Connect with us

Published

on

Welcome to Carbon Brief’s Cropped.
We handpick and explain the most important stories at the intersection of climate, land, food and nature over the past fortnight.

This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s fortnightly Cropped email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.

Key developments

Amazon feels the heat

DOLPHIN DEATHS: More than 150 endangered pink river dolphins have washed up in recent days in the Brazilian Amazon, the Washington Post reported. It said: “The cause is unknown, but scientists say the likeliest culprit is extreme heat and drought, possibly linked to climate change and the El Niño phenomenon.” Water temperatures in a lake in the Amazonas state reached 39C recently, possibly leaving dolphins “disoriented”, a scientist told the publication. “The loss of oxygen triggers an increase in their cell metabolism, and they die of asphyxia [complete loss of oxygen],” it added.

CLIMATE’S ROLE: The deaths come during an extended period of unusual heat across several South American countries. A new analysis from climate scientists at the World Weather Attribution group released this week found that extreme September temperatures in Brazil and Paraguay were made at least 100 times more likely by human-caused climate change. It added that the temperatures were 1.4-4.3C hotter than they would have been in a world without global warming. Meanwhile, Carbon Brief covered new research finding that recent drying over the Amazon could be the “first warning signal” that the rainforest is approaching a tipping point.

RAINFOREST ROAD: Climate Home News reported that Brazilian government officials are considering using the Amazon Fund, a major source of international finance aimed at protecting the rainforest, to pay for a “controversial road project”. According to the publication, officials have a plan for “a road that cuts through the Amazon forest and connects two major cities in the north of Brazil – Manaus and Porto Velho”. Environmentalists and scientists in Brazil told Climate Home News that they disagreed with using the Amazon Fund for such a project. One of the fund’s creators, forest scientist Tasso Azevedo, told the publication: “I don’t think it makes any sense. This project does not fit into any of the fund’s planned support lines.”

EU agri round-up

LOBBY MEET-UPS: Agricultural lobby groups and six “influential” European politicians held “an average of over two meetings a week” in recent years, according to DeSmog. The outlet found that between January 2020 and July 2023, more than 400 meetings took place between six members of the European parliament (MEPs) and agri-industry representatives. The lawmakers met industry-linked groups “eight times as often as [they met] non-governmental groups representing public interests”, the outlet said. The politicians are all members of the centre-right European People’s Party, which was at the heart of climate and nature policy controversies earlier this year (see previous editions of Cropped). One of the MEPs said he does not take orders from industry groups, and the other five politicians involved did not respond to DeSmog’s request for comment.

TILLAGE V DAIRY: “Unbridled support” of the Irish dairy sector has “pushed tillage [crop farming] aside and left it struggling to survive”, according to Noteworthy. The Irish investigative outlet looked at high rental costs and other issues affecting grain growers across the country who say they feel “squeezed out”. In a separate piece, Noteworthy analysis found that around 50m tonnes of animal feed – largely maize and soya – have been imported to Ireland since 2012. The country has “never produced enough cereals – wheat, barley and oats – to meet livestock needs”, the piece added, with imports “only going in one direction – up”. Also in Ireland, the government announced a €3bn “war chest” for climate action and nature regeneration as part of the country’s annual budget, the Irish Independent reported.

OILY ISSUES: Meanwhile, the Guardian said that Europe has “almost run out of local olive oil supplies and is set for more shortages”. Extreme weather has “damaged harvests” for the second year in a row in key producer countries such as Spain, leaving Europe to import supplies from South America to meet demand, the outlet said. Rafa Guzmán, an olive grower in Jaén, “the cradle of Spain’s olive production”, told the Guardian: “It’s just awful for people down here. There’s always been the odd bad harvest, like last year. But two bad harvests in a row? I can’t remember any – and I’m 50 and have been working the trees with my dad since I was a kid.”

Spotlight

Offsets or exploitation?

In the fortnight since Carbon Brief’s week-long special, carbon-offset projects have come under further scrutiny. Bloomberg reported that Dubai-based Blue Carbon signed a deal to generate carbon credits from about a fifth of Zimbabwe’s landmass. Separately, a joint Climate Home News and Unearthed investigation found that projects in Cambodia and Brazil were “selling carbon offsets…despite an uptick in deforestation”.

India is the world’s second-largest source of carbon credits in the voluntary carbon market (VCM). For a new report, magazine outlet Down to Earth and India’s Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) analysed hundreds of offset projects and visited 40 project sites in India – from afforestation projects to paddy fields and villages enlisted in clean cookstove schemes. Carbon Brief spoke to CSE’s Trishant Dev and Avantika Goswami about their findings.

CARBON BRIEF: Perhaps the most worrying takeaway from your report is on farmers rights, especially in afforestation projects in the Araku coffee belt that you say companies such as Evian are using to claim carbon-neutrality. Did Indigenous farmers know what they were signing over? What did they get for their services, other than coffee earnings?

