Research completed: March 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7488/era/7561

Executive summary

Introduction and aims

Removing greenhouse gases from the atmospheric cycle and into permanent storage is key to achieving net zero. Biochar is one of the most widely adopted methods of doing so globally.

Biochar is a solid carbon material similar to charcoal, made by decomposing biological material, typically plant biomass, at very high temperatures – a process known as pyrolysis. Biochar can store carbon in the long term, allowing for the transfer of carbon out of the active cycle and into permanent storage.

This report aims to assess the potential for biochar deployment in Scotland, drawing on a rapid evidence assessment (REA) of published literature and nine stakeholder interviews. It examines feedstock availability, biochar impacts related to carbon sequestration, soil health and yields, international experience with biochar, potential deployment pathways for Scotland, and key barriers and enablers for biochar deployment.

Key findings

Feedstock sources

Scotland has substantial biomass resources that could supply biochar production, including residue and waste streams from forestry, sawmills, whisky production, agriculture and municipal sources. The availability of these feedstocks is not likely to limit biochar deployment, in particular given forestry processing volumes are projected to almost treble over the next 20 years.

However, a significant gap exists regarding biochar-relevant analysis of Scotland’s largest potential feedstock streams, including agricultural residues, sewage sludge and waste wood.

Carbon sequestration and stability

Biochar provides stable, long-term carbon storage. For woody feedstocks such as forestry residues (one of the most feasible for Scotland) each tonne of biochar removes roughly 3 tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere after accounting for production emissions. This has been confirmed by operational data in the UK.

Scotland’s conditions are favourable for long-term carbon storage. Biochar typically degrades more slowly in cooler climates. Most Scottish agricultural soils are mineral soils, favourable to biochar retention. Scotland’s high rainfall may reduce measurable soil carbon gains over time, but this is a measurement consideration rather than a reduced storage benefit.

Soil health, land productivity and climate resilience

Biochar has been shown to increase crop yields in tropical systems, and in degraded soils, but there is limited data from studies in Scotland.

A limited pilot study involving Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC) in 2023-2025 showed an increase in grassland (16-18%) and arable (34%) yields through co-application of biochar with organic fertiliser, compared with fertiliser alone. This suggests that biochar can deliver benefits under Scottish conditions when used as part of existing farm practice.

In a separate study, biochar has been found to raise soil pH, benefitting approximately half of Scottish agricultural soils (low pH can reduce productivity). It has also reduced nitrous oxide emissions from mineral soils by 12 to 38%. Application to peat should be avoided given uncertainty around potential to increase emissions.

Lessons from international experience

Scotland can learn from biochar policy development in other European countries.

Denmark has the most advanced policy framework in Europe for biochar, but there is a significant gap between ambition and deployment. In Sweden, the biochar sector has grown through public co-financing, municipality-level support – a collaborative approach where biochar plants are treated as learning sites alongside production infrastructure.

Germany benefits from strong industrial capacity in pyrolysis technology and regulatory recognition of pyrolysis as an acceptable method for phosphorus recovery from sewage sludge, creating a market pull for the technology.

Potential biochar deployment pathways for Scotland

We have identified seven potential pathways that could be explored for biochar deployment in Scotland. The viability of each depends on the match between feedstock, production conditions and end-use. There is a trade-off between optimising for carbon permanence and optimising for immediate soil benefits.

Use of biochar as an agricultural soil amendment offers the highest carbon sequestration potential. The most promising approach for Scotland is co-application with organic fertilisers at low doses, requiring minimal change to current farm practice. The carbon storage benefit is delivered regardless of the agronomic outcome.

Wider barriers and enablers

Biochar manufacture is classified as a waste management activity in Scotland, with pyrolysis facilities processing over 50 kg per hour requiring full waste management licensing. This was consistently identified by stakeholders as the primary barrier to investment.

The market for biochar is at an early stage. Production costs are highly variable, carbon credit revenue will be critical for most pathways, and no mechanism currently exists to support the transition from demonstrator to commercial operation.

Public awareness of carbon removal technologies is very low, and farmer adoption is constrained by limited Scottish evidence and uncertainty over returns. Trust will depend on credible, independent evidence.

Areas for future action and research

We have identified several areas where action or research could be undertaken to support a move towards biochar use in Scotland. These are:

• Taking steps to bridge the gap between demonstrator and commercial stages through targeted support for early commercial operations. Both UK and Scottish stakeholders have identified that current funding mechanisms leave this gap, which acts as a distinct constraint to deployment.
• Developing end-of-waste criteria for qualifying biochar through engagement with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, in parallel with any future biochar policy commitment. International experience identifies this as a critical-path enabler for deployment.
• Commissioning Scottish agricultural field trials at economically realistic application rates across priority feedstocks and soil types, including long-term monitoring of both carbon persistence and soil health outcomes.
• Opportunity mapping for biochar production at different scales, identifying where existing and future infrastructure might favour investment, considering the feedstock logistics and end-uses, including the heat product.
• Conducting comparative LCAs across major Scottish feedstock resources and supply chains, to assess biochar against credible alternative uses rather than in isolation.
• In the short term, agreeing a standardised framework for biochar characterisation, traceability and monitoring, covering both climate claims and environmental safeguards.

Glossary / Abbreviations table

Introduction

Background and context

Biochar is a solid carbon material similar to charcoal. It is made from biological material, or biomass, through pyrolysis. Pyrolysis involves the decomposition of organic materials at high temperatures in the absence of oxygen. As a stable material, biochar can store carbon in the long term. Biochar therefore represents the transfer of carbon out of the active cycle and into permanent storage.

Greenhouse gas removal (GGR) technologies have been identified as a key tool for Scotland and the United Kingdom (UK) to achieve net zero, to offset residual emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂) from fossil fuels and address the emission of non-CO₂ trace gases (mainly from land use). Globally, biochar is currently the most widely adopted method of permanent GGR, accounting for 90% of all GGR removal credits delivered by the global voluntary carbon market (IBI, 2023).

The Seventh Carbon Budget, presented to the UK Government by the Climate Change Committee in February 2025 is the first to include biochar in its pathways for net zero (Climate Change Committee, 2025). The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has also recently consulted on “non-Carbon Capture and Storage reliant” GGRs, where biochar has become the focus, recognising the importance of geological carbon storage for achieving net zero. Biochar is expected to be included in the integration of GGR into the UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS), a step predicted to become operational by the end of 2029 (subject to further consultation and regulatory assessment) (UK Government, Scottish Government, Welsh Government, and Department of Agriculture, Environment & Rural Affairs for Northern Ireland, 2025).

Strategies to develop a viable biochar carbon removal sector have rested on three principles:

1. Biochar provides end-user value at the same time as permanently storing carbon;
2. The benefits of using biochar are scalable, i.e., local benefits are equally valuable regardless of the aggregate scale of adoption; and
3. The societal benefits of making biochar exceed the short-term benefits gained by the end-user.

These principles suggest a win-win opportunity for delivery of GGR. However, commercial biochar production has only recently begun in the UK, largely due to UK Government investment in demonstration and pilot projects. It is in this context that our report examines the existing evidence and experience on the properties of biochar materials, efforts to commercialise biochar use, and pathways to accelerate and/or increase its deployment.

Report aims and structure

In this report, we aim to present an overview of existing evidence of relevance to the potential for deploying biochar in Scotland. The key objectives are to:

• Assess the supply chain viability for biochar in Scotland, considering feedstock sources, necessary infrastructure and logistics, and costs, benefits, risks and barriers;
• Review existing evidence on the effects of biochar on carbon sequestration, soil health, and agricultural performance, under Scotland’s climate and soil conditions;
• Outline lessons learned from a selection of countries where biochar implementation is further advanced.

We also aim to identify where key evidence gaps exist, to indicate where new work could efficiently and effectively inform future biochar deployment pathways in Scotland.

Methodology

For the study, we used a Rapid Evidence Assessment method for literature review, reviewing in detail 10 pieces of academic literature on feedstocks, 13 on carbon impacts, and 27 on soil impacts, plus 66 pieces of grey literature. This was supplemented by a series of 9 online stakeholder interviews, with 12 individuals from the fields of industry, government, research and the NGO sector. Our methodology was designed to identify information relevant to the key research topics, including: feedstock sources, carbon impact, effect of biochar on soil health, land productivity and climate resilience, processing infrastructure, supply chain logistics, and capital and operational expenditure. It also aimed to capture information for the economic assessment and political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal (PESTEL) analysis. The methodology is described in detail in Appendix A.

Evidence base for biochar potential in Scotland

In this section, we focus on the application of biochar to agricultural soils as part of crop and livestock production systems, since that is the main use explored in the literature we have reviewed. The chapter concludes with the consideration of some potential alternative biochar deployment pathways for Scotland (other than direct application to soils).

Feedstock sources

Feedstock availability is not likely to be a limiting factor for biochar production in Scotland. Scotland has substantial biomass resources across forestry, agriculture, whisky production and waste streams, which are set to grow. These have been assessed for their potential role in the energy system and in non-fuel uses, leading to a Draft Bioenergy Policy Statement (Scottish Government, 2024). Pyrolysis has not been considered as a lead use option for potential feedstocks in Scottish policy, but most of the resources identified could theoretically supply biochar production. Estimated national potential of biochar production in the research literature reviewed is shown in Table 5‑1.

Table 5‑1: Estimated national potential of biochar production for Scotland (Ahmed, et al., 2012)

A key challenge encountered in this research is the significant gap in evidence related to Scotland’s largest potential feedstock streams for biochar. Some of these feedstock streams have no Scottish biochar-specific research, though United Kingdom (UK)-level volume and characterisation data exists for most. The studies identified primarily assess feedstock availability, competing uses, and calorific properties, not biochar production potential or agronomic outcomes from biochar produced from these feedstocks.

Summary of evidence on feedstocks

Here, we briefly outline the areas of confident knowledge, issues under active debate and key evidence gaps in relation to feedstocks for biochar in Scotland. In the following sections, we discuss specific feedstock types in a little more detail. In Appendix B, we include a table with an overview of the level of confidence of the evidence presented on feedstocks.

