Carbon credits may be promoted as a fix – at least in part – for environmental change, but the long-term ramifications have not been thought through. Advocating for keeping the land, trees and credits together in one package, Jon Lambert, founding partner of Goldcrest Land & Forestry Group, has become increasingly concerned about the concept of separating carbon credits from land and the trees growing on it.

A CARBON market, whether regulated or voluntary, is a simple concept and, at its best, a well-intentioned tool in combating climate change. Corporations and investors buy carbon credits – or Pending Issuance Units (PIUs), carbon credits given in advance of future carbon sequestration – and use them to offset their own emissions.

It is a laudable approach, bringing together those who need to counteract their carbon footprint and those who have carbon sequestration resources.

However, things are rarely as straightforward as they look and in the forestry sector I think it is considerably more complex. The focus is on the advantages of the immediate deal – money for the landowner, offsetting emissions for the purchaser – but it’s all very abstract. 

Carbon credits may be seen as a fix now, but I am concerned about the impact the separation of credits from the land and the trees that generated them will have on the future of forestry and the ownership of land. 

Winston Churchill said: “However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.” However, those results have yet to play out and in the rush to establish green credentials we are not giving those future consequences due attention and fully considering the eventual repercussions. I am not convinced generations to come will think this is the solution carbon credit supporters would have us believe.

Corporations spend millions buying carbon credit certificates and take the credit for doing the right thing. By simply purchasing a certificate, corporations leave the responsibility and the work that goes into maintaining the land and trees that created those credits with someone else. The owner and any subsequent owner is left with a management liability that in some cases stays with the land for a century or more. 

As a result, that land may well become considerably less valuable and a challenge to sell, rendered less attractive by having complications attached. I am extremely concerned that we are creating a thorny mess which will be very difficult to disentangle in years to come, particularly as we look down the line at succession or sale. I think it is more than likely that we are going to have a few headaches over ownership and complex associated environmental strands.

Then there is the risk of damage. Even the most diligent owners and managers can be tripped up by a catastrophic Storm Arwen-type event and/or a new disease or pest that can have disastrous effects on tree health. A hefty corporate compliance department that owns the credits may well then turn to their lawyers for advice on recouping part or all of their investment. What happens then?

Sellers need to consider what they are selling and buyers need to consider what they are buying. The carbon credit system, although a popular offsetting mechanism, is very artificial and intangible. 

It is my fundamental belief that the land, trees and credits should stay together as a package and that corporations and investors should be encouraged to buy land and grow trees rather than purchase a theoretical certificate. 

For example, we are selling a 144-ha broadleaved woodland in Ayrshire with 55,338 PIUs included in the sale. It is almost unheard of for a property to be sold with its PIUs, especially at this scale, but I believe it would be much better practice to keep woodlands and the carbon credits they generate together and this is an excellent example. 

Surely buying the whole package makes more sense. The acquisition of Brisbane Mains, an interesting, beautiful and diverse area of land in West Scotland, is a very attractive and tangible option. Here are the trees, here are the carbon credits; it all fits. This is something different on the market and offers purchasers something new to buy into. 

Instead of spending millions purchasing credits off the shelf, an investment in land, trees and the credits they generate, all kept together as a package, indicates commitment and a genuine desire to look after the countryside and make a difference. 

It gives the investor a tangible asset on their balance sheet. It does indeed involve an investment of time, maintenance and management, but illustrates that the purchaser is taking their responsibility seriously and not merely throwing their cheque book at the problem of emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. 

I truly believe this is the best possible ownership model and I hope we will start to see many more properties like this on the market.

DISCLAIMER: Our columns are a platform for writers to express their personal opinions. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the writers’ own organisations or of Forestry Journal.