TRISHANT DEV: Just saplings and training [on how to care for them]. This is something that the developer also says: they will not give back incentives from offsetting to communities. When we spoke to farmers, they did not know what a carbon credit is or what rights they have given up…They only know they have signed a document through which they will be given something.

AVANTIKA GOSWAMI: Even if [developers] say they have ownership of the carbon stored in the trees, how you manage those trees and what trees you plant will determine how much carbon is stored in them. So, effectively, developers are controlling their farming methods and their practices by simply controlling the carbon in them. On what grounds does a foreign entity get to have this say over Indigenous communities in India?

The additionality question or the climate benefit was always suspect and we found that in our research. But the bigger finding is about financial benefit-sharing. You have tribal farmers putting in the labour, but earning none of the millions. You have rural households paying for an improved cookstove, which is also generating carbon credits and also earning revenue in the VCM, but the households do not earn that revenue. Our conclusion is that the poor are essentially subsidising or labouring for the emission reductions of the rich.

CB: You mention that all the projects you investigated were “cloaked in secrecy”. How open or transparent were developers in letting you visit sites and verify their claims? How do we know these credits will not be counted twice?

TD: First, we were not allowed to visit the project sites. We were told: “We have non-disclosure agreements with our clients, so we cannot take you [there].” Then we were told: “We cannot disclose the price [of credits] because we have competitors in the market.” Some developers even asked us to sign non-disclosure agreements with their clients, which we didn’t. The whole ecosystem is like a black box.

AG: If companies abroad are claiming the carbon sequestration from the Araku Valley’s coffee forests, what happens to [India’s carbon sink target] in its [Paris Agreement pledge]? Are these forests getting double-counted? Secondly, the VCM functions on a least-cost principle. So as a result, the cheaper mitigation options are essentially being sold off to foreign entities and we are left with the tougher, more expensive options. [India] cannot claim the cheaper methods – transitioning from biomass to include cookstoves or more afforestation – because, technically, if you want to avoid double counting, you have to exclude that from your own balance sheet, while rich countries continue to pollute and have taken our cheaper emission options.

News and views

PLANTATION THREAT: Writing in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, ecologists warned that monoculture tree-planting projects “are threatening tropical biodiversity while only offering modest climate benefit”, the Guardian reported. The popularity of carbon-offsetting plantations is having consequences such as “drying out native ecosystems, acidifying soils, crowding out native plants and turbocharging wildfires”, the story added. The University of Oxford researchers warned against “using carbon as the sole metric for a forest ecosystem’s importance” and argued that afforestation projects “need to encompass ecosystem restoration and biodiversity conservation”, Inside Climate News reported. Political scientist Dr Arun Agrawal, who was not involved in the paper, told the outlet: “Forests do many things, so to focus on any single metric is really to replicate how colonial governments saw forests, which is just as a source of timber.”

SMOG WARS: Indonesia’s firefighters “are rushing to extinguish” fires in southern Sumatra, Jambi and Central Kalimantan, Bloomberg reported. With no recent rainfall, national authorities warned that the fires are likely to persist, while the government is implementing “cloud seeding to induce rain that can keep the peat wet and fill reservoirs”, it added. According to Bloomberg, Malaysia blamed the fires in Indonesia for worsening air quality in its western cities, but Indonesia’s environment minister, Siti Nurbaya Bakar, denied the claims. More than 267,900 hectares of forest have burned so far this year – an area bigger than the area burned in all of 2022, Reuters reported. The haze has now hit Singapore, Reuters reported in another story.

BEDBUGS TAKE PARIS: Reports of a “plague of bedbugs” in Paris and other French cities have provoked “panic” and “insectophobia”, according to BBC News. The number of bedbug sightings have increased in recent weeks, but the upward trend dates back “several years”, the broadcaster said. The broadcaster said climate change “can be ruled out” as a contributing factor, but Prof James Logan from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine told Vice: “Most insects breed better when it’s warmer, so if there are more months of the year that are warmer, then there’s more chance of insects breeding quicker.”

BIDEN’S BORDER WALLS: In “a marked departure from…efforts to be seen as a climate champion”, the Biden administration waived environmental, health and cultural protections to build 20 new miles of a border wall in Texas, the Guardian reported. The wall will cut through fields where “the Carrizo/Comecrudo Tribe and other tribes source peyote for sacramental use”. The wall threatens to “set back the recovery” of endangered species and has “enraged environmentalists and Indigenous leaders in the Rio Grande valley”, who liken it in the story to “being stabbed in the back”. When asked if he thought the border wall was effective, President Biden responded “no” and pointed to how funds for the wall were allocated during the Trump regime, but hadn’t been cancelled by Congress, the Hill reported.

