS as a component to delivering the emission reductions required to reach net-zero. For companies that don’t have land sector emissions, Emma re-emphasised that NBS cannot be used to reach emission reduction targets, but can be an important way for companies to go above and beyond their science-based targets. Despite this, she stressed the importance that corporate funding for NBS shouldn’t be used to delay decarbonisation or reduce the scope or pace of decarbonisation.
Speaker 2: Robert Stevens
Robert Stevens is the director of policy for ClimateCare. ClimateCare is a B-Corp which develops and finance projects that reduce emissions and deliver impacts against sustainable development goals and also help corporations, governments and civil society organisations to develop their carbon reduction plans and help them finance emission reductions outside their value chain or direct footprints.
Robert agreed with Emma that offsetting should never be used as a substitute for actual emission reductions. The best practice for companies is setting science-based targets and reducing their footprint over time. Whilst
organisations are on their reduction journey, Robert suggested that they could compensate for their unavoidable emissions- which would go down over time- until they met their Net Zero targets. This compensation could come from offsetting projects, which were broadly split into two different categories; avoidance projects which avoid co2 being emitted into the atmosphere and removal projects which would remove co2 from the atmosphere. NBS falls into both of these categories. For example, forest protection is avoiding co2 being released and planting new trees is removing co2 from the atmosphere.
In order to assure the quality of offset projects, Robert explained that there are well-established global mechanisms, such as verification standards, auditing and assurance – both for the standards themselves and for the providers of the off-setting projects. He talked through a number of examples to bring this to life.
In order that organisations can be sure their NBS provider is authentic, Robert recommended working with a trusted provider who had experience in developing projects as well as the need to identify projects where there are measurable benefits against SBTIs goals.
Speaker 3: Jack Taylor
Jack Taylor, who formerly worked as the RSPB’s carbon partnerships lead, now a carbon consultant, highlighted a number of NBS projects each of which was brought to life with specific examples of where different organisations have taken forward specific projects.
He began by looking at Peatlands, which hold 20 times more carbon than all of the UK’s forests despite only accounting for 12% of the UK’s land mass. However, 80% of the UK’s peatland is damaged, which means it was either drained, under agricultural use or had been extracted for peat fertiliser. When working with peatland, the opportunity for NBS is in restoring, protecting
and trying to get the peatland back to a point where it was sequestering again. Jack also highlighted that guidance and assurance for this area is available from the Peatland Code.
Another opportunity under NBS was for creating woodland, which could sequester 500-600 tonnes of co2 per hectare. Only 11.7% of the UK was woodland with only a third of that woodland being of UK native species, meaning that the UK woodland cover was extremely sparse and what was being added may be vast monocultures. There was now the opportunity for those who wanted to offset to create true woodland which would offer biodiversity benefits which would help protect the species which were currently struggling. Jack stressed the need to protect what we have and not to focus on tree planting to the detriment of protecting what already exists – highlighting that only 7% of native woodland is in good condition.
Jack then spoke of coastal (blue) carbon, highlighting that the UK has a significant amount of saltmarsh, primarily located in five or six locations which were the big estuaries of the UK. The 35,000 hectares of saltmarsh in the UK stores around 2 million tonnes with the potential to add 200k more per year of co2 per annum.
Finally, Jack highlighted that farmland could also be considered for NBS. Agriculture accounts for 10% of the UK’s emissions but could be considered extremely inefficient. 40% of land that we farm only produces 2% of the food we eat. Change could be made by taking farmland out of production or changing the type of production for example by planting hedgerows or rewilding to increase biodiversity.
Speaker 4: Zac Goodall
Zac is Sustainability and Ethics manager for Riverford Organics.
Zac spoke of the journey Riverford were taking to reach Net Zero. They began their journey to Net Zero by modelling their business’ emissions to 2030 and beyond and then looked at what residual emissions they would have after their gross emissions reductions project.
In order to assess the possibilities of nature-based solutions, they worked with a consultancy to build a tool where they measured the attributes of potential nature-based solutions which included looking at costs, returns, community
access and involvement, biodiversity improvement, impacts on sustainable development goals and other ecosystem services, annual carbon sequestration and land requirements – this work then generated a specific rating.
From this process they learnt about: the huge costs associated with creating nature-based offsets on land purchased for insetting, the complexities of some of the verification schemes especially when there were multiple stakeholders and apportioning of carbon credits, and the tough call of going ahead with nature-based solutions that didn’t have carbon accreditation schemes yet, but had sufficient scientific evidence to justify their merits.
Zac provided a number of examples of the learnings Riverford had derived from this journey and highlighted that businesses have to ensure that perfect isn’t the enemy of good. By which he explained that there is a risk that companies spend a lot of time seeking out different verification schemes, accreditation and carbon credit methodologies, comparing different projects etc when all the while the conditions on the planet are getting worse. Whilst Riverford are considering a number of schemes now, they are also looking at schemes which aren’t yet solidly verified as a further step in future plans. For example schemes which have benefits such as soil health and integrate with food production and whilst they might not lend themselves well to verification, there is science to evidence these are important areas to progress.