Areas of confident knowledge. Scotland has substantial and diverse biomass resources that could theoretically supply biochar production. Forestry and sawmill co-products are the most immediately viable feedstock, with well-characterised volumes and existing processing infrastructure concentrated in Scotland. Timber processing volumes are projected to grow significantly over the next two decades. The whisky industry produces large, well-characterised point-source residues, though existing evidence suggests competing uses (particularly animal feed) currently deliver climate benefit.

Issues under active debate. The central question is how biochar compares to existing uses in terms of overall climate benefit, including both carbon sequestration and avoided emissions. Most feedstock streams have established end-uses, and any diversion to biochar production could alter existing supply chains. For feedstocks within Scotland, comparative evidence is largely missing, meaning the relative climate benefit of biochar versus current uses is unknown rather than demonstrated to be lower. The economics of feedstock collection, transport (particularly for wet wastes) and pre-processing also remain under-evaluated in a Scottish biochar context.

Key evidence gaps. The most significant gap is the absence of research into the potential of Scotland’s largest feedstock streams to be used to produce biochar. There is a lack of Scottish biochar research for agricultural residues, sewage sludge, waste wood, and horticultural residues despite them having the largest available volumes and the fewest competing high value uses. The peer-reviewed literature is biased toward whisky industry co-products and specific forestry sites, while quantitative volume data exists primarily for forestry products (through Forest Research statistics) and whisky co-products (through industry reporting) (Forest Research, 2025b). For agricultural residues, sewage sludge and waste wood, Scottish-specific availability data were not identified in the peer-reviewed literature. No comparative LCA has been conducted weighing biochar against other uses across Scottish feedstock streams.

Forestry residues and sawmill co-products

Evidence base: Multiple studies on sawmill throughput, pellet production, and forestry brash volumes. One Scottish lab-scale biochar characterisation study (Flow Country brash). No Scottish field trials. No peer-reviewed data on arboricultural arisings in Scotland.

Forestry residues is the feedstock stream with the most extensively documented supply data and the most immediate relevance for Scottish biochar production, in contrast to agricultural residues where no biochar-specific research was identified. Currently 5.5 million tonnes per year of softwood (2.25 M dry t) pass through UK sawmills, with half of UK processing conducted in Scotland. Ten mills account for 60% of total throughput (Forest Research, 2025b). Woodchip, bark and sawdust are sawmill co-products with established competing markets including bioenergy, panel board, and horticultural products.

Conversion of sawmill co-products into saleable pellets has been a marked trend over the past decade: of the 327,000 t of softwood pellets produced in 2024, more than half were derived from sawmill co-products (Forest Research, 2025b). Scottish softwood availability is forecast to increase by approximately 40% from the current period to the late 2030s, rising from 8.8 to 12.3 M meters cubed overbark standing (Forest Research, 2025b), which suggests a rapidly expanding supply base that could support biochar production.

Beyond sawmills, forestry harvesting generates substantial brash residues. Gaffney, et al. (2024) estimated 80 t of forestry brash per hectare are available post-harvest from Scottish forest plantations. If left on-site this can release organic carbon, potassium and phosphorus into sensitive waters, dependent on specifics of the site (Gaffney, et al., 2024). Brash removal has been proposed as a management option that could also supply pyrolysis feedstock, though the logistics and costs of collection at scale have not been assessed for Scottish conditions (Gaffney, et al., 2024).

The properties of biochar produced from Flow Country conifer brash have been examined at laboratory scale (Pap, et al., 2022). The biochar may be more appropriately used to recycle phosphorus to new plantations rather than for bulk soil application (Pap, et al., 2022). No field-scale trials using Scottish forestry brash biochar have been conducted.

Arboricultural arisings, material from tree surgery and urban tree management, are currently the feedstock used by one of the few operational biochar production facilities in the UK (WoodTek, Surrey). This suggests commercial viability at small scale, though Scottish-specific volumes and supply chain data could not be identified in the peer-reviewed literature.

Whisky co-products

Evidence base: Well-studied feedstock stream with four recent studies including three life cycle assessments (LCAs). All examined animal feed, anaerobic digestion (AD), or biorefinery routes. No studies assessed examined biochar production from whisky co-products.

The Scottish whisky industry produces around 7.65 Mt of pot ale and 1.34 Mt of draff per year from 136 individual distilleries (Andrews, et al., 2025). These are well-characterised, point-source residues with established supply chains. However, pot ale is approximately 96% water, meaning the dry mass available for thermal processing is a small fraction of the headline volume (Edwards, et al., 2022).

From the evidence assessed, this is the most-studied Scottish feedstock stream, although none of the studies examined biochar production. All studies identified instead focused on use in animal feed, AD, or biorefinery routes (Andrews, et al., 2025; Duffy, et al., 2023; Schestak, et al., 2022; Edwards, et al., 2022). Three recent LCAs compared established end-use options and found that animal feed use (displacing imported soy) delivers 2.5–8.0 times greater greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation than AD (Duffy, et al., 2023). This finding suggests that any diversion of these resources would need comparative life cycle analysis, as any future biochar pathway would need to demonstrate comparable or greater benefit unless excess volume is used.

Pot ale has also been used for nutrient recovery through reapplication to land as a fertiliser (Edwards, et al., 2022). No evidence was found for integration of biochar into the whisky supply chain, for example in barley growing. Scotland’s brewing industry produces similar co-product types but at substantially smaller volumes, and no biochar-relevant research was identified for this sector.

Agricultural residues

Evidence base: UK-wide volume and characterisation data available. One international study showed straw-to-biochar conversion benefits. No studies identified examining biochar production from Scottish agricultural residues (barley straw, oat straw, horticultural waste).

The UK produces around 15 M dry t of agricultural waste per year, including 6.6 Mt as wheat straw (Bolaji, et al., 2021). Scotland accounts for a disproportionately high share of barley and oat straw (26% and 21% of UK totals respectively), but also a markedly higher proportion of livestock farming (Bolaji, et al., 2021). The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs estimates 2–3 Mt of straw per year is potentially available for alternative uses across the UK (Bolaji, et al., 2021).

The fate of crop straw is an economic decision between sale into existing markets for animal bedding and feed, or direct return to the soil during harvest. In terms of soil carbon, converting straw to biochar before soil application should be more effective than direct incorporation, since straw is readily degradable. This has been demonstrated experimentally: the amount of carbon stored in the soil was increased four-fold by prior conversion to biochar (Liu, et al., 2024).

Livestock manures and slurries present a different picture. The economic limits to transport of wet wastes (liquid manure, slurry) may be as low as 10 kilometres (km), compared to 30–50 km for dry biomass (Bevan, et al., 2021; Edwards, et al., 2022). Manures are not well suited as a pyrolysis feedstock due to their high moisture content but they contain more reactive nitrogen, so provide a more valuable vehicle for directly delivering biochar to land. In contrast, dry low-nitrogen residues like straw are a better primary feedstock for pyrolysis.

No recent studies were identified examining biochar production from Scotland-specific agricultural resources such as barley and oat straw, or wastes arising from protected horticultural crops including soft fruit. Given that agricultural residues represent the largest biomass stream in Scotland, and one with fewer competing high-value uses than whisky co-products, this gap is significant.

Other waste streams

Evidence base: UK-level studies on food waste management and hydrothermal carbonisation of digestate. One village-scale feasibility study. No national assessment of sewage sludge pyrolysis potential in Scotland. No Scotland-specific waste-to-biochar studies identified.

The UK generates 13.1 Mt of food waste annually, managed through AD or composting (14–41%, depending on the stage in the food supply chain at which the waste is generated), incineration (13–48%), landfill (1–23%), animal feed (4–27%), or land spreading (30–60% of primary production waste) (Jeswani, et al., 2021). Converting wet wastes to biochar depends on efficient mechanical extraction of organic solids, and energy for pre-drying of feedstock that is roughly equivalent to the heat product from pyrolysis. The life cycle benefits depend on the alternative end-use, particularly whether biochar production avoids the need for incineration and ash disposal.

Recent academic work has examined conversion of food waste digestate to hydrochar via hydrothermal carbonisation (HTC), noting that the UK currently produces 1.11 Mt per year of wet digestate (Gamaralalage, et al., 2025). Hydrochar is not biochar, but has comparable processing and feedstock requirements. A village-scale HTC study (Bevan, et al., 2021) projected only 99 t of hydrochar per year from food waste and sewage from 2,250 residents. This evidence, while tangential, suggests that biochar from municipal waste sources is likely better suited to centralised facilities or AD integration rather than dispersed, small-scale production.

No national assessment has been made for the potential pyrolysis of sewage sludge in Scotland (digested or non-digested), only part of which arises in large facilities operated by Scottish Water. Waste wood and green waste represent additional potential feedstocks, but Scotland-specific availability data were not identified in the peer-reviewed literature reviewed.

Biomass and energy crops

Evidence base: One UK-wide bioenergy assessment and one ClimateXChange report on perennial energy crops in Scotland. No evidence found linking energy crop production to biochar pathways in Scotland.

Perennial energy crops, including short rotation coppice willow and miscanthus, have been assessed for their potential contribution to UK bioenergy. An Energy Technologies Institute-funded assessment identified short rotation forestry as having relevance in Scotland, with willow coppice and miscanthus less well suited to Scottish conditions (the latter due to day-length constraints). A previous ClimateXChange report on land-use impacts of perennial energy crops in Scotland (ClimateXChange, 2020) provides further context, though uptake has been slower than projected. Woody energy crops could in principle supply pyrolysis feedstock, but no evidence was found assessing this pathway for Scotland. In addition, the scale uptake of energy crops to date means the practical feedstock contribution is currently small.

Carbon impact of biochar

Our evidence review suggests that biochar provides reliable, long-term carbon storage. For dry woody feedstocks most relevant to Scotland, net removal values are typically above 2.5 tCO2e per tonne of biochar, confirmed by UK operational data. Scotland’s cool soils are favourable for carbon permanence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) methodology estimates 72-88% of biochar carbon remaining after 100 years, although new methods adopted in some carbon markets infer much higher levels of permanence.

Summary of evidence on carbon impact

Here, we briefly outline the areas of confident knowledge, issues under active debate and key evidence gaps in relation to evidence on the carbon impact of biochar. In the following sections, we discuss in a little more detail soil carbon impacts, biochar carbon permanence in soils, and life cycle emissions considerations.