SYCAMORE STUMP: The Sycamore Gap tree, a hugely popular landmark in England sited next to Hadrian’s Wall in Northumberland, has been cut down – sparking an unusual police investigation, BBC News said. Forensic officers were sent to the site after the tree – once a place for weddings, funerals and the scattering of ashes – was felled on 28 September, BBC News reported, with one remarking: “In 31 years of forensics I’ve never examined a tree.” A 16-year-old boy and a man in his 60s were arrested on suspicion of causing criminal damage, but the investigation is still ongoing, according to the outlet.

Watch, read, listen

REVOLUTION RETROSPECTIVE: A new piece by environmental anthropologist Prof Glenn Davis Stone in the Conversation examined the legacy of Asia’s Green Revolution and the cautionary lessons it holds for Africa.

SAINATH ON SWAMINATHAN: In the Wire, P Sainath looked back on the legacy of MS Swaminathan – the “father” of the Green Revolution in India – and why he will be remembered “in the hearts of millions of peasants”.

LIVING WITH RATS: Can rats, long vilified as plague-spreaders and invasives, co-exist with humans and other species? This longread by JB MacKinnon in Hakai Magazine weighed the evidence, with illustrations by Sarah Gilman.

FOOD LOCALISM: In a new episode of BBC’s The Food Programme, host Sheila Dillon spoke to small farmers, economists and campaigners about what is needed to strengthen local food networks.

New science

Countries’ vulnerability to food supply disruptions caused by the Russia-Ukraine war from a trade dependency perspective

Scientific Reports

A new study found that food supplies in 24 countries – particularly Georgia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Mongolia – were among the most affected by the Russia-Ukraine war, because “they depend almost entirely” on food imports from both countries. Researchers evaluated the impacts of supply disruptions on six crops and three types of fertilisers. Access to fertilisers was particularly affected in Estonia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Brazil, the US, China and India, the study found. Its results indicated that the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Egypt and Pakistan are “most vulnerable to such supply disruptions”, based on their populations, import types and purchasing power per capita.

Lessons from COP15 on effective scientific engagement in biodiversity policy processes

Conservation Biology

Scientists can boost the “effectiveness” of global agreements by focusing more on communication and engagement, a new paper found. The researchers looked at challenges limiting scientist involvement in the policy process behind the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which was agreed at the COP15 biodiversity summit last year. They drew parallels with similar challenges in global climate negotiations and compared the development of two targets – those focused on genetic diversity and protected areas – under the framework. The analysis showed that scientists can make global agreements more effective and address challenges by prioritising communications, consensus-building and being engaged with the policymaking process.

River interlinking alters land-atmosphere feedback and changes the Indian summer monsoon

Nature Communications

Proposed river “interlinking” projects in India, meant to counter the impact of increasing droughts and floods, could cause average September rainfall to drop by up to 12%, according to a new study. The authors used a coupled regional climate model and multiple datasets to show land-atmosphere feedbacks between river basins in India. They found that increased irrigation from such water transfers would increase the pressure on areas that are already water-stressed. The study’s results showed that reduced rains in September as a result of these projects “can dry rivers post-monsoon, augmenting water stress across the country and rendering interlinking dysfunctional”. 

In the diary

Cropped is researched and written by Dr Giuliana Viglione, Aruna Chandrasekhar, Daisy Dunne, Orla Dwyer and Yanine Quiroz. Please send tips and feedback to cropped@carbonbrief.org

The post Cropped 11 October 2023: Amazon dolphin deaths; EU agri round-up; ‘Exploitative’ carbon offsets appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Cropped 11 October 2023: Amazon dolphin deaths; EU agri round-up; ‘Exploitative’ carbon offsets

Continue Reading

Climate Change

The Carbon Brief Quiz 2026

Published

on

Around 300 scientists, civil servants, journalists and climate experts took part in the 11th annual Carbon Brief quiz on Wednesday 18 March 2026.

For the second time, this year’s quiz was hosted by Octopus Energy at its headquarters in central London.

In total, 39 teams participated – 25 teams in person and 14 teams joining via Zoom.

Competing teams reflected a wide range of climate change and energy professionals. The list included journalists, civil servants, climate campaigners, policy advisers, energy experts and scientists.

Organisations represented included: Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) in India; New Scientist; the Times; Business Green; the Bartlett School of Environment, Energy and Resources (BSEER), UCL; Verisk Maplecroft; BBC; World Weather Attribution; Grantham Institute at Imperial; DESNZ; WWF; European Climate Foundation (ECF); the ENDS Report; C40 Cities; Ricardo; Met Office; Meliore; E3G; Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI); Energy Transitions Commission; Carbon Tracker; Ember; Royal Meteorological Society; Civil Service Climate and Environment Network (CSCEN); Changing Markets Foundation; Cerulogy; Oxford Sustainable Law Programme; Université de Lausanne; University of Exeter; Centre for Environment and Sustainability, University of Surrey; UK Parliament; Skeptical Science; ECIU (Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit); Octopus Energy; DeSmog; Department for Transport and Royal School of Mines.