Speaker 5: Simon Pickering
Simon Pickering an ecologist from Ecotricity, highlighted his focus on helping distinguish between the potential impact of renewable energy on wildlife and now Ecotricity has the objective of giving land back to nature as one of the core elements of its business.
Ecotricity have been monitoring and reducing their carbon emissions in detail since 2009 and have reduced their operational emissions from 700 to around 200 tonnes of carbon per year working through a methodology of measure, monitor, avoid, reduce, substitute and only then off set.
Ecotricity planned to develop a scheme to have carbon zero gas generated
in the UK but governmental rules have now changed meaning that the gas they supply to customers is currently being offset overseas with verified schemes; however, Simon highlighted this is a short-term solution.
They also planted 10 hectares of woodland in 1996, which was now sequestering around 150 tons of carbon a year. They are also looking at how to work with other organisations and purchase land themselves. Simon explained that Ecotricity had made the decision generally not to mix the land they were buying to give back to nature with the land that they had bought specifically for carbon sequestration.
Simon highlighted the issue with the timescale from tree planting to sequestration of carbon, highlighting woodlands were much better at doing so than other solutions, although they are not as beneficial for wildlife as peatlands (but peatlands sequester carbon more slowly). This highlighted the dichotomy where carbon sequestration doesn’t necessarily maximise biodiversity.
Simon also reflected on the scenario where carbon is being locked up in trees and those trees/the sequestration project reaches “end of life” and how a business needs to consider this. Simon gave the example where trees may be cut down and used to build a roof and therefore continue to sequester carbon – bringing into sharp focus the interplay between commercial usage and the biodiversity/carbon sequestration activities.
Simon also referenced the Gloucestershire Nature Partnership which has mapped the whole of Gloucestershire and provides a guide to organisations who might want to sequester carbon, improve biodiversity or do both.
Speaker 6: Catherine Byran
Catherine is a Partner at Kingsdale Head Farm LLP, as well as a Trustee of Synchronicity Earth and the Environmental Funders Network.
Catherine spoke about Kingsdale Head Farm, located in the Yorkshire Dales National Park. This site is 600 hectares, with around 400 ha of peatland with varying depths as well as other forms of landscape and terrain including mature woodland and wet heathland.
They are planning to regenerate the natural mosaic of landscapes through interventions including peat regeneration, introducing seed source to return
some of the missing species back into the landscape and conservation cattle grazing.
This approach will deliver a range of carbon sequestration and biodiversity benefits, so that over time an increasing number of missing species will be reintroduced; plant species, butterfly and bird species, many of which will find their own way to the site, whilst managed re-introductions could include red squirrels and native crayfish.
Kingsdale Head will be utilising the Peatland and Woodland Codes for carbon sequestration. Currently the primary biodiversity metric is the Natural England and DEFRA Biodiversity Metric, which is aimed at those involved in the construction and house building sector so that they can fulfil net positive biodiversity targets in developments. There are some short comings in the metric, but land managers can undertake a baseline assessment of their landscape and then see how activities can create biodiversity “uplift units”. Catherine stressed the need for businesses to consider both the carbon and biodiversity outcomes of what they do – very much in keeping with the messages from other speakers.
Catherine also commented that she believed that those projects that undertake verification should benefit from higher pricing in the carbon market than is currently available. She pointed out that the funding available is inadequate for the amount of work that needs to be done on NBS, and the urgency with which it needs to be carried out. Catherine highlighted that Kingsdale Head is interested in working with companies who had similar long-term horizons, had clear plans to reduce carbon emissions and biodiversity impacts and were also interested in outcomes and verification.
Speaker 7: Simon Crichton
Simon is Head of relationship management for Triodos Bank UK. He stressed the need for a just transition – fair for both people and planet and this is at the heart of what the bank is doing in what they finance themselves and how they try to change what other people do.
Simon talked about how they measure and account for all carbon and drew on the example of their new head office which takes biodiversity and net zero to a whole new level as well as embracing the concept of the circular economy.
A big focus for Triodos, having driven down their carbon emissions at scope 1
and 2 levels is to look at how they can redirect their capital and investments (scope 3) and Simon spoke about how the bank became a member of the Netherlands PCAF early on in their business, which is a partnership of carbon accounting financials that set out a framework to measure carbon within the supply chain within its investments and then disclose them.
Simon gave examples of what clients are doing, and particularly highlighted the agriculture industry, stressing that this sector will need to go much further than net zero to balance out emissions in other sectors.
Ultimately, Triodos were seeking net zero across all of their investments and scopes as well as being biodiverse and socially positive, but stressed that this also needs the government and societal backing and support.
Questions and answers
The final part of the session was facilitated by Ben, who posed a number of questions, collated from the audience, to the speakers.
Is there a resource for all of the projects relating to Nature-Based Solutions?