Areas of confident knowledge. Biochar provides stable, long-term carbon storage. Net removal values for dry woody feedstocks, the most relevant for Scotland, are typically above 3 tCO₂e per tonne of biochar, with UK operational data confirming values of 2.5–3.1 tCO₂e/t under real-world conditions. Carbon permanence is determined primarily by pyrolysis temperature and soil temperature, both of which are favourable for Scotland.

Issues under active debate. The role of soil moisture and rainfall in long-term permanence is not fully resolved and is not accounted for in the IPCC methodology. The relative persistence of biochar carbon in different Scottish soil types (particularly sandy vs clay-rich soils) has not been directly tested. It remains uncertain whether secondary effects on native soil organic carbon are significant at low application rates.

Key gaps. No long-term field studies exist for Scottish soils. The 11-year German trial is the best available analogue. The interaction between Scotland’s high rainfall and cool temperatures on biochar permanence has not been quantified. There is no published full-chain LCA for biochar production under Scottish conditions.

Soil carbon impacts

The primary carbon value of biochar lies in the direct transfer of carbon from the active biological cycle into long-term storage. When biomass is pyrolysed, its carbon, which would otherwise return to the atmosphere through decomposition within months to years, is converted into a highly stable form that can persist in soil for centuries or longer. This represents a net removal of CO₂ from the atmosphere. After accounting for production emissions (including energy use, transport, and any offset from heat generated), life cycle calculations show net removal values in the range of 1.15–3.1 tCO₂e/t biochar applied; Scottish figures are likely to be above 2.5 (Gamaralalage et al., 2025; Woolf et al., 2021). The lower end of this range reflects high-moisture feedstocks such as food waste; dry feedstocks such as straw or wood, which are the most likely Scottish feedstocks, are typically within the higher end of the range. These values are confirmed by UK operational data from the Black Bull Biochar demonstrator programme, which reported net carbon removal certificate factors of 2.5 and 3.1 tCO₂e removed per dry t of biochar at two production sites, after accounting for full value-chain emissions (Bagaria et al., 2025).

Separately from this direct carbon store, biochar application can cause small changes in existing soil organic carbon (SOC) pools, through effects on plant growth, soil chemistry, or interactions between stable biochar carbon and native organic matter. These secondary effects are small relative to the direct carbon storage value and are highly dose-dependent. The distinction is important: even where biochar shows no measurable effect on soil processes, the carbon stored within the biochar material itself persists. In-field studies report total soil carbon increases of 25–35% at experimental doses of 10–30 t/ha (Bekchanova et al., 2024; Chagas et al., 2022; Huang et al., 2023), but most of this increase reflects the biochar carbon itself being measured as part of the soil carbon pool, rather than biochar stimulating additional carbon accumulation by the soil (Jaufmann et al., 2025).

Equally important is to distinguish between the residence of biochar in the soils, and the storage of carbon by biochar. In sandy soils some biochar is likely to migrate through the soil profile (to deeper layers). This should not negatively affect the carbon storage aspect of the biochar is maintained but can complicate site-based validation. Little longer-term monitoring of carbon storage impacts was available: we identified only one study in soils comparable to Scotland that tracked impacts beyond 10 years. An 11-year German trial found that on loamy soil (26% clay), the biochar-induced soil carbon increase remained stable, while on sandy soil (94% sand) the measurable increase declined by 88% over 9 years (Gross et al., 2024). However, to reiterate, biochar structures persisted at both sites; the loss on sandy soil was likely due to physical transport of fine particles through the sand matrix. The authors conclude that soil carbon sequestration through biochar is achievable, particularly in loamy and clay-rich soils, while the measurable effect on total soil carbon is less well sustained on sandy soils.

Factors determining biochar carbon permanence in soils

When compared to global evidence, Scottish soils are generally cool (mean annual soil temperature ~10°C), high in organic carbon, and are typically exposed to high rainfall (>600 millimetres (mm) across most agricultural land). These characteristics affect how biochar performs and how its impact is measured.

The IPCC has developed a methodology for biochar carbon accounting (Woolf, et al., 2021), establishing the key factors that determine how much biochar carbon persists in soil. Table 5‑2 summarises these factors and their relevance for Scotland. Further detail on the IPCC methodology is included in Appendix C. IPCC methodology estimates that 72–88% of biochar carbon remains after 100 years at Scottish temperatures, although recent research suggests that levels of permanence could be much higher (Sanei et al, 2024).

Table 5‑2: Factors affecting biochar carbon permanence and relevance for Scotland

Soil moisture is not included in the IPCC methodology, mainly because water is likely to be more limiting in the field than in laboratory conditions (and therefore the omission is conservative). However, one global analysis noted that sites receiving >600 mm of annual rainfall showed lower soil carbon gains from biochar application than drier sites (Chagas, et al., 2022), likely due to aggregate breakdown and accelerated biological oxidation when soils are frequently wet. Scotland receives well over 600 mm across most agricultural land, and this effect warrants consideration when interpreting reported changes in soil carbon storage.

This finding should be interpreted with caution. The quantity of carbon stored through biochar addition is not affected by baseline soil carbon or rainfall. In soils already rich in organic carbon, as is typical in Scotland, the same amount of biochar carbon is stored but it represents a smaller proportional increase relative to the large existing pool. This is a measurement consideration, not a reduced benefit (Huang, et al., 2023; Zhang, et al., 2023).

Life cycle emissions considerations

Biochar production has life cycle emissions related to feedstock collection, transport and the pyrolysis process, contributing 1.4–16% of the total system carbon footprint (Han, et al., 2025), with transport and pyrolysis accounting for over 70% of this. Most studies do not fully account for upstream emissions arising from sourcing of biomass, and full consequential LCAs consistently show smaller net benefits than field-only studies (Han, et al., 2025; Schmidt, et al., 2021). The full carbon benefit of biochar production considers the fate of the heat generated during pyrolysis and the effects of biochar in its end-use beyond carbon storage. The results of these analyses are sensitive to assumptions of future energy mix, particularly where substitution of electrical energy is involved, as the electricity grid is decarbonised (Bagaria, et al., 2025). In comparing the benefit of biochar production with alternative end-uses for biomass, an appropriate unit of analysis could be carbon removal per tonne of biomass, rather than per tonne of biochar produced.

Soil health, land productivity and climate resilience impacts

Our Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) demonstrates that biochar is generally beneficial to measures of soil health, but the impacts are dependent upon the initial soil conditions, and the quantity and qualities of the biochar. It also demonstrates that:

• Most research uses rates likely to be uneconomic in the current ‘real world’;
• Many papers measure the short-term yield benefits associated with liming or nutrients from the feedstock remaining with the biochar, rather than biochar-specific effects; and
• Few papers look at the long-term impacts of biochar.

Applied and long-term research is therefore needed on the yield and wider soil health impacts of low-dose, nutrient-enriched, targeted applications of biochar.

The impact of biochar on the soil-crop system is fundamentally affected by dose and method of application. Although small, targeted doses may produce effects comparable to high doses mixed evenly into soil, almost all of the literature reports high-dose, even-mixing experiments. The findings below should therefore be interpreted as indicating the potential direction and mechanism of effects, rather than as predictions of outcomes at the lower doses (0.5–2 t/ha) likely to be used in practice.

Biochar has two principal routes to improving agricultural returns. The first is as a carrier and retainer of nutrients, reducing losses to leaching and improving the efficiency of applied fertiliser. The second is through interactions with existing soil conditions. The improvement of nutrient use efficiency is likely to be the most economically viable route at low doses. The improvement of features like soil structure and water retention is more dose-driven and dependent on existing soil characteristics.

Impacts on yield

The global research base has focused heavily on yield as the primary measure of biochar’s value. Biochar has been shown (under experimental conditions) to change crop yields from −32% to +974%, although most syntheses showing averages between 13–17% (Huang, et al., 2023; Schmidt, et al., 2021). These results are strongly influenced by studies of poor or degraded soils in tropical and subtropical regions where biochar helps to address yields constrained by low pH, poor nutrient retention and water stress.

Global meta-analyses pinpoint the alleviation of pH constraints of acidic tropical soils as particularly important in terms of yield gains from raised pH. Importantly, the temperate evidence base is limited by short study durations and high application rates. A major synthesis of 56 papers found no significant yield benefit from biochar alone in regions with mean annual temperatures below 10°C, when nutrients were not limiting (Schmidt, et al., 2021). Scotland’s mean annual temperature is approximately 10°C, placing it at the threshold where these limitations apply. However, this finding draws primarily on two of the 26 meta-analyses reviewed (Ye, et al., 2019 and Jeffrey et al., 2017), both of which note that biochar properties, soil properties, and co-application with fertiliser were as relevant as, or more relevant than, climate in determining yield response. In temperate climates, field studies in Denmark, Germany and Norway have shown variable yield response (Jaufmann, et al., 2025; Bruun, et al., 2022; Budai, et al., 2024). One four-year German trial found that initial yield reductions in years 1–3 were reversed by year 4 through improvements in nitrogen cycling (Jaufmann, et al., 2025). These results suggest that short-term studies may underestimate longer-term benefits.

Where biochar is co-applied with fertiliser, the picture changes. A global meta-analysis of biochar-nitrogen interactions found that nitrogen fertiliser is the primary driver of yield gains, but that the interaction between biochar and nitrogen is synergistic — the combined effect is greater than the sum of the individual effects (Jia, et al., 2023). This synergy is likely driven by biochar improving nutrient retention and availability rather than directly increasing yield on its own. However, this analysis is weighted heavily toward tropical systems and does not isolate the temperate results, so the scale of this synergistic effect under Scottish conditions is uncertain. Using smaller amounts of biochar (<1 t/ha) combined with fertiliser has been shown to increase yields, reducing upfront cost while building carbon stores over time (Melo, et al., 2022), though the evidence for temperate climates specifically is limited and wheat showed no response. The practical implication is that biochar’s agronomic value in Scottish conditions is most likely to come from its use as a targeted amendment combined with a nutrient source, potentially allowing the same yield to be achieved with less fertiliser input.