Teams were tested with five rounds of questions – general knowledge, policy, science and two picture rounds. (See the slideshow of the questions and answers below).

After two hours of playing, this year’s winners were announced.

Comprised of players from the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) in India, last time’s second place team, “Emissions Impossible” won the coveted Carbon Brief trophy with a total score of 76 out of 100 available points.

The winning team of the Carbon Brief Quiz 2026
The winning team of the Carbon Brief Quiz 2026

In joint second place, with 59 points, were the “Potato-sized nodules”, a mixed team of journalists from New Scientist, the Times and Business Green.

Rowan Hooper on BlueSky (@rowhoop.bsky.social): Second place in the @carbonbrief.org quiz elicited gasps of admiration in the New Scientist newsroom this morning. What a result!!

Sharing second place, after leading at the half-way point, were “You cannot BSEERious” from the Bartlett School of Environment, Energy and Resources at UCL.

Will McDowall on BlueSky (@willmcdowall.bsky.social): We (UCL BSEER) came 2nd place in this year's #CBQuiz! Definitely the first thing I'll bring up in my annual appraisal. Thanks as always to @carbonbrief.org for organising - and thanks to @octopus.energy for hosting

In fourth place, with 57 points, were “Risky Quizness”, from Verisk Maplecroft.

Will Nichols on BlueSky (@willnicholsesq.bsky.social): Huge (and unexpected!) result for team Verisk Maplecroft! Massive thanks to @leohickman.carbonbrief.org , @rtmcswee.carbonbrief.org , and team for such a fun evening! #CBquiz

A certificate was awarded to the BBC for the best team name, as voted for by Carbon Brief staff: “High hopes [low confidence]”.

See the full leaderboard:

Carbon Brief on BlueSky (@carbonbrief.org):

All the questions and answers from this year’s quiz can be found in this PDF document.

This year’s trickiest round was picture round two, which asked teams to match the quote to the author, with an average score of 5.9 out of 20 available points.

No team correctly guessed that “Chris Funk: Drought, Flood, Fire” was the source of the quote: “How greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere is pretty straightforward. It is really important that we understand this. But almost nobody does, because it is not something that we are taught in school.”

Science was the second hardest round, earning an average score of 6.1 points out of 20.

No team correctly guessed “religious leaders” as the least trustworthy source of climate information, according to a 2025 study using public polling from seven global south countries.

The highest-scoring round was general knowledge, with an average of 13.8 out of 20 questions answered correctly.

Carbon Brief would like to thank all the teams who took part and we look forward to hosting the quiz again in the spring of 2027.

If you would like to participate in next year’s quiz, please contact us in advance at quiz AT carbonbrief DOT org.

Photos by Kerry Cleaver

Skeptical Science on BlueSky (@skepticalscience.bsky.social): Our team is having fun at the #CBQuiz 2026 organized by @carbonbrief.org ! And the questions are tricky yet again - to nobody's surprise, of course! @kenrice.bsky.social @baerbelw.bsky.social @jim-hunt.bsky.social @dananuccitelli.bsky.social
Alice on BlueSky (@alicejanelake.bsky.social):
Stephen Cornelius on BlueSky (@climatesteve.bsky.social): Thanks to @carbonbrief.org for hosting the 11th and every challenging #CBquiz. #WWF team Bamboo-zeled had a great time and are proud of our 8th place out of 39 teams. Going to swot up on European environment ministers names for next year!
James Mollard on BlueSky (@drmollyman.bsky.social): A fun evening at the @carbonbrief.org quiz for team @rmets.org - glad to see us avoiding shame with a solid midfield finish (along with beating various ex-colleagues in rival teams as well!) - Congrats and thanks to all for the entertainment!
Ruth Mottram on BlueSky (@ruthmottram.bsky.social): Awesome evening with @carbonbrief.org - I think we acquitted ourselves pretty well. Thanks for hosting. Looking forward and making plans for the next one (our tenth!) already...
Michael Le Page on BlueSky (@mjflepage.bsky.social): Joint second in the notoriously difficult @carbonbrief.org quiz! Major bragging rights for our @newscientist.com team with Sam Wong, @alecluhn.com , me, Michael Holder of @businessgreen.bsky.social and @ben-cooke.bsky.social

The post The Carbon Brief Quiz 2026 appeared first on Carbon Brief.

The Carbon Brief Quiz 2026

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Q&A: What England’s new ‘land-use framework’ means for climate, nature and food

Published

on

Just 1% of England’s land will be needed for renewables to help meet the UK’s climate goals by 2050, according to a first-of-its-kind framework.

There is enough land in England to meet climate and nature goals, while also producing more food and building new homes, according to the UK government’s new “land-use framework”.

Speaking at the framework’s launch on Wednesday, environment secretary Emma Reynolds said she hoped it would put an end to the idea that England faces “false choices” over “solar panels versus farmland”, or “growth versus environment”.

