Who "owns" the carbon on a farm? Landlord or tenant?

[Brisel]

This came up in a discussion yesterday. An estate with a long history of the same family ownership wants to provide public goods such as carbon sequestration by working with its tenants to manage the land accordingly. Without getting bogged down in the type of tenancy, though the length clearly has a baring on a long term project, what are your thoughts? Soil carbon was the main topic. Ignore other public goods like biodiversity & water holding for now please.

How would this work for a grazing system? A serious partnership between landlord & tenant. How does this fit current tenancy law??

The Forestry Commission has 999 year leases to grow trees and can market the carbon capture in those trees, but that's just what it above ground, not in it.

 

[Hesstondriver]

would this not fall in to the same category as 'mineral rights' stone / coal/oil etc ?

but then again who owns the water on the land ?

 

[Billboy1]

Good question ! as an aha tenant I'm bound to say i do , but do i ? another twist in the plot can't wait to hear other peoples views .

 

[Brisel]

would this not fall in to the same category as 'mineral rights' stone / coal/oil etc ?

but then again who owns the water on the land ?

Soil carbon is much more "active" in terms of it being built up or depleted by every day agricultural activity. The tenant's activities wouldn't influence the mineral rights as such.

Can anyone ever own water? You need licences to impound it or use it.

 

[7610 super q]

Sounds like a mine field. The tenants activities could deplete / build up reserves, and would want some sort of " compensation " for farming in a certain way, which would probably make the whole thing unviable for the landlords ( Having said that, I don't know how much CS pays ).
The NT seem to be able to dictate how tenants farm, I don't know about smaller estates with long tern AHA tenancies already in place though....

 

[Tim G]

The rule here seems to be if there's an expenditure its down to me (tenant), if there's an income it's the landlords!
But in seriousness, I would have thought it would have to be measured somehow and treated a bit like nutrient values in the land. Is that possible?

 

[teslacoils]

Sounds like a mine field. The tenants activities could deplete / build up reserves, and would want some sort of " compensation " for farming in a certain way, which would probably make the whole thing unviable for the landlords ( Having said that, I don't know how much CS pays ).
The NT seem to be able to dictate how tenants farm, I don't know about smaller estates with long tern AHA tenancies already in place though....

Absolute minefield. Will soon have agents doing ingoing and outgoing soil health audits and billing for reduction in bacteria.

 

[Formatted]

This is one of the reasons that landlords are pushing more large livestock tenancies onto contract farming or joint venture type frameworks, rather than tenancies

 

[Clive]

This came up in a discussion yesterday. An estate with a long history of the same family ownership wants to provide public goods such as carbon sequestration by working with its tenants to manage the land accordingly. Without getting bogged down in the type of tenancy, though the length clearly has a baring on a long term project, what are your thoughts? Soil carbon was the main topic. Ignore other public goods like biodiversity & water holding for now please.

How would this work for a grazing system? A serious partnership between landlord & tenant. How does this fit current tenancy law??

The Forestry Commission has 999 year leases to grow trees and can market the carbon capture in those trees, but that's just what it above ground, not in it.

This is something we have discussed at length at https://www.gentle-farming.com

what we have decided is that its really the MANAGEMENT of the land that determines it ability to sequester or store carbon so its the management that should be paid

However management needs land to manage ! so we think its then for manager to negotiate with landowner how much they will pass on

But fundamentally the principle is the landowner can not access the capital generated by carbon or biodiversity sales without correct management


Edit - website is having a few edits this morning ! will be back up later

 

[An Gof]

This came up in a discussion yesterday. An estate with a long history of the same family ownership wants to provide public goods such as carbon sequestration by working with its tenants to manage the land accordingly. Without getting bogged down in the type of tenancy, though the length clearly has a baring on a long term project, what are your thoughts? Soil carbon was the main topic. Ignore other public goods like biodiversity & water holding for now please.

How would this work for a grazing system? A serious partnership between landlord & tenant. How does this fit current tenancy law??

The Forestry Commission has 999 year leases to grow trees and can market the carbon capture in those trees, but that's just what it above ground, not in it.

What does Mrs Brisel think?

 

[Brisel]

What does Mrs Brisel think?

She had a member (a resident agent) ask her the question, hence the discussion! This a minefield and open to abuse by landlords. The ideal is a partnership where additional work by the tenant should be rewarded, especially with long tenancies. The "who owns the carbon" was the landlord but that's just over-simplifying how you'd achieve the desired goals when they need the occupier to help deliver the benefits.

Just like an owner with a stewardship scheme, they need the people on the ground to deliver and that should be recognised. Summer grazing for you? That will be £100/acre and by the way, you can't do this and that, and you must comply with these prescriptions. Oh. You're trousering £100/acre from the RPA in CS plus BPS, you can pay me £40/acre to comply with those rules.

 

[delilah]

Gaia owns it.

 

[Netherfield]

Could turn out to be expensive for somebody, just to find the answer.

 

[Lazy Sod]

Absolute minefield. Will soon have agents doing ingoing and outgoing soil health audits and billing for reduction in bacteria.

Oh dear. If agents have to go round getting down on their knees to take soil samples, they'll get their red trousers dirty.

 

[Brisel]

Gaia owns it.

Does she take hard currency in payment?

 

[teslacoils]

Oh dear. If agents have to go round getting down on their knees to take soil samples, they'll get their red trousers dirty.

Lol. They will sub it to a "friendly" firm; bill the tenant for the pleasure; and doubtlessly get invited to a nice bit of "hospitality".

 

[DrWazzock]

One thing for sure, the lad or lass out doing the grsft will be the one who makes least out of it. Another industry being born out of thin air to keep the desk pilots busy.

 

[primmiemoo]

Another vote for giving it to Gaia.

Let's simply ensure a healthy soil biome grows healthy food for a healthy diet.

 

[onesiedale]

As carbon is in a natural cycle, affected by management, then it is the responsibility and asset of the manager, (tenant)

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

As devil's advocate how about:

It's the land OWNER'S but they have to pay the land manager 50% of any gross value increase for actions which increase it?