The UK GGR pilot project implemented by Black Bull Biochar provides the first Scottish evidence for this targeted approach (Bagaria, et al., 2025). At Scotland’s Rural College Crichton Farm, Dumfries, biochar was co-applied with organic fertiliser at low doses and compared against fertiliser alone. A grassland strip receiving slurry amended with biochar at 0.5 t/ha/yr produced 16–18% higher yields than slurry alone over two seasons. Arable plots with farmyard manure amended at 1 t/ha/yr showed a 34% yield increase compared to manure alone. No differences in crop quality were found, and soil analysis showed increased pH and soil carbon in treated plots. Notably, the grassland yield benefit was sustained into the second season without reapplication, suggesting a single low-dose application can deliver effects across multiple growing seasons. These are encouraging results at economically realistic doses (0.5–1 t/ha), though this is grey literature from a two-year pilot with limited replication and should be treated as indicative rather than definitive.

Taken together, this evidence suggests that biochar is most effective when co-applied with fertilisers already in use on farm, at low rates of 0.5-1 t/ha. At these doses biochar acts synergistically with the nutrient source, improving nutrient retention. It can thereby increase nutrient use efficiency, without requiring changes to existing farm practice or additional fertiliser inputs beyond those already applied. The carbon storage benefit is delivered regardless of the agronomic outcome.

Effects on soil chemistry and pH

Biochar acts as a mild liming agent, raising soil pH by 0.2–0.6 units depending on dose (Aurangzeib, et al., 2024; Sun, et al., 2022; Singh, et al., 2022). This could benefit the approximately half of Scottish agricultural soils that display reduced productivity due to low pH (Scottish Government, 2023c). Biochar can also improve nutrient retention, particularly for nitrogen and phosphorus, reducing leaching losses. These chemical effects are among the best-evidenced benefits and are relevant at the doses being considered for Scottish deployment.

Effects on water retention and climate resilience

Biochar can improve soil water-holding capacity, with the largest effects on coarse-textured soils. However, the evidence for benefits under Scottish conditions is limited. A Danish trial on sandy soil showed improved water retention but no grain yield gain (Bruun, et al., 2022). A UK study found no protective effect of biochar under drought or flood conditions (Rhymes, et al. 2024). While Scotland is widely seen as a wet country, it already relies on irrigation for some high-value crops, with exceptional levels required for potatoes in 2025 (Adam Christie, Managing Director, Scottish Agronomy, pers. comm.). There is currently no evidence on whether water retention benefits are relevant where rainfall exceeds water loss for most of the year (Brown , et al., 2023). Below 5 t/ha there is essentially no data on water retention outcomes, meaning the case at economically realistic doses remains largely untested.

The evidence base for biochar’s contribution to climate resilience specifically, meaning the capacity of agricultural systems to withstand or recover from extreme weather, is very limited. No studies identified in our review directly tested biochar’s role in climate adaptation under Scottish conditions. This is a significant gap given that climate resilience is a stated objective for Scottish agricultural policy, and the potential mechanisms (improved water retention, reduced nutrient leaching, enhanced soil structure) are plausible but untested at realistic application rates in Scotland’s high-rainfall environment.

Effects on soil greenhouse gas emissions

On mineral soils, biochar reduces nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions by 12–38%, with the strongest effect in the first 2–3 years and when used with nitrogen fertiliser (Huang, et al., 2023). When biochar and nitrogen are co-applied, the interaction on GHG emissions is antagonistic — meaning the combined effect on emissions is lower than the sum of their individual effects — while the interaction on yield is synergistic (Jia, et al., 2023). This is an encouraging combination for climate-smart agriculture: lower emissions with higher productivity. Methane (CH₄) emissions are reduced by around 15% overall. Soils naturally absorb small amounts of CH₄ from the atmosphere (a process called methane uptake). In some cases wood biochar combined with nitrogen fertiliser has been found to suppress this effect, though this needs quantifying in Scottish conditions (Jia, et al., 2023; Huang, et al., 2023).

The opposite effect may occur on peat soils. Finnish studies found that biochar applied at 10–30 t/ha increased N₂O emissions by over 200% on deep agricultural peat (Ronkainen, et al., 2025), confirmed by a second study (Saarnio, et al., 2024). These are high doses on soil types unlikely to be targeted under the deployment pathways considered in this report. A UK study on fen peat found that biochar combined with a raised water table reduced emissions by 30% and increased crop growth (Jeewani, et al., 2025). Biochar may therefore be beneficial when paired with rewetting on degraded peatland but poses a risk on undrained organic soils at high application rates.

Summary of evidence on soil health and productivity

Areas of confident knowledge. Biochar can raise soil pH (beneficial for around 50% of Scottish agricultural soils), reduce N₂O emissions on mineral soils (12–38%), and improve nutrient retention. These effects are well-evidenced across multiple meta-analyses. The interaction between biochar and nitrogen fertiliser is synergistic for yield and antagonistic for GHG emissions. The Black Bull Biochar pilot project provides indicative Scottish evidence that low-dose co-application with organic fertiliser can improve yields.

Issues under active debate. Whether the temperate yield response is genuinely weak or an artefact of short study durations and high application rates is actively debated. The relative value of biochar as a nutrient carrier versus a soil conditioner at low doses is unresolved. Whether water retention benefits translate to yield or resilience gains under Scottish rainfall conditions is unclear.

Key gaps. There are no peer-reviewed Scottish field trials at economically realistic application rates. We found no evidence on climate resilience effects under Scottish conditions. There is no data below 5 t/ha on soil health outcomes. There is no comparative assessment of biochar versus alternative soil amendments for Scottish farming systems.

Lessons from international experience

We chose Denmark, Sweden and Germany to compile lessons from international experiences with biochar. These countries were chosen due to similarity in climate and land conditions with Scotland, as well as their more advanced state of biochar deployment.

Denmark

Denmark is the most advanced country in Europe in terms of policy commitment to biochar deployment, making its experience particularly instructive for Scotland.

The 2024 Danish Strategy and Work Program for Pyrolysis (Danish Government, 2024) sets out a comprehensive countrywide framework. It establishes clear guidelines for biochar application to agricultural land, including guidance on permitting and pollution tailored to the Danish context, and creates a cross-governmental Pyrolysis Taskforce to coordinate implementation. 10 billion Danish krone (DKK) (£1.16 billion at March 2026 prices) has been allocated for biochar produced by pyrolysis on Danish agricultural land from 2027 to 2045, with a further DKK 100 M (£11.6 M) for testing, scaling and demonstration of pyrolysis plants. The strategy sets a target of 0.3 Mt CO₂ sequestration by 2030. It introduces mandatory emissions accounting, including emission factors for biochar in Denmark’s GHG inventory by 2027 and monitoring, reporting, and verification for CH₄ from pyrolysis plants. Denmark is also the first country to introduce a carbon tax on livestock CH₄ emissions, and the first European Union (EU) member state to seek European Commission approval for a biochar subsidy scheme, though approval discussions remain ongoing. Some Danish pyrolysis projects have also received direct funding support from the European Commission.

Denmark already has multiple pyrolysis projects in operation, making it the European country with the most developed implementation experience of biochar production at scale. However, our interviews with Danish industry and government stakeholders reveal a gap between this policy ambition and practical deployment. Despite the scale of public commitment and operational production capacity, there is a lack of biochar application outside of testing. The primary barrier identified is end-of-waste permitting. Current Danish rules require local municipalities to grant environmental permits under Section 19 of the Environmental Protection Act before biochar can be applied to agricultural land, but municipalities have been reluctant to do so because of uncertainty around groundwater interactions and other risks. A Danish industrial stakeholder noted that the industry’s own ambitious volume projections may have contributed to regulatory caution, with authorities responding to the scale of proposed deployment by adopting a more precautionary approach.

The Danish Ministry of Environment has commissioned contaminant testing through the Technical University of Denmark, with results showing levels below emission thresholds for most biochar types. New national environmental guidelines to replace the current case-by-case permitting approach are due to be published in 2026. Some Danish producers have exported biochar to Germany rather than applying it domestically. The subsidy auction has not yet launched, pending both EU state aid approval and finalisation of the environmental regulation. Denmark is aiming for clear national rules by mid-2026, which would provide the regulatory clarity needed for the subsidy scheme to become operational.

These implementation challenges are instructive. The Danish approach with dedicated funding, a cross-governmental taskforce, integration into national emissions accounting, and clear subsidy mechanisms provide a developmental roadmap that Scotland could draw on. The main finding was that regulatory readiness, particularly end-of-waste criteria and permitting pathways, needs to be developed in parallel with policy ambition rather than sequentially to prevent bottlenecking. This regulatory barrier mirrors the situation in Scotland, where biochar manufacture is classified as a waste management activity under the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s 2012 Position Statement. Multiple Scottish stakeholders identified waste classification and end-of-waste criteria as directly affecting investment decisions (see Section 7.6).

Our interviews also identified several operational insights relevant to Scottish deployment. A Danish industrial stakeholder uses low-cost agricultural and livestock residues as feedstock rather than woody biomass. They also reported that feedstock cost is the largest operational expenditure, with prices varying significantly between wet and dry biomass. The industry began with small pyrolysis units and faces significant challenges in scaling. The same stakeholder reported that scaling to commercial systems (20 Megawatts, processing 40,000 t/year of dry matter) introduces significant engineering complexity, and that cost does not scale linearly with capacity. Plants also need to be located close to heat customers to maximise value, constraining site selection. The biochar subsidy scheme has proved more challenging to establish than the equivalent Carbon Capture and Storage scheme, in part because foundational environmental regulations for pyrolysis were not in place when the policy commitment was made.

While Danish targets for biochar are ambitious, concerns have been raised. A Lund University study suggests that biochar carbon removal could result in mitigation deterrence if financed through carbon credits, meaning continued emissions that could otherwise have been reduced (Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies, 2024). A Danish think tank has cautioned that emission removal targets based on biochar could be unrealistic given that operational scaling has not yet been achieved (Green Transition Denmark, 2024).

Sweden

Currently, biochar is seen as part of the mitigation plan for the forest and land sector. There is an overall target to remove 1.2 Mt CO₂e annually by 2030, but there are no specified targets for biochar.

State support for biochar in Sweden is limited and primarily channelled through the general Climate Leap scheme, Klimatklivet. More targeted, biochar-specific subsidies are not currently considered appropriate, given the need for further applied research on how biochar can most effectively contribute to Sweden’s net zero pathway (Carbon Gap, 2025). Nevertheless, Olsson et al. (2024) argue that the sector has reached its current scale largely because programmes such as Klimatklivet reduced the upfront capital burden associated with establishing pyrolysis facilities. The sector therefore has been co-financed through public grants, and private investments.