The policy was first planned by the Conservative government in 2022, but has been delayed many times.

It has been broadly welcomed by environmental groups, with Tony Juniper, the chair of Natural England, calling it a “vital step forward” towards “more joined-up approaches” to land use.

Below, Carbon Brief outlines the main points of the framework relating to climate change, nature restoration, food production, renewable energy and housing.

What is the land-use framework?

The government’s land-use framework for England aims to set out a “coherent national vision” for using land.

The 56-page report is the first of its kind in England.

It focuses solely on England, but notes that the government will “work closely” with the devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to share best practice and “collaborate on cross-border issues”.

It is a “blueprint” to inform better decisions on optimising land use to produce food, host renewable energy, restore nature and build more homes, says environment secretary Emma Reynolds in the foreword of the framework.

The plan hopes to end the “fragmented approach” to tackling these issues, which has led to a “confused picture and missed opportunities for land to deliver multiple benefits”, Reynolds says in the foreword. She adds:

“We can plant trees to reduce flood risk to homes and farmland, locate energy infrastructure alongside nature-rich food production and ensure nature recovery is at the heart of resilient growth and development.”

The report says it will play a “critical role” in helping to deliver national and global commitments, such as carbon budgets and national biodiversity and climate plans.

The framework commits to creating a long-term assessment of climate change impacts on land use at 2C and 4C of global warming.

It also commits to setting up a “land-use unit” in the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs to produce a map of “national spatial priorities” in England for, among other things, food production, nature and housing.

The government says it will update the framework every five years, outlining progress and next steps on implementation.

Currently, about 70% of land in the UK is used for agriculture – primarily livestock.

The chart below highlights how land is currently allocated in the UK (left) and how much overseas land is used to produce food for the UK (right).

UK land area divided up by purpose (left). About 70% is devoted to agriculture, mainly livestock and livestock feed and pasture. The right-hand side of the chart, using the same scale, shows how much land is used overseas to produce food for the UK. Credit: National Food Strategy (2021)
UK land area divided up by purpose (left). About 70% is devoted to agriculture, mainly livestock and livestock feed and pasture. The right-hand side of the chart, using the same scale, shows how much land is used overseas to produce food for the UK. Credit: National Food Strategy (2021)

The government’s land-use framework for England has been long-awaited and much-delayed.

The recommendation for the report first came in the 2021 National Food Strategy, an independent report led by businessman Henry Dimbleby.

It recommended creating a rural land-use framework to give “detailed assessments” of the best ways to use land in England.

The former Conservative government committed to produce such a report in a June 2022 food strategy.

This strategy said that a land-use framework for England would be released in 2023 “to ensure we meet our net-zero and biodiversity targets”, among other aims.

The publication was, however, delayed many times.

The Labour government launched a consultation on the framework in January 2025 and the final report was eventually released on 18 March 2026.

The framework is a “long-awaited opportunity for real change”, says Roger Mortlock, chief executive of the environmental charity Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), in a statement.

Mortlock welcomes its “ambition”, but says that the way in which land tradeoffs are considered locally and nationally “will be key to its success”. 

A report released by CPRE earlier this week, however, said that the framework is “unlikely to be the silver bullet many are hoping for”.

Back to top

What does the plan say about how land in England should be used?

The framework uses high-resolution modelling – what it calls the “most sophisticated analysis” of its kind – to examine how England can use land to meet climate, nature, food and housing needs.

One key finding is that England has enough land to meet all of its objectives, if land is used efficiently.

This means that England has “enough land to deliver our objectives for nature restoration and development without reducing domestic food production or compromising on these objectives”, according to the framework.

It adds that efficient land use means “playing to the strengths” of England’s varied landscape. This involves, for example, prioritising the restoration of peatlands in north-west England and temperate rainforests in the south-west.

The chart below shows the percentage of land in England currently used for different purposes, as well as how this distribution will need to change by 2030 and 2050, if the UK is to meet its goals, according to the framework.

Chart showing that just 1% of England's land will be needed for renewables by 2050
The percentage of land in England currently used for different purposes, as well as how this distribution will need to change by 2030 and 2050, if the UK is to meet its goals for climate, nature, housing and food production. Credit: The Land Use Framework for England (2026)

According to the framework, just 1% of England’s land will need to be taken up by renewables, such as solar and onshore wind, by 2050.

However, the framework does note that there is “inherent uncertainty” in projecting energy use by 2050 and says that the amount of land required for renewables may be nearer to “more than 2%”, depending on how quickly solar and wind is deployed in the future.

A further 6% of England’s land should be used for achieving climate and nature goals, according to the framework.

(A Defra official tells Carbon Brief that the framework’s projections for renewable energy and tree-planting were not as ambitious as those in the Climate Change Committee’s central pathway to net-zero, but are in line with the government’s carbon budget delivery plan for 2035.)

