How would the AgriFood system be affected by the SBTi intention to accept carbon credits for scope 3 claims?

Agriculture represents 25% of GHG emissions. It is both greatly contributing to Climate Change and directly impacted by this very problem.

Extreme weather conditions, decreasing yields, soil degradation (from the EU Soil Observatory, 61% of the European land is affected by soil degradation) threaten the base of our food production system, compromising a fundamental pillar of our societies.

Now what?

Well, addressing climate change globally and collectively will not happen without addressing agriculture. And agriculture… is in dire need to reinvent itself and curb emissions.

The promise of regenerative agriculture

Regenerative agriculture is the promise of a better tomorrow. Inspired by soil conservation principles, it has the capacity to store carbon within the ground while coming with a number of co-benefits. Notably, it is more resilient to extreme weather conditions, durably increases yields and promotes biodiversity.

Transitioning to regenerative agriculture is undermined by two major challenges.

• Adoption: Implementing and scaling regenerative practices will not happen without engaging the millions of farmers who work our lands on field daily, guaranteeing the continuance and resilience of our food system.

• Financing: Implementing and scaling regenerative practices has a cost. Cover crops, secondary plots, optimised fertilisation…etc… require upfront investment. Yields temporarily reduce for a couple years before durably increasing. Farmers who are pressured by unprecedented conditions and who, in average, hardly afford to make a decent living, cannot navigate this financial pressure on their own.

SBTi new recognition of offsets

The recent SBTi announcement allowing corporations to meet their Scope 3 targets by investing in environmental attribute certificates (including carbon credits) has sparked significant debate. Many climate opinion leaders have raised concerns about potential mis-use risks associated with this approach.

The primary criticism lies in the implicit equivalence between credits and scope 3 reductions, that could lead corporations to meet their SBTi commitments without making substantial changes to their actual operations. With the proposed accounting approach, there is a risk that companies may substitute carbon offsets to real questioning on the root causes of their emissions, thus undermining the overall effectiveness of global climate action.

The farming ecosystem needs

That being said, after 4 years working alongside farmers, there is an undeniable on-field reality that we can report. A systemic pressure rises. Farmers are in desperate need of support, both human and financial, to navigate the regenerative transition they are mandated to embark on.

Despite the controversy, the SBTi intends to better recognise and account for contributions to carbon removal projects, including the farming ecosystem. It will direct funds towards farmers and project developers implementing regenerative practices and leveraging technology and science to measure, certify and monetise carbon certificates corresponding to carbon removals and GHG avoidances.

The role of VCMs

Voluntary Carbon Markets (VCMs) and carbon credits offer clear benefits. They provide a structured financial framework to collectively support projects that remove carbon from the atmosphere and avoid emissions. These markets operate on the basic human and economic principle that incentives drive behaviour.

While VCMs have faced challenges, it is typical for new economic opportunities to attract both genuine innovators and those seeking quick yet questionable profits. Crisis and controverse bring light to those markets, pressuring them to evolve towards greater trust and transparency. Recognized global certifications such as ICROA, ICVCM, and CRCF are becoming essential, and set higher standards and centralized norms.

The SBTi announcement, combined with these centralized certification initiatives, will channel more funds into voluntary carbon markets, and especially to regenerative agriculture projects.

Supporting regenerative agriculture development

The proposed SBTi approach may not be the most adequate to ensure that corporation use offsets in addition, and not in competition, to scope 3 reduction efforts and rethinking their business model, but it attempts to better account for the necessity to accelerate carbon removals.

Although we could wish for a more efficient accounting method, promoting the use of environmental certificates via the SBTi will be encouraging more and more organisations to support and develop low-carbon projects, making a significant impact on our global climate goals.

Our farmers need support. Let us give it to them.