Scotland’s rich and varied land and how it is used by us as a society has a big impact on the climate. Rural land use accounts for nearly a quarter of our greenhouse gas emissions, which as a sector, is only exceeded by electricity generation and transport. However, land uses, like forestry, and habitats, such as peatland, also have great potential to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in soils and vegetation. Decarbonising our economy, and indeed our way of life, is a challenge for everyone, every business and every part of Scotland.
The Scottish Government recently published a draft Climate Change Plan – it sets out a vision and pathway for reducing Scotland’s emissions by 66% by 2032 (based on 1990 levels). The ambition is good and there are many positive ideas. At RSPB Scotland we have been busy analysing the Government’s proposals, especially the Land Use and Agriculture chapters. Partly, this is because this is where most of our biodiversity is found and secondly these sectors have often been slow to change. Here are our initial thoughts on these chapters of the plan - the good, the disappointing and the challenging.
The good
For many years we have been making the case to Government about the need to support peatland restoration. At RSPB Scotland we have led the way in testing restoration techniques and hosting peatland research, for example at our Forsinard Flows reserve. Restoration of peatland habitats is essential, to provide a home for nature and to protect the carbon stored in the underlying peat. Past drainage and damage to peatlands means that slowly but surely they are emitting carbon to the atmosphere. In the Climate Change Plan Government has committed to funding restoration of 250,000 hectares of peatlands by 2030. We strongly welcome this announcement, celebrate it and look forward to helping Government achieve it.
The disappointing
Sadly, the agriculture section isn’t nearly as ambitious or positive despite a good, forward-thinking vision. Government has given the agriculture sector something of a let off in this draft Climate Change Plan, indicating that farmers can choose whether or not to adopt low-carbon farming techniques. Farmers can do more, should do more, and must do more to help the climate. They can do more because there are plenty of examples of proven technologies out there to reduce emissions. They should do more because these technologies will often improve efficiency and increase profits. Famers must do more because without farmers taking up climate-smart farming practices, Scotland will be unable to meet its future ghg targets or be resilient to the impacts of a changing climate.
It’s not clear why agriculture is being expected to do less to help the climate than nearly all the other sectors, or than householders like you or I. It’s not clear why Government hasn’t followed its own independent advisor’s recommendation that there needs to be ‘a move away from the current voluntary approach...towards stronger Government policy’. The Government is not clear in the draft Climate Change Plan on its own intentions for many policies and their roll out, for example will soil testing be compulsory or not?
Farming has great potential and opportunity to reduce ghg emissions, especially through storing and sequestering carbon, as well as providing homes for nature. It is disappointing that Government has chosen a slow and unambitious pathway for agriculture rather than clearly leading and giving farmers a good nudge towards the efficiency measures and financial savings that are well documented from these simple techniques and technologies.
The challenging
Tree planting is often lauded as the policy which will help us to achieve negative emissions, i.e. remove CO2 from the atmosphere and help reduce our national carbon footprint. Peatland and other habitats can do the same. So with all this carbon sequestration potential, expanding forest planting and regeneration is a no-brainer, surely? The biggest problem is where all these trees will be planted. With a proposal to up tree planting rates to 15,000ha per year it puts pressure on marginal land; land which is often a home for nature like curlews or birds of prey. More tree planting on productive land runs into conflict with agriculture. So we need a process that ensures we plant the right trees in the right places and in harmony with nature.
We must also plant trees where they have the greatest carbon benefit. More research needs to be done on the impact of forestry on soil carbon in Scotland, especially in shallow peaty soils. Planting the right tree in the right place can make a huge difference for the climate and provide vital wildlife habitats and other benefits. We all need to work together to make this a positive policy rather than one that raises concerns, or even returns us to the days of major disputed forestry cases.
What now?
This is a draft plan so we have the chance to give our opinions to the Government through the Parliamentary Committee leading the response. We will be celebrating the good, challenging the bad and seeking safeguards to ensure all policies are delivered in Scotland’s countryside in harmony with nature.