Speaking at the launch of the framework, environment secretary Emma Reynolds said that the framework shows that there are no “false choices” between “solar panels versus farmland” or “growth versus environment”, adding:

“The problem has never been scarcity of land. It has been a shortage of clarity.”

Back to top

What does the framework mean for different sectors?

The framework sets out a “vision” for land use in several areas, such as housing, energy, food and nature by 2030 and 2050.

It also details what the government is currently doing to achieve these aims and makes pledges for more action down the line.

Below, Carbon Brief has detailed the key points around renewable energy, tree-planting and nature restoration, food production and housing.

Renewable energy

The report notes that the need to produce extra electricity to meet growing demand from, among other things, electric vehicles, heat pumps and data centres is “changing the way land is used across England”.

The UK plans to produce at least 95% of electricity from low-carbon sources, such as wind, solar and nuclear, by 2030.

Despite this, the report says that solar and wind will continue to make up a “small proportion of land use”. It says that, by 2030, much of this land will be “managed sustainably” for dual purposes, such as placing solar panels on the same land as growing crops.

Currently, around 21,000 hectares of land in the UK is covered by solar panels – which, as Carbon Brief has previously noted, is much less than the land used for golf courses.

Proportions of total UK land (blue) taken up by golf courses (red), airports (orange), ground-mounted solar panels in 2022 (dark yellow) and estimated additional land taken up by ground-mounted solar panels in the future under government plans (light yellow).
Proportions of total UK land (blue) taken up by golf courses (red), airports (orange), ground-mounted solar panels in 2022 (dark yellow) and estimated additional land taken up by ground-mounted solar panels in the future under government plans (light yellow). The right-hand square represents 1% of the left-hand square. Source: Carbon Brief analysis using Corine Land Cover data and estimates from Solar Energy UK, using Solar Media data. Chart by Tom Prater for Carbon Brief.

By 2035, an additional 129,000 hectares of land is estimated to be used for solar and wind energy in England, with some of this land also used to produce food at the same time.

If achieved, this will account for 1% of land in England and 2% of the UK’s agricultural area.

This estimate is based on the assumption that all extra solar will be installed on the ground, which the report says is a “highly conservative and unlikely scenario” given that many panels are anticipated to be placed on rooftops.

This makes the 2035 figure an “upper-bound” estimate, says the report.

By 2050, around 155,000 hectares – roughly equal to the size of Greater London – will be used for renewables, the report estimates, adding that this is based on trends from historical data and not future scenarios.

The report adds that it is possible that more land than this will be needed to meet energy goals past 2035, however, citing the “inherent uncertainty” in figuring out what the mix of electricity sources will look like by 2050.

By 2030, coordinated planning of electricity networks will encourage rural investment, “such as through new data centres”, the report claims.

By 2050, the report says that better land-use planning will lead to a “fairer and more efficient distribution of solar and wind infrastructure across England”.

There will also be better electricity connections to renewables, much of which will be delivered alongside “productive agriculture”, such as by installing solar panels above crops – known as agrivoltaic farming.

The report says that any land-use change decisions should be made based on a number of factors, drawing from “local knowledge, values, data and priorities”.

It notes that development of wind and solar infrastructure in rural areas should give local communities the “opportunity to benefit from local clean energy”.

Back to top

Tree-planting and nature restoration

According to the framework, 6% of England’s land will need to be used for achieving climate and nature goals by 2050.

This kind of land use includes restoring England’s carbon-dense peatlands, planting new woodlands and restoring heathland habitats.

As part of the analysis, the framework takes a detailed look at what parts of England would be best suited for nature restoration. It says:

“Habitat creation and restoration should be directed to the places where it can have the greatest ecological impact, help to reconnect fragmented landscapes, support priority species and deliver the greatest contribution to nature recovery.”

The chart below, taken from the framework, shows where in England has the greatest potential for nature restoration in dark green.

Map of England showing land-use change in %
Areas in England coloured by their potential for nature restoration, from low potential (white) to high potential (dark green). Credit: The Land Use Framework for England (2026)

The analysis finds that north-west England has high potential for nature restoration, largely because it is home to the vast majority of the country’s carbon-rich, but degraded, peatlands.

Other areas identified include the south-west, which could be suitable for “grassland restoration and broadleaf woodland creation” and the south-east, where new grasslands could be planted, according to the framework.

The framework adds that the UK government remains committed to protecting 30% of land for nature by 2030, an international goal set under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

However, it notes that, at present, just 7% of England’s land is protected for nature – with just four years to go until the deadline.

Speaking at the launch of the framework, nature minister Mary Creagh acknowledged that meeting the target remains a large challenge.

She added that her department was currently on a “data sprint” to try to account for all kinds of land that may not currently be classified as being protected for nature, despite serving this purpose.

Back to top

Food production

The new framework extensively discusses how to balance food production with other uses for land, such as producing renewable energy and building homes.