Olsson et al. (2024) also point out that municipality-level support has been critical for the biochar industry, where the high environmental safeguards of municipalities indirectly enabled domestic biochar producers over imported production. Lastly, biochar plants are not only seen as production infrastructure but also learning sites. Public support enables experimentation, monitoring and data generation, while bringing municipalities, researchers, and industry together and building institutional capacity. This collaborative, co-financed and knowledge intensive landscape has been essential for the Swedish biochar industry to develop.

Germany

The German biochar industry is empowered by notable industrial capacity in pyrolysis technology in the country, and also by regulatory developments on waste management.

Regarding industry, German companies were mentioned by three interviewees as frontrunners in supplying modern pyrolysis plants. Germany has a substantial base of technical expertise and operational knowledge, and is a key provider in the emerging global biochar supply chain.

On the regulatory side, the 2017 Sewage Sludge Ordinance required large wastewater treatment plants to recover phosphorus rather than simply spreading sludge on fields (effective by 2029). This led to the recognition of pyrolysis (carbonization) of sludge as an acceptable phosphorus recovery method. Germany’s wider support to Bioenergy and Carbon Capture and Storage technologies has also positively impacted the biochar industry. Finaly, according to Carbon Gap, Germany’s recent efforts to create a national carbon removal strategy could also incentivise the industry to scale up (Carbon Gap, 2026).

Our interviews suggest that Southern Germany (and Austria) largely rely on woody biomass as feedstock. Our REA indicates that biochar in Germany has been produced from different feedstocks, including but not limited to woody biomass, and applied across different soil types (Teichmann, 2014). Lastly, soil improvement benefits associated with biochar are viewed as important in the German context and there is ongoing research on these co-benefits (EU Cap Network, 2024).

Potential biochar deployment pathways for Scotland

This section identifies seven potential deployment pathways for biochar in Scotland, drawing on evidence from the REA and stakeholder interviews. These pathways are:

• Pathway 1: Agricultural soil amendment – application of biochar to agricultural land
• Pathway 2: Biochar-based fertiliser (BBF) – biochar combined with other nutrients to produce a fertiliser product
• Pathway 3: Anaerobic digestion (AD) integration – adding biochar to the AD process
• Pathway 4: Whisky co-product valorisation – use of whisky co-products as a feedstock for biochar production
• Pathway 5: Forestry residue pyrolysis – use of forestry residues as a feedstock for biochar production
• Pathway 6: Construction materials – addition of biochar to construction materials such as concrete, asphalt, and plasterboard
• Pathway 7: Water filtration – use of biochar in water treatment applications

The seven pathways vary in feedstock source, production context, application method, and end-use. Several pathways share the same end-use (agricultural soil application) but differ in how biochar is produced, processed, or delivered to the field.

Pathway 2 (Biochar-based fertiliser, BBF) represents a specific formulation of the approach described in Pathway 1, and Pathway 4 (whisky co-products) is distinguished primarily by feedstocks rather than end-use. The barriers and enablers that would need to be addressed to realise each pathway are discussed in Chapters 6 and 7. Each is assessed against the evidence base for its feasibility, considering feedstock availability and impacts on carbon and soil health (Sections 5.1 to 5.3). Table 5‑2 provides a summary, including the key knowledge gaps identified for each pathway; the evidence is discussed below. Additional potential applications were identified by stakeholders, including livestock bedding, but were not developed into full pathways due to the limited evidence base. These are noted at the end of this section.

A key finding from the REA is that the viability of any use case (scenario) depends on synergies between feedstock, pyrolysis processing and end-use. There is no universal solution, and there may be compromise between permanence of carbon removal (achieved by high-temperature pyrolysis, >600°C) and certain immediate effects on soil properties (achieved by low-temperature pyrolysis, <500°C), suitability for water filtration (high surface area), or potential applications in the construction industry (specific particle size and stability). Use cases should be understood as an integration across the value chain and assessed over a defined time period, rather than alternative uses for a uniform product.

Table 5‑3: Summary of potential biochar deployment pathways for Scotland

Pathway 1: Agricultural soil amendment

Application of biochar to agricultural land is the most widely studied pathway and offers the highest carbon sequestration potential, estimated at 1.2–3.1 tCO₂e per tonne applied (see Section 5.2). In Norway, Budai et al. (2024) found biochar has the largest mitigation potential of nine carbon farming^[1] methods assessed, equivalent to 20% of Norwegian agricultural emissions if deployed at scale. The Scottish Government’s Negative Emissions Technologies feasibility study (Scottish Government, 2023a) identified this as the primary deployment route.

As discussed in Section 5.3.1, global meta-analyses (Schmidt, et al., 2021; Ye, et al., 2019; Jeffery, et al., 2022) suggest weaker yield gains in temperate conditions than tropical ones. However, it is actively debated whether this reflects a genuine climatic limitation or is an artefact of short study durations, high application rates, and/or differing soil conditions (with factors such as low pH, poor nutrient retention and water stress more common in tropical climates). Where biochar is co-applied with fertiliser at low doses, the yield response appears to depend more on soil properties, biochar characteristics and application method than on climate zone alone. The Black Bull Biochar project’s results at 0.5–1 t/ha suggest that targeted co-application under Scottish conditions may produce yield benefits not captured by the broader meta-analytic averages (Bagaria, et al., 2025), though these are grey literature results from a two-year pilot with limited replication. Biochar’s pH-raising effect could benefit the approximately half of Scottish agricultural soils that currently suffer reduced productivity due to low pH (see Section 5.3).

For Scotland, the primary carbon benefit is stable carbon storage rather than enhanced soil carbon cycling (Section 5.2). Localised biochar storage varies by soil type: loamy and clay-rich soils offer the most reliable long-term local storage, while sandy soils may not sustain measurable local gains over time (Gross, et al., 2021). However, while the loss of biochar from soils reduces soil fertility benefits, this does not equate to a loss of carbon storage. Instead, biochar lost from sandy soils remains as stable stored carbon elsewhere in the environment. At Scotland-relevant soil temperatures (~10°C), the IPCC methodology estimates 72–88% of biochar carbon remains after 100 years (Woolf, et al., 2021). Application to peat or peaty soils should be approached with caution given Finnish evidence on increased N₂O emissions at high doses (see Section 5.3), though biochar paired with rewetting may benefit degraded peatland (Jeewani, et al., 2025). The evidence reviewed in Section 5.3 indicates that biochar is most effective when integrated into existing fertiliser practice at low doses (0.5–1 t/ha), where it acts synergistically with the nutrient source to improve both nutrient retention and yield without requiring large changes to farm management. The deployment pathways considered here focus on mineral agricultural soils. A government agency interviewee questioned where biochar sits in Scotland’s wider decarbonisation strategy, noting that the same feedstocks are sought for sustainable aviation fuel and AD, and that carbon offsetting via biochar is less direct than fossil fuel substitution for reducing scope 1 emissions.

Pathway 2: Biochar-based fertiliser

BBF represents a potentially significant shift in the economics of biochar deployment. Melo et al. (2022) demonstrated that BBF achieves equivalent yield gains to high-rate biochar application at less than 1 t/ha, compared to the 15–30 t/ha previously considered necessary. Field studies show a mean yield increase of 12%, with a median application rate of 635 kg/ha. The Black Bull Biochar project tested biochar co-applied with slurry and farmyard manure rather than a manufactured BBF product, but the principle is the same: biochar enhances the effectiveness of nutrient inputs already being applied, rather than replacing them.

The evidence base for BBF remains limited and is dominated by tropical maize systems. A single pot trial investigated BBF and wheat yield and showed no statistically significant yield responses. No Scottish or UK field trials of BBF formulations were identified in our evidence review. A whisky research interviewee noted that field trials examining biochar in combination with fertiliser on Scottish crops would be needed before practical recommendations can be made, and that any new input must work within the fixed localities of existing cereal supply chains.

Pathway 3: Anaerobic digestion integration

Integration with AD was identified by multiple stakeholders during our interviews as one of the most immediately viable pathways for Scotland. Adding biochar to the AD process can improve digestion efficiency by providing a surface for microbial colonisation, which stabilises the biological process. It can also reduce the sensitivity of digesters to variability in feedstock content and structure, like ash, moisture and calorific content, which is responsible for a large proportion of digester down time. This in turn increases biogas yield, with a Local Authority interviewee reporting approximately 20% improvement. It can also improve the quality of the digestate as a soil amendment. Biochar may also improve nutrient use efficiency within the digestion process, though the relative value of this compared to biogas yield improvement has not been directly compared in the literature we reviewed. Carbogenics, a University of Edinburgh spin-out, has developed a biochar additive specifically to enhance biological performance in biogas plants. One Scottish interviewee described this as the most advanced biochar commercialisation in Scotland, with a clear link between the additive and increased biogas output.

Scotland has an established AD sector with processing capacity for organic waste, and the Scottish Government has identified AD sector expansion as a factor in the development trajectory of biochar plants. However, gate fee economics are sensitive (break-even at >£74/t digestate), and waste classification requirements add complexity and cost (Gamaralalage, et al., 2025). An interviewee from a pyrolysis technology manufacturer reported that processing at 600°C can destroy Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and microplastics in digestate, which if verified for Scottish waste streams could reduce contaminant concerns associated with waste-derived biochar and support the case for end-of-waste reclassification. This pathway benefits from using existing waste management infrastructure and feedstock supply chains, reducing the need for new biomass sourcing.

Pathway 4: Whisky co-product valorisation

Scotland’s whisky industry produces 7.65 Mt of pot ale and 1.34 Mt of draff annually (Andrews, et al., 2025). These figures are wet mass; pot ale is approximately 96% water (3–4% solids) (Edwards, et al., 2022), meaning the dry matter available for conversion is substantially smaller than these headline volumes. Distilleries are typically located near arable land, creating the potential for closed-loop systems. However, our evidence review found a fundamental challenge: the existing use of whisky co-products as animal feed (Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles, DDGS) delivers 2.5–8.0 times greater GHG mitigation than the AD route (Duffy, et al., 2023), and also offsets water scarcity impacts from avoided soy imports (Schestak, et al., 2022). UK renewable energy incentives have already driven a sub-optimal shift from feed to bioenergy use, with DDGS production declining by 57% between 2012 and 2019 (Duffy, et al., 2023). Diverting further co-products to biochar without careful LCA risks repeating this pattern. A whisky research interviewee indicated that the industry’s 2040 net zero ambition could create demand, but confirmed that co-product allocation remains commercially sensitive and distillery-specific.

