The numerous benefits of implementing sustainable and regenerative agriculture include the possibility of creating an additional source of income on the farm by generating and selling carbon credits. However, this is not the only mechanism for reducing field emissions. We talk to Adam Kopyście, director of digital and sustainable business development at Bayer, about new alternatives to carbon credits.
Sustainable agriculture, but is it profitable?
Agriculture is gradually becoming an increasingly important element of European climate and environmental protection strategies. Sustainable and regenerative agriculture practices, in addition to contributing to the benefit of the planet, are also intended to measurably serve farmers, increase the resilience of farms to difficulties that arise in the industry and improve the profitability of production.
As Adam Kopyść, director of digital and sustainable business development at Bayer, points out, we cannot talk about fully sustainable agriculture, ignoring any of its aspects – environmental, social or economic.
– What can a farmer get from this? First of all, money – either directly for participation, e.g. in a field emission reduction program or eco-schemes, or indirectly, e.g. through optimization of fertilization. Secondly, increasing the attractiveness of the farm in the eyes of those companies purchasing raw materials for which environmental and climate issues are already important from a business perspective. Thirdly, a chance to increase respect among society, because consumers expect environmentally and climate-friendly agriculture, says Adam Kopyść.
As our interlocutor adds, Bayer has recently introduced to Poland a new service in the field of calculation and reduction of field greenhouse gas emissions for companies from the agri-food industry and farmers cooperating with them, which is intended to complement the basic portfolio of plant protection products, seeds and digital solutions (e.g. . FieldView digital platform) and as a whole strive to continuously increase the sustainability of agricultural production.
Inset will deny offset?
Industry, including the food sector closely related to agriculture, is constantly striving to reduce its carbon footprint. A high-profile way to achieve this goal has become carbon credits, i.e. securities that represent a given amount of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere. Companies purchasing them compensate for their own emissions in this way. This is an example offset.
The opposite of this mechanism is the so-called inset. From offset differs in one fundamental aspect – emission reduction is the case insect built into companies’ supply chains, rather than provided “from the outside”, for example by purchasing carbon credits.
To illustrate this with the example of the operation of farms: a farmer who produces a given raw material can sequester carbon dioxide through appropriate practices, generate carbon credits with the help of intermediaries and sell them to any company that wants to reduce its carbon footprint (offset). It can also join a field emission reduction program run by the company purchasing a given raw material and for its activities to reduce emissions and sequester CO2.2 receive additional gratification directly from this company (inset).
Carbon credits are not a panacea
As Adam Kopyść points out, observing European trends, we can notice a shift towards mechanisms based on emission reduction in the supply chain of companies. This is due to, among others, from new European Union policies that focus strongly on risk reduction greenwashingu, i.e. avoiding promoting products and activities as environmentally and climate friendly, although reality does not fully confirm these claims. The EU, as well as companies interested in reducing their carbon footprint, point to gaps in carbon credit systems in terms of transparency, stability and the supply of high-quality carbon credits. Reducing emissions in your own supply chain gives the company greater control and supervision, which then reports the reduction.
– A farmer who sells raw material but is in the carbon credit program is less attractive to the company purchasing the raw material than a farmer who can sell both raw material and participate in the company’s emission reduction program. Purchasing companies, especially the largest ones, already prefer their own reduction programs because they guarantee them and, among others, greater transparency for the European Commission than carbon credits. Carbon credits are currently an unstable product in the EU, as appropriate legislation in this area is still being discussed at the EU level – explains Adam Kopyść.
Bayer directs its new service for calculating and reducing field greenhouse gas emissions among farmers to agri-food companies with their own emission reduction programs. All indications indicate that this model will be the direction of the future in the European Union.
– .