The government says it is generally not suggesting land-use change on the country’s “best agricultural land”.

The framework focuses instead on using farmland to fulfil dual purposes, “rather than taking land out of production entirely”.

The goals outlined in the framework include increasing domestic food production in England, which the report says is “feasible according to our projections”.

Currently, the UK produces around 60% of its own food, importing the rest from abroad.

By 2030, the “vision” outlined in the framework says that farmers and other land managers will have better long-term clarity and more information on improved ways to use their land.

By 2050, meanwhile, farmlands will be managed to prioritise “sustainable food production and environmental benefits”, it says.

At this stage, the framework estimates that 480,000 hectares of farmland could be used primarily for food production, while also bringing environmental and climate benefits such as planting trees or restoring grassland habitats.

Agricultural land will be used to balance food production and other outcomes. A footnote in the report says that this will broadly lead to a “mosaic of different landscapes” – semi-natural land, low-intensity farmland and higher-intensity farmland.

It also says that, by 2050, farmland will be more resilient to climate change impacts through actions such as planting trees for flood and drought resilience.

All projected scenarios in the analysis behind the framework focus on producing food “more sustainably from less land”, the report notes.

Solar panels on a sugar beet field in Norfolk, England in 2013. Credit: Ernie Janes
Solar panels on a sugar beet field in Norfolk, England in 2013. Credit: Ernie Janes / Alamy Stock Photo

The agricultural land-use change recommendations in the framework differ across the country. If focusing on improvements to water quality and biodiversity, for example, it recommends looking at areas with intensive agricultural production in the east of England.

This is due to these areas using high quantities of fertilisers, which can wash off fields and run into rivers and other waterways. This lowers water quality and harms plants and animals.

The government commits to developing sectoral growth plans, starting with horticulture and poultry, to provide a framework to boost production and “maintain food security”.

The government also promises to support making “under-used land” available for communities to grow food and recover nature, “where appropriate”. This refers to inactive land that is not suitable for other developments.

The report is a “step in the right direction”, says Tom Bradshaw, president of the National Farmers’ Union. He adds that it is “positive” to have “explicit recognition” of using land for multiple purposes and a government commitment to maintain food production.

Bradshaw notes that “challenges remain about delivering against the ambitious objectives as the first 2030 milestone approaches”.

Back to top

Housing

Reynolds says that this framework can help to “speed up house-building and infrastructure delivery”.

The report says that, by 2030, improved planning will enable areas to facilitate housing and development “whilst protecting and enhancing the environment”.

It adds that, where appropriate, developments will be higher-density to “make the best use of land within our towns and cities”.

By 2030, biodiversity net gain – a planning requirement to improve habitats while building developments – and nature-based solutions will also be used to ensure development “leaves the natural environment in a measurably better state than it was in beforehand”, the report says.

It adds that timber production will be expanded to provide “low-carbon building materials”.

By 2050, meanwhile, the framework says planners will be able to more easily assess how suitable areas are for development “using a streamlined digital planning service and decision support tools”.

These tools – built on a range of data sources – are intended to reduce the number of homes built in areas at risk of flooding, the report says.

One in four homes in England are projected to be at risk of flooding by 2050, under a high-emissions scenario, the report outlines.

The report notes that the government is proposing a “default yes” to some planning applications for developments near well-connected transport stations.

High-demand areas “need to be powered locally and sustainably”, it notes, and using technologies such as rooftop solar to “make use of existing built land for electricity generation” can reduce land pressures elsewhere.

Back to top

The post Q&A: What England’s new ‘land-use framework’ means for climate, nature and food appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Q&A: What England’s new ‘land-use framework’ means for climate, nature and food

Continue Reading

Climate Change

COP30 rainforest fund unlikely to make first payments until 2028

Published

on

The Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) – a major new rainforest protection fund launched by Brazil at COP30 – is unlikely to make payments to rainforest countries until at least 2028, experts said, while it raises funds in financial markets.

The proposed new mechanism aims to pay rainforest countries for achieving low deforestation rates. Rather than depending on grants, the TFFF would seek to raise public and private capital to make investments in financial markets, and then use part of the returns to reward countries which protect their rainforests.

But raising the US$125 billion of public and private investment needed to make meaningful payments could take years, according to Andrew Deutz, managing director of Global Policy and Partnerships at WWF, one of the organisations involved in the fund’s design.

He said it will likely take two or three years for the fund to raise private capital by issuing bonds, invest the money and generate enough returns to make significant payments. “So I don’t think we’re going to see payments to rainforest countries until 2028 or 2029,” Deutz said.

    Norway’s climate minister Andreas Bjelland Eriksen, another of the fund’s early backers, told Climate Home News that “the TFFF requires scale, which will take some time”, but added that it “is a historic opportunity” to finance the protection of tropical forests “for generations”.