Pathway 5: Forestry residue pyrolysis

Scotland produced an estimated 568 kt of wood waste in 2023, of which approximately 548 kt was already recycled or sent for energy recovery (2022). This figure covers material classified as waste and does not include the wider volume of sawmill co-products already in productive use. Due to the lack of other evidence, forest brash is one of the most studied Scottish feedstocks in academic literature. Pap et al. (Scottish Forestry, 2025) demonstrated lab-scale potential production of biochar from conifer brash. The resulting biochar released phosphorus, improving its potential value as an agricultural amendment, but limiting its water treatment use.

The primary constraint for this pathway is feedstock competition. A timber industry interviewee reported being approached repeatedly to supply feedstock but finding no credible market for biochar product compared to existing feedstock pathways. The same stakeholder pointed out that Scotland’s forestry product industry sustains over 16,000 jobs and contributes approximately £878 M/yr to the Scottish economy (Scottish Forestry, 2025). Any diversion of wood fibre into biochar production must be assessed against this existing economic contribution, and work to make biochar synergistic with existing industry. An industry stakeholder cautioned that removing forestry residues can release soil carbon through disturbance. Waste wood not currently finding productive use may offer a more viable route (SRUC, 2020).

Pathway 6: Construction materials

Several stakeholders identified potential for biochar in construction materials including concrete, asphalt, and plasterboard. Danish and Australian experience was cited, with PyroCore et al. (2021) valuing construction-grade biochar at £250–500/t for road applications. However, biochar is not currently included in UK building codes, without which its use in construction materials cannot be insured. Acceptance through building codes is likely to take decades. Peer-reviewed evidence for the UK context is limited. This is an emerging pathway that may become significant as the construction sector seeks to reduce embodied carbon, but currently lacks the evidence base and regulatory framework for deployment.

Pathway 7: Water filtration and remediation

Biochar has shown potential for some water treatment applications at substantially lower cost than activated carbon, which is used to control taste and odour and to remove organic chemicals (£370/t for biochar vs up to £33,760/t for activated carbon) (Pap, et al., 2022). The adsorption capacity of biochar is however substantially lower. Scottish Water has reportedly expressed interest, according to one industry stakeholder. A potential circular pathway exists in which sewage sludge is pyrolysed to produce biochar for water treatment. However, unmodified conifer brash biochar achieved only partial nutrient removal when tested: 63.6% of ammonium was removed but phosphorus was leached (Pap, et al., 2022). The focus on ammonium may also be too narrow, as nitrate is the main soluble nitrogen fraction driving eutrophication in watercourses. The regulatory pathway for biochar use in water treatment is also unclear. Further product development and systematic comparison with activated carbon are needed.

Other stakeholder identified routes

Livestock bedding was also identified as a potential application by several interviewees. A Local Authority interviewee reported that a mix of 75% wood fines and 25% biochar creates bedding that effectively absorbs ammonia and other pollutants that could otherwise run off to land or watercourses. This approach is currently being trialled for poultry bedding. Biochar used in bedding would subsequently reach agricultural soil through normal manure management, providing a practical route to soil application within existing farm systems. This approach could be significant given that ammonia emissions from agriculture are a key air and water quality pressure in Scotland and the UK. Biochar-amended bedding could potentially reduce ammonia emissions at source – though this has not yet been demonstrated at scale.

Economic assessment

This section brings together economic evidence from our Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) and stakeholder engagement. It should be noted that the evidence has several important limitations. Cost and revenue data for biochar are highly variable, depending on feedstock type, production technology, scale, end-use application, and regulatory requirements. The data also comes from a limited number of studies, including pilot projects and modelling studies, which may or may not be representative. The estimates we present here are therefore indicative ranges, reflecting a market still at an early stage in the United Kingdom (UK). Table 6‑1 summarises key cost components. The key findings are then discussed below, with reference to the deployment pathways identified in Section 5.5 where appropriate. Additional comments on uncertainties are briefly discussed in section 6.6.

Table 6‑1: Summary of biochar cost components

Note: Cost estimates are drawn from sources spanning 2011–2026 and vary in methodology. Where possible, figures are identified as breakeven production costs, sale prices, or modelled estimates. CAPEX and OPEX ranges are strongly influenced by production scale, feedstock type, and logistics. All figures originally reported in US$ or € have been converted to approximate £ at March 2026 rates. Figures reported before 2022 have been adjusted to March 2026 prices to account for inflation.

Production costs

Biochar production costs vary substantially with technology, feedstock, and scale. At the global level, IBI (2025) reports a breakeven production cost range of approximately £175–460/t (US$220–580). In Scotland, the only production cost data comes from (Pap, et al., 2022), who demonstrated production from Flow Country conifer brash at £370/t at lab scale. The Scottish Government’s Negative Emissions Technologies feasibility study (Scottish Government, 2023a) provides a full cost breakdown for various plant sizes, noting that the six-tenths or 0.6 rule^[2] can be used to extrapolate costs for different production rates.

Operational expenditure ranges from £42–399/t of biochar produced depending on plant scale and feedstock (Scottish Government, 2023a). Shackley et al. (2011) estimated costs from production to field application at £0–430 per applied t, with the lowest costs for systems using waste feedstocks (where biochar producers may be able to charge a fee to those disposing of the waste feedstock) and the highest profitability where both biochar and renewable energy are produced. These estimates included on-farm application costs but did not include costs of regulatory compliance or monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV), which add disproportionate costs at smaller production scales.

A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ)-funded demonstration project projected CAPEX falling from £5.5 M in 2025 to £4.2 M by 2030 for a representative plant with one pyrolysis module and nine Compressed Air Energy Storage systems, suggesting that costs may reduce as the technology matures (PyroCore, et al., 2021). Stakeholders identified that CAPEX also varies significantly depending on whether wet or dry feedstock is pyrolysed. Industry data indicates costs of approximately €1–1.5 M (~£870,000 – 1.3 M) per Megawatt (MW) of calorific input capacity for wet biomass systems (which require pre-processing including drying and pelletising), compared to approximately €0.5–0.75 M (~£0.44 – 0.65 M) per MW for dry feedstock systems, according to one industry interviewee (see Section 5.4), underscoring that scaling introduces engineering complexity that is not proportional to capacity.

Biomass procurement is usually the largest operational cost, and prices can be highly volatile. One Danish industry interviewee reported straw prices rising by 70% in a single year due to a poor harvest. However, this is a standard commercial challenge manageable through forward supply contracts, as other biomass-dependent industries have demonstrated.

Feedstock competition and opportunity costs

The economic assessment of any pathway must account for the opportunity costs of diverting feedstocks from current uses. However, feedstock competition is not inherently a barrier: if biochar represents the highest-value use of a given biomass resource, competition is the market operating as intended. The challenge is demonstrating that biochar does deliver greater overall value than alternative uses. The clearest example where this has not been demonstrated is whisky co-products (Pathway 4). Here, the feed pathway (DDGS) delivers 2.5–8.0 times greater GHG mitigation than bioenergy alternatives (Duffy, et al., 2023), and DDGS production has already declined by 57% between 2012 and 2019 due to sub-optimal policy incentives shifting co-products from feed to AD. For wood fibre (Pathway 5), Scotland’s forest products industry contributes £878 M per year and sustains over 16,000 jobs (Scottish Forestry, 2025). If biochar were to become the highest-value use of this biomass, it could add to rather than detract from this economic contribution.

Waste streams with limited current productive use offer the strongest economic case, including lower-grade AD digestate, municipal green waste where composting capacity is saturated, and specific industrial residues. These pathways do however carry the heaviest regulatory and compliance burden. Waste-derived feedstocks require full waste management licensing in Scotland (Section 7.6), face more stringent contaminant testing requirements for heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and microplastics (Section 7.5), and incur MRV and certification costs that are disproportionate for smaller operators. These costs partially offset the gate fee advantage, and the net economics will depend on the specific feedstock and production scale. Over 27 Mt of biomass arisings were generated in Scotland in 2014, many with limited valorisation (Zero Waste Scotland, 2022). Matching underused streams to appropriate pyrolysis pathways is likely to offer better economics than competing for feedstocks with established markets.

Revenue streams and market context

Revenue for biochar producers can come from three main sources: sale of biochar as a product, carbon credit certification, and heat or energy co-generation. The relative importance of each varies by pathway (Section 5.5).

For agricultural soil amendment (Pathway 1), carbon credit revenue is critical because agronomic value alone does not justify the purchase price of biochar for most farmers. Current voluntary market prices of £600–800/t of certified carbon removal reflect early-mover pre-purchase agreements that are not expected to represent long-term equilibrium prices (IBI, 2023). As the market matures and compliance mechanisms develop, prices are likely to settle lower. A key uncertainty is whether carbon removal credits will command a higher price than emissions reduction credits, or whether buyers will be required to balance the two in an evolving ratio. An interviewee from a government economic development agency identified aviation as a potential demand-side driver: airlines face limited near-term decarbonisation options and could purchase biochar carbon credits as a bridge until sustainable aviation fuel matures, providing a defined buyer segment for Scottish producers. For construction uses (Pathway 6), an achievable price of £250–500/t has been projected for road applications. For water filtration (Pathway 7), the cost advantage over activated carbon provides a product-based revenue stream independent of carbon markets.

The distinction between carbon stored directly in the biochar and any additional effect on native soil carbon matters in evaluating the potential of carbon credits as a revenue stream for biochar producers. Most of the reported increase in soil organic carbon (SOC) reflects the stable biochar carbon being measured as part of the soil pool, rather than biochar stimulating new carbon accumulation (Jaufmann, et al., 2025). The economic value of biochar for Scotland’s carbon-rich soils is, therefore, best calculated on the basis of the stable carbon it adds directly. At Scotland-relevant temperatures (~10° C), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change methodology estimates 72–88% of biochar carbon remains after 100 years (Woolf, et al., 2021). To assess the potential of sequestration and hence the carbon credits it can claim, cost-benefit models should not additionally claim native SOC gains unless independently demonstrated under Scottish conditions.

