Welcome to Planet Ecosse

Funding farming to help tackle climate change. More than £7 million has been awarded to 517 rural businesses in 2023 from the Agri-Environment Climate Scheme (AECS).  Overall, £27m will be paid over the lifetime of the contracts to applicants, to help support land management activities that will benefit nature and mitigate against climate change. Farmers can now apply for the 2024/25 AECS funding round, with an expanded range of options to support biodiversity and climate friendly farming activities and land management practices. More than £4 million will also be made available to fund slurry storage and irrigation lagoons in order to improve water quality in rural areas. Farmers and land managers can now apply for larger funding grants with an additional uplift available to those based in Island communities. This will be the final year that support will be available for slurry storage. Rural Affairs Secretary Mairi Gougeon said: “AECS remains a key part of support to farmers, crofters, and land managers in delivering nature restoration and addressing the twin challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss”.  “This year all eligible applications to AECS were approved which is a record approval rate. This shows that despite significant financial pressures, farmers and land managers still recognise the very real need to mitigate against both nature loss and climate change.“ “I would strongly encourage farmers and crofters to apply for the expanded range of options that the scheme now supports. This approach will give farmers and land managers greater flexibility when it comes to helping improve our landscape to mitigate against nature loss.” Francesca Osowska, Chief Executive of NatureScot said:  “Scotland’s farmers and crofters play a vital role in tackling the nature-climate crisis.  By successfully using their knowledge and skills to farm in a nature-friendly way, they ensure that their businesses are sustainable for the future, both environmentally and economically”.   “AECS funding is an important investment in sustainable farming in Scotland, with about 20% of our land being managed for nature and climate benefits under the scheme.”   Supporting farmers and crofters to farm with nature has both local and global impacts, including supporting wildlife, healthy soils and clean water while helping Scotland meet national and international targets to reduce biodiversity loss and tackle climate change.”   Background The Agri-Environment Climate Scheme (AECS) was launched in 2015. The scheme helps to promote land management practices which protect and enhance Scotland’s natural heritage, improve water quality, manage flood risk and mitigate and adapt to climate change. Some examples of the activities that AECS supports include: Funding for the slurry storage and irrigation lagoon options has been underpinned by the Agricultural Transformation Fund (ATF).

Tropical forests are clearly critical to Earth’s climate system, but understanding exactly how much carbon they absorb from the atmosphere, store and release is tricky to calculate, not least because measuring and reporting methods vary. With these measurements paramount for nations assessing the action they are taking to combat the climate crisis, new research shows how differences in estimates of carbon flux associated with human activity can be reconciled. The research, published recently in the Carbon Balance and Management journal, describes why there can be a gap between carbon flux estimates based on data from Earth observing satellites and country estimates given in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Net forest carbon flux is the net exchange of carbon between forests and the atmosphere, calculated as the balance between carbon emitted and carbon sequestered by forests, per hectare over a given period. Satellites provide independent information to show how forests change over time, which allows rates of carbon flux to be estimated. These measurements can then be compared to results reported in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. However, this approach can throw up discrepancies. The published paper highlights the example of Brazil where estimates using Earth observation data indicated that, between 2001 and 2020, the country as a whole was as a net carbon sink. This contrasts to the country’s inventory, which showed that human activity resulted in forests in Brazil being a net carbon source. A carbon source releases more carbon than it absorbs, from activities such as deforestation, logging and fire. A carbon sink is a reservoir that absorbs more carbon from the atmosphere than it releases owing to the ongoing growth of standing forests and the restoration of new forests. Viola Heinrich, from the University of Bristol and the German Research Centre for Geoscience, and lead author of the paper, said, “A key reason why there can be discrepancies between datasets derived from satellites compared to what is reported in inventories can be linked to whether or not a piece of land is considered as managed by humans. “National reports can define an area of forest as managed, but satellites cannot distinguish whether they are managed or natural. “When we adjust Earth observation datasets to land declared as managed in the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, the estimates can then align. The research team focused on three countries as case studies: Brazil as the primary case study, Indonesia and Malaysia. After adjusting the satellite estimates to use the Brazilian National Greenhouse Gas Inventory’s definition of managed forest and other assumptions in the inventory’s methodology, the Earth observation net flux became a source of +0.6 Gt of carbon dioxide per year, which is comparable to that stated in the inventory. In Indonesia, the satellite dataset and the inventory net flux estimates were similar: a source of +0.6 Gt of carbon dioxide per year. However, in Malaysia, there was a considerable difference. The inventory stating that at –0.2 Gt carbon dioxide a year their forests were a sink, but the satellite data indicated that the forests were a source of +0.2 Gt carbon dioxide a year. Dr Heinrich continued, “Despite limited spatial data available for Indonesia and Malaysia, our comparison indicated specific aspects where differing approaches may explain divergence, including uncertainties and inaccuracies “Moreover, our study highlights the importance of enhanced transparency, as set out by the Paris Agreement, to enable alignment between different approaches for independent measuring and verification.” ESA’s Clement Albergel added, “This research has very important implications for our ESA Climate Change Initiative Regional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes Phase-2 (RECCAP-2) project. “The project supports and accelerates the analysis of regional carbon budgets based on the results of top-down atmospheric inversion as well as bottom-up data-driven models and process-oriented global dynamic vegetation models. Bottom-up inventories only report fluxes on managed lands, so, inversions have to be sampled over managed lands. “Using a similar approach as outlined in the recent published paper, will now be able to better reconcile top-down inversions and National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.” Editor’s noteThree different approaches can be used to monitor GHG budgets: 1. Top-down estimates from atmospheric inversions based on atmospheric GHG measurements from in-situ monitoring networks or satellites with atmospheric transport models.2. Bottom-up approaches based on process-based or bookkeeping models for natural and anthropogenic fluxes.3. Bottom-up approaches using activity statistics combined with emission factors, or empirical or process-based modelling. The first two approaches are used in global greenhouse gas budgets by the Global Carbon Project, while most National Greenhouse Gas Inventories follow the third type of bottom-up approach, with different levels of details based on different Tiers defined by IPCC guidelines.