    The delay is not necessarily bad, according to Deutz, as it will allow communities to build capabilities and legal structures to handle the new flow of funds. “There needs to be a capacity-building process over the next couple of years with Indigenous organisations and local communities to be able to manage the flow of funds at that level,” he added.

    At the COP26 climate summit in 2021, over 140 countries – covering 85% of the world’s forests – pledged to end deforestation by 2030. At last year’s COP30, the Brazilian government promised to create a roadmap towards ending deforestation by that same date.

    But governments are far off track, with a yearly review showing that deforestation rates are currently 63% higher than what they should be to reach this goal. An estimated $570 billion funding gap for nature protection has contributed to the deficient results.

    First step: raising $10 billion

    While the TFFF has a long-term goal of raising $125bn in public and private capital, its proponents say the key goal for the fund in 2026 will be to raise the total amount of public investment to $10bn so that it can start to scale up.

    The fund has already raised $6.7bn, but Norway’s $3bn pledge requires that the TFFF raises about $10bn mostly from other funders by the end of 2026 or they will not invest.

    Before scaling up to the long-term $125bn goal – of which $25bn is public and $100bn private – the TFFF will have to prove that it can be successful in paying back investors and channeling funds for rainforest protection. The whole process can take years, Deutz said.

    If this $10bn target is reached, the fund could begin raising private finance – up to an estimated $40bn, Deutz said. This initial $50bn tranche would serve to start making investments and show that the model works and can generate returns.

    Bjelland Eriksen also said that reaching the $10bn target will be “an important priority” this year. “Only a handful of countries had the opportunities to assess it in detail before the [COP30] Belém summit – now is the time for more countries to do so,” the Norwegian minister said.

    Public finance from governments is key for the TFFF model because it would act as a guarantee to lower risk for private investors, something very common in the financial sector, said Charlotte Hamill, partner at hedge fund Bracebridge Capital and one of the fund’s financial advisors, at an event earlier in January in Davos.

    “Being able to do this at scale is actually really important, not only to be able to make the payments that are necessary for rainforest preservation but also, in a funny way, it allows you to buy slightly less risky assets because you’re gonna have a much larger pool to buy them off of,” she added.

    New contributions?

    João Paulo de Resende, TFFF Leader at Brazil’s Ministry of Finance, told Climate Home News that the country will continue fundraising efforts throughout this year, and said he has recently concluded a tour in East Asia speaking with government officials from Japan, South Korea and China.

    Conversations with the Chinese government have become “a lot more serious”, said Felix Finkbeiner, founder of the non-profit Plant-for-the-Planet, which operates the online tracking platform TFFF Watch. He added that a Chinese investment would likely be similar in size to the French or German contributions, which would grant the country a seat on the TFFF board. France has pledged a €500m ($578m) investment while Germany has promised €1bn ($1.17bn).

    While China is categorised as a developing country at UN climate talks, and thus has no legal responsibility to grant climate finance, the TFFF has been seen as an opportunity for the Asian country to contribute because it’s not an official mechanism within the UN. Deutz said that, for the Chinese government to contribute, they will need reassurance that the funds will not be counted as formal climate finance.

    The UK is another of the countries expected to announce a contribution in the coming months, both Finkbeiner and Deutz said. The country announced cuts to climate finance this week as it ramps up defense spending, but Deutz noted that it could still contribute with funds to the TFFF.

    “I’m still somewhat optimistic that [the $10bn goal] can happen despite the geopolitical turmoil because the TFFF does not require grant money. We’re not competing with humanitarian assistance,” Deutz explained. “Because governments are being asked to make a loan that would be paid back with interest, this comes out of a different pile of money”.

    Multilateral banks such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) also reportedly considered contributions.

    Brazil sharing leadership

    Despite having led the official launch of the fund and spearheading its fundraising efforts, Brazil is now aiming to “share leadership” as other countries join the TFFF’s steering committee and establish a new board.

    De Resende told Climate Home News that “the project no longer belongs solely to Brazil”, and added that the group of countries that have pledged contributions to the TFFF are also now playing a larger role in “finding ways to jointly promote sponsor outreach”.

    Deutz said that Brazil wants to move towards a “shared leadership model”. “They are now asking the European countries to have one of them set up to be the co-chairs so that this is not seen as a Brazilian initiative but is rather seen as owned by all of them,” he added.

    The fund will now have to form a steering committee, likely chaired by Brazil and one European country, which will instruct the World Bank on setting up the formal structures of the fund.

    Bjelland Eriksen said there is “important work” ongoing to formally establish the fund’s investment arm (known as the TFIF), while de Resende said he expects to “have the fund incorporated in some European jurisdiction by the beginning of the second semester.”

    The post COP30 rainforest fund unlikely to make first payments until 2028 appeared first on Climate Home News.

    COP30 rainforest fund unlikely to make first payments until 2028

    Continue Reading

    Trending

    Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com