Where waste feedstocks are used, producers can charge a gate fee for accepting material that would otherwise incur waste management costs, generating an estimated £89–124/t of biochar produced (Scottish Government, 2023a). This represents a genuine revenue stream, not a constraint: waste-derived pathways benefit from being paid to receive their input material. Electricity generated from pyrolysis co-products provides a further revenue stream, estimated at £37/t of biochar, though this will depend on energy prices (Scottish Government, 2023a). Currently, 47% of global biochar producers currently certify their carbon removals to recognised standards (IBI, 2023). While this demonstrates emerging practice, it also means that over half of production is not independently verified, highlighting the need for mandatory or standardised certification to ensure consistent quality and legitimate carbon claims as the market matures.

Heat co-generation is a significant but undervalued revenue source. An interviewee stated that one demonstration project in Shropshire reported approximately 1.2 MW of excess thermal energy from a single pyrolysis unit, although proximity to heat customers is required, constraining site selection.

Cost-effectiveness relative to alternatives

When assessed purely as a soil amendment (i.e. application of biochar to agricultural land for yield improvement – see section 5.5.1), biochar is the most expensive option per unit of yield gain. Zhang et al. (2023) calculated the cost per 1% yield increase: at pH 5.0–5.5, biochar costs approximately £120/ha compared to £12/ha for lime and £16/ha for manure. The Black Bull Biochar project achieved encouraging yield results (16–34% increases) at low doses (0.5–1 t/ha co-applied with organic fertiliser), but these have not been independently replicated. Biochar for this project was provided to farmers at half the market price, with 6 farmers purchasing biochar after the project. The economic case for farmers remains unproven at current prices. There is a clear opportunity to explore the potential for profitable applications through this targeted, low-dose approach, where both carbon storage and agronomic benefits are delivered together. It is useful to note, however, that some studies suggest the relationship between biochar application rate and benefit is non-linear, with diminishing and potentially negative returns at higher rates (Huang, et al., 2023; Wu, et al., 2022). Hence, exploring the potential in low doses might draw a limited picture.

When assessed as a carbon removal technology, the economics are more favourable relative to other options. Comparisons of greenhouse gas removal (GGR) technologies have estimated biochar costs at £13–120/tCO₂, compared to BECCS at £100–350/tCO₂, DACCS at £145–557/tCO₂, enhanced weathering at £37–350/tCO₂, and afforestation at £10–12/tCO₂ (ClimateXChange, 2022; Climate Change Committee, 2025; ClimateXChange, 2025). All of these technologies are expensive in absolute terms, and the relevant question for policy is relative cost-effectiveness and the level of public investment society is willing to commit to sequestering carbon. Biochar’s cost range overlaps with, and in some scenarios falls below, that of other methods of engineered removal technologies. This suggests it could be cost-competitive in attracting carbon removal investment, particularly in places where feedstock and heat are co-located to reduce costs. Arup (2022) estimated a 2025 cost of approximately £300/tCO₂ removed by biochar. Several DESNZ-funded demonstrator projects targeted costs by 2050 below £200/tCO₂ removed by biochar, though these targets were conditions of grant funding and may not reflect market costs without subsidy. Norwegian data suggests breakeven production costs of approximately £590/t (Budai, et al., 2024), indicating that additional revenue streams or policy support are needed to close the viability gap.

Regarding other potential uses of biochar, it may offer potential for some water treatment applications at substantially lower cost than activated carbon (£370/t vs up to £33,760/t) (Pap, et al., 2022).

Investment landscape

Public grant funding for biochar-related infrastructure in Scotland is at an early stage, and private investment capital has not yet followed in significant volumes. The UK Government allocated over £100 M to develop GGR technologies through the GGR Innovation Programme, of which £31.5 M supported five land-based demonstrator projects including biochar (Scottish Government, 2023a). This programme has now concluded. The Grangemouth Just Transition Fund (£25 M) includes pyrolysis-related project sets within the Project Willow feasibility study. An additional £200 M is available from the UK National Wealth Fund for investible propositions (Scottish Government, 2025c). The Carbon Neutral Islands programme has allocated £600,000 for a Phase 1 biochar trial on agriculture, peatland and clear-fell land, plus £46,000 for a peatland restoration trial using biochar (Scottish Government, 2025d). The same feasibility study estimated that the gross value added of a biochar sector within Scotland could reach approximately £24.3M (Scottish Government, 2023a; Scottish Government, 2023a).

Industry stakeholders consistently identified commercial viability as the primary constraint on private investment. The question for policy is what level and form of public investment is required to bridge the gap between current grant-funded pilot activity and a self-sustaining commercial market. One Scottish interviewee observed that considerable R&D activity has not yet translated into commercially viable projects, and that the most advanced Scottish biochar company still imports raw biochar from Europe for post-processing in Scotland. Multiple interviewees noted that a clearer policy signal, comparable to Denmark’s 10 billion Danish krone (DKK) commitment to agricultural carbon sequestration subsidies, would be necessary to unlock private investment at scale. The anticipated UK ETS inclusion of biochar by 2029 was identified as potentially the most significant catalyst for market development, though compliance market prices are likely to be substantially lower than current voluntary market prices, as discussed above in section 6.2. A recurring theme from industry interviewees was the absence of funding to bridge the gap between demonstrator and commercial stages. A biochar industry interviewee projected that the UK biochar sector could reach market maturity between 2030 and 2035, but that achieving this timeline depends on sustained policy signals and early commercial revenue to bridge current funding gaps.

Current public funding supports research and pilot activity, but there is no mechanism to support early commercial operations during the period when producers need to generate revenue but cannot yet compete on price. This was identified as a distinct constraint from the availability of R&D funding, and one that other emerging low-carbon technologies have also faced.

Key uncertainties

The economic evidence base we present here has several important limitations. Most cost data derives from modelling studies and pilot projects rather than established commercial operations in Scotland. Carbon credit market projections are inherently uncertain, and small shifts in policy or sentiment could substantially alter the economics of all pathways. The relationship between biochar application rate and benefit is non-linear, with diminishing and potentially negative returns at higher rates (Huang, et al., 2023; Wu, et al., 2022). This means cost-benefit analyses based on average effects may be misleading. Biochar carbon persistence also varies by soil type: Gross et al. (2024) found that on loamy soil, biochar-derived SOC remained stable after 11 years, while on sandy soil 88% of the initial gain was lost after 9 years. Site-specific assessment will therefore be essential for any further evaluation of the potential of biochar as both a revenue stream and an emissions removal strategy in Scottish soils and deployment contexts.

PESTEL analysis

This section evaluates the political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal (PESTEL) factors affecting biochar deployment in Scotland. It draws on evidence from our REA, stakeholder interviews, and policy document analysis, distinguishing between inherent barriers and risks associated with scaling. The analysis complements the evidence base presented in Chapter 5 and our economic assessment in Chapter 6. Where those sections address the same topic, this section cross-references back to them, rather than repeating the information.

Table 7‑1 provides a summary, with each dimension discussed further in the following sections. A full analysis with additional detail is provided in Appendix D.

A general observation relevant to several risks discussed here is that biochar effects are strongly dose-dependent, when considering application to land. Many of the environmental concerns reported in the literature derive from experimental studies using application rates of 10–50 tonnes per hectare (t/ha), which are not economically realistic for Scottish farming (see Chapter 6). At the lower rates identified as viable in our evidence review (0.5–2 t/ha), some of these risks may be substantially reduced, though the evidence base at these rates is itself limited. It is also important to assess biochar against current agricultural practice rather than against zero impact: slurry, mineral fertiliser, and waste biomass are already applied to or generated from Scottish land, and each has its own environmental footprint.

Table 7‑1: Summary of key PESTEL barriers and risks

Political considerations

There are currently no Scottish policy incentives specifically targeting biochar deployment. The Draft Bioenergy Policy Statement (Scottish Government, 2024) describes biochar production as an emerging and experimental approach, anticipating deployment from 2030 onwards, but does not commit to specific support mechanisms. The Climate Change Plan Monitoring Report (Scottish Government, 2025a) makes limited reference to biochar, and it does not feature as a named measure in the current plan.

At UK level, the policy landscape is shifting. The Seventh Carbon Budget, presented to the UK Government by the Climate Change Committee in February 2025, is the first to include biochar in its pathways to net zero. The Department for Energy Security & Net Zero (DESNZ) has consulted on integrating GGRs into the UK ETS, with biochar expected to be included by the end of 2029. The UK Government’s GGR Innovation Programme allocated over £100 Million (M) to develop GGR technologies, of which £31.5M supported five land-based demonstrator projects including biochar; this programme has now concluded. The Grangemouth Just Transition Fund (£25 M) and UK National Wealth Fund (£200 M) could potentially support biochar-related infrastructure at the Grangemouth site (Scottish Government, 2025c).

However, biochar competes with other policy priorities for the same resources. For example, scaling up dedicated biomass crops could compete with nature restoration commitments (Environment Agency, 2025b). However, the same report notes the potential for biochar to free up land for nature restoration through yield gains. Energy crops and woody feedstocks also compete with other bioenergy pathways including Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (Scottish Government, 2023a).

Economic considerations

The detailed economic evidence we have identified is presented in Chapter 6. One key barrier is commercial viability (consistently highlighted by industry interviewees), with Denmark’s experience confirming that even substantial public investment (DKK 10 billion committed) has not yet translated into commercial deployment where regulatory barriers remain unresolved (see Section 5.4). Immature carbon credit markets create complexities around additionality and certification (IBI, 2023), limits a key revenue stream, and may lead to further cost, particularly for smaller operators.

The key risks are feedstock competition with established uses (Duffy, et al., 2023; Scottish Forestry, 2025). Any feedstock diversion would need to demonstrate competitive value in the context of Scotland’s existing bioeconomy. Biomass price fluctuations are a commercial challenge but are manageable through standard mechanisms such as forward supply contracts. The anaerobic digestion (AD) sector may offer the most immediate route to market. Biochar additives can increase biogas yield from AD, creating a commercial entry point for producers while the wider carbon credit market matures (Scottish Government, 2023a).