This question was directed at Emma and Robert. Emma’s response was that whilst there were thousands of resources available, there is not a single place to reference them. However, she highlighted the WWF corporate blueprint as being an extremely informative report which was a very good place to start. Emma listed a number of resources which are provided here;
The SBTi Net-Zero Project: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/net-zero
WWF Corporate Blueprint: https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/beyond_science_based_targets___a_blueprint_for_corporate_action_on_climate_and_nature.pdf
The SBTi FLAG project: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/sectors/forest-land-and-agriculture
WRI GHG Protocol project: https://ghgprotocol.org/blog/new-greenhouse-gas-protocol-guidance-carbon-removals-and-land-use
Similarly, Robert agreed that whilst there wasn’t one central resource, there were some, such as the Gold Standard and Verra which he specifically called out.
He also highlighted that there are some interesting methodologies being introduced which are not at scale and incorporated into the formal system, and therefore this area is one which is constantly evolving.
How do you measure carbon sequestered in peats and woodlands?
This question was directed to Catherine, Simon Pickering and Jack. Catherine responded that at the moment, the peat at Kingsdale Head was emitting carbon so she is working with the Yorkshire Peat Partnership to estimate how much it is currently emitting and then plan scenarios on how to reduce that through peat restoration over the next thirty years so that the peat could become a sequesterer of carbon. She stressed that all measurements are based on scientific studies on different types of peat and conditions.
Simon also highlighted that measurements used by Ecotricity are based on long-term scientific data and the latest Natural England sequestration article had the best up to date scientific data and provided the link here. http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5419124441481216
He mentioned that the Woodland Code also had a methodology which covered areas such as how the woodland is planted, the space between the trees, the species of trees, the diameter of trees etc.
Jack referenced the Peatland Code and Woodland Code which had spreadsheets so organisations can self-calculate their carbon sequestration. He also referenced the Soil Association which assesses NBS projects and provided robust figures on biodiversity elements.
How do we look at social justice in nature-based solutions?
This question was handed to Zac, Robert and Simon Pickering to answer. Zac highlighted the scenario where if an organisation changes the agricultural landscape for example to increase biodiversity or carbon sequestration, this could have a major impact on how farmers are paid, or what rural and agricultural communities are producing because the crop type may shift which in turn could change their working patterns and equipment requirements. He also highlighted another scenario where planting a huge block of woodland or changing the land use could exclude people from the area and make the project seem like an exclusive corporate project. Organisations therefore need to be mindful of these aspects.
Simon Crichton also interjected that another challenge is where environmental damage is done in one area and off-set in another, and how this might affect communities.
Simon Pickering built on this point to highlight that the Gloucestershire Nature Partnership had set up a partnership and signed up all the local authorities in the region to ensure that future developments would have to have biodiversity net gain within the region. He also highlighted that whilst people must have access to nature, sometimes this can harm the very thing which is trying to be protected – for example where dogs are let off leads and disturb nature.
Robert spoke of ClimateCare’s work in Africa and Latin America and that forest protection projects were particularly full of potential issues in terms of community and social justice. He highlighted that the best type of projects are ones which protect nature and develop livelihoods. He gave an example of the RSPB project in Sierra Leone which tackled this issue by working on the ground to provide alternative incomes by restarting the local cocoa industry and providing low-cost loans so people could start businesses. Jack also highlighted the tension between for profit projects and social value outcomes and gave examples.
How should we think about the recent criticism of greenwashing in respect of offsetting?
This final question was directed to a participant in the session, Phoebe Lewis of JLL.
Phoebe highlighted that there had been a complicated history with offsetting in general and some claims of greenwashing could be understood. However to categorise all offsetting as simply “greenwash” misses a number of merits and ignores the people and processes set up to verify these offsets, many of which have been discussed.
Equally from Phoebe’s experience, the role of carbon offsets depends on a company’s overall goal. Do they want to be carbon neutral now? Or do they want to use carbon offsets as part of their net zero carbon strategies? In the latter case, this means they can only use offsets as a last resort for residual emissions.
She highlighted that, in response to the historic challenges with offsetting, there are now increasingly new standards and guidance coming forward, both of which reduce the risk of green washing.
Phoebe did highlight that regardless of the above, there is a need for longer terms strategies and investment plans for NBS (and offsetting in general) that are tailored to a company’s overall ESG strategy and timeline for implementation.
Robert also added that in his experience, those clients who use off sets aren’t doing so to delay or down play their decarbonisation plans, in fact quite the opposite. Again he stressed the need for carbon offsets to be considered at the end of organisations’ decarbonisation pathway journeys but given the urgency of the climate emergency, it was helpful that they were reducing and compensating for their emissions at the same time. As a final point Robert re-emphasised that whilst there was huge interest in removals projects e.g. planting more wildlife, there is a risk that this diverts finance from protecting existing standing forests and organisations need to be wary of this.
The event was then wrapped up and feedback was provided.