Social considerations

Public awareness and acceptance. Public familiarity with CDR technologies generally is very low. Cox et al. (2025), in a UK-wide deliberative study, found that 75% of participants had never heard of biochar, and CDR as a category was met with negativity and uncertainty. The lack of awareness of biochar was noted as a potential issue by several of our interviewees. Participants in the Cox et al. (2025) study perceived carbon removal as shifting responsibility for environmental issues from individuals to government and industry, raising moral hazard concerns. It should be noted that this finding relates to public attitudes towards CDR as a whole, not biochar specifically.

Participants in Scotland in the Cox et al. (2025) study expressed distrust of novel technologies. The Northern Ireland RHI scandal, where a failed biomass scheme effectively brought down the government in 2020, was cited as creating a localised lasting distrust of biomass-based approaches (Cox, et al., 2025). This evidence suggests that public engagement will need to address not only awareness but also deeper concerns about accountability, trust, and the relationship between removal and reduction.

Farmer and agricultural sector readiness. The farming community currently lacks sufficient data to make informed decisions about biochar adoption (Scottish Government, 2023b). Knowledge gaps exist around application methods, appropriate rates, scaling pathways, and expected returns. Farmer opinion research on biochar is extremely scarce in the UK literature (Brown , et al., 2023; Budai, et al., 2024). Skills gaps are also present in the farming sector for biochar scaling (Bagaria, et al., 2025; IPCC, 2022; IBI, 2023). Apprehension may stem from disputed land-use priorities (Environment Agency, 2025b; Environment Agency, 2025d; Dalby, 2025), and the typical ‘slow-adopter’ characteristic of stakeholder groups like farmers, as suggested by a biochar industry interviewee. However, the evidence reviewed in Section 5.3 suggests that an approach for Scotland – co-application with organic fertilisers already in use at rates of 0.5–1 t/ha – may require minimal changes to current farm practice and no additional fertiliser inputs. Effective communication of this to the farming community could be one factor in reducing the barrier to adoption.

Employment and food security. An emergent biochar industry would support new employment in product development alongside design, installation and operation of pyrolysis equipment. A single pyrolysis facility typically requires 2–3 full-time equivalents to operate (PyroCore, et al., 2021) and building wider economic activity is consistent with the goals of Scotland’s Green Growth Strategy. Spatial mapping could reveal where current and future infrastructure support feedstock logistics and end-uses for heat, including focused developments at Grangemouth. Pathways outlined in this report draw on waste-derived feedstock, mitigating the recognised risks of using dedicated biomass crops at scale (Environment Agency, 2025b). Whilst using non-waste feedstocks could present potential trade-offs for food production (Scottish Government, 2023a), this is unlikely to be of significant relevance in the Scottish context.

Health and Safety. Interviewees indicated that among the public, perception can be that pyrolysis is equivalent to incineration. This poses a social licence risk, particularly if facilities are proposed near communities. Feedstock processing can release volatile organic compounds and particulate matter if not appropriately managed, and airborne biochar particles during field application present a potential inhalation risk (Environment Agency, 2025d). Evidence on health impacts of large-scale application is however limited (Environment Agency, 2025a; Lapwing Energy, n.d.). Biochar is also flammable during storage, with documented risks of spontaneous combustion, requiring appropriate handling and storage protocols. These risks can be mitigated through existing frameworks (e.g. Personal Protective Equipment, emission abatement techniques, etc.), but our interviewees corroborated that health and safety concerns remain common.

Technological considerations

TRLs. The core pyrolysis technology for biochar production is commercially ready (TRL 7–9), with operational plants in the UK and Europe (Environment Agency, 2025c). The overall value chain, from feedstock preparation through application and verification, is less mature, but the primary constraint on deployment is market development rather than technology. Industry interviewees reported that real-world output from pyrolysis units typically reaches only 60–65% of manufacturer specifications, with implications for financial modelling, but noted that this is a refinement issue that will improve with operational experience. A Danish industry stakeholder reported that scaling from pilot (0.2 Megawatts, MW) to commercial output (20 MW) required substantial redesign, and that costs do not scale proportionally with capacity (see Section 5.4). This suggests that engineering challenges increase non-linearly with scale and that pilot-stage performance data should not be extrapolated directly to industrial-scale facilities. The Scottish Government (2023a), reflecting the gap between the proven core technology and the systems needed for deployment at scale. Nevertheless, biochar technologies may progress through TRLs rapidly and lower ratings may no longer be applicable in 2026.

MRV. For biochar carbon storage, MRV is primarily about recording the quantity, quality, and pyrolysis conditions of the biochar applied, and verifying these against certification standards. This is distinct from field-level greenhouse gas (GHG) monitoring, which relates specifically to quantifying any additional trace gas suppression benefits (such as N₂O reduction) and is a separate, additional claim beyond the carbon storage itself. Jaufmann et al. (2025) found that applied biochar carbon closely matched measured soil organic carbon increases, suggesting that input-based verification could be a practical and cost-effective approach. However, existing methods are either outdated – typically conducted without digitalisation across the entire supply chain (IBI, 2025) – or do not account for storage permanence and the varying decomposition rates of biochar depending on feedstock and temperature (Scottish Government, 2023a). Some farmers may be hesitant about additional record-keeping and monitoring requirements, especially regarding digitalised MRV, but this will depend on how such systems are designed and integrated into existing farm management practices (Bagaria, et al., 2025).

Process constraints. Not all feedstocks are compatible with every production technology (IBI, 2025), and optimal pyrolysis conditions vary by feedstock and end-use. Lower temperatures (<500° C) favour nutrient retention, whilst higher temperatures (≥600 °C) produce more stable carbon (see Section 5.3). Small-scale pyrolysis can have lower energy efficiency (Han, et al., 2025). Pyrolysis plants need proximity to heat customers for commercial viability. Industry interviewees also identified a skills shortage: few UK operators have experience running pyrolysis units, and few farming contractors are currently equipped to apply biochar at scale.

Environmental considerations

The environmental impacts of biochar are discussed in Chapter 5, including carbon permanence (Section 5.2), soil health and GHG emissions (Section 5.3), and yield impacts (Section 5.3.1). This section addresses additional environmental considerations relevant to deployment decisions.

Peat soils and N₂O. Finnish studies on deep agricultural peat soils found that biochar application at 10–30 t/ha increased N₂O emissions by over 200% (Ronkainen, et al., 2025; Saarnio, et al., 2024). These findings relate to deep peat soils at application rates well above those considered economically viable (0.5–1 t/ha). Peaty mineral soils, which are more common in Scottish agriculture, were not tested in these studies. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change methodology for biochar carbon accounting explicitly excludes organic soils. Application to peat or peaty soils should be approached with caution, but this risk does not extend to mineral agricultural soils where the deployment pathways identified in Section 5.5 are focused. These findings derive from experimental studies using application rates of 10–30 t/ha, and this risk may be substantially reduced at lower rates, though the evidence base at these rates is itself limited (See section 5.3).

Ammonia and slurry co-application. Biochar mixed with cattle slurry has been found to increase ammonia volatilisation significantly. In a four-year German trial at application rates of 500–1,000 kilograms (kg) carbon/ha/yr (which is within the range considered economically viable) Sixt et al. (2025) found ammonia emission increases of 15–106%, caused by higher dry matter content and raised pH. This finding applies at realistic doses and contradicts the assumption, noted by several stakeholders, that biochar improves the environmental management of slurry. Slurry application already generates ammonia emissions under current practice; biochar co-application appears to increase those emissions further. Since ammonia emissions are subject to regulatory limits, this finding should be factored into assessment of Pathways 1 and 3. Further research would be needed to determine whether biochar exacerbates ammonia emissions under low-emission spreading methods.

Contaminant risk. The risk of contaminant transfer from biochar to soil is a feedstock selection issue rather than an inherent property of biochar. Sewage sludge and municipal waste feedstocks present the greatest concern for heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or microplastics, while woody feedstocks are generally low risk (Environment Agency, 2025b). Quality standards and contaminant testing are essential safeguards for the waste-derived pathways identified in Section 5.5, and appropriate feedstock selection largely mitigates this risk.

Land-use change. There could be a risk of land-use change if virgin biomass were used as a feedstock, although both our REA and interviewees identified this as the least viable approach. If virgin biomass were to be considered, converting pasture to energy crops has been linked to biodiversity loss, particularly for farmland birds (Environment Agency, 2025b). An environmental NGO interviewee argued that dedicated energy crop production is generally not sustainable, citing risks to breeding bird populations and overlap with biodiversity and peatland restoration priorities. Regarding soil fauna, a three-year Dutch trial found biochar had no lasting impacts (Jeffery, et al., 2022). The waste-derived feedstock pathways recommended in Section 5.5 avoid this land requirement, and associated risks, entirely.

Production emissions. Biochar production has life cycle emissions from feedstock collection, transport and pyrolysis, contributing 1.4–16% of the total system carbon footprint (see Section 5.2). These emissions are already deducted in the net removal figures hroughout this report (e.g. the Black Bull Biochar pilot project’s carbon removal certificate factors of 2.5 and 3.1 t carbon dioxide (CO₂)/t biochar account for full value-chain emissions). CO₂ is also released from stored biomass (Environment Agency, 2025d) via oxidation when the product is exposed to air (Lapwing Energy, n.d.), although this is not technically an additional emission. These issues were corroborated in our stakeholder interviews.

Legal considerations

Waste classification. In Scotland, biochar manufacture is legally treated as a waste management activity. The Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s (SEPA) 2012 Position Statement allows small-scale production from certain woody forestry and agricultural wastes without a licence, but only for facilities with a production capacity of less than 50 kg/hour – a very low threshold equivalent to a small laboratory-scale unit. This constrains commercial investment (SEPA, 2012). Danish experience shows this as a primary barrier (see Section 5.4) reinforcing the case for early engagement with SEPA to develop end-of-waste criteria in parallel with any policy commitment, rather than sequentially. The waste status of relevant feedstocks is clear but restrictive. For example, biosolids and distillery residues are subject to full waste management requirements regardless of the quality of the biochar produced. These regulatory constraints were consistently reflected by our interviewees, with industry actors and Local Authorities identifying that waste classification and end-of-waste criteria directly affect investment decisions (Štrubelj, 2022).

Standards and certification. There are currently no UK-specific certification standards governing biochar for carbon offsetting. Six voluntary international standards exist, each with different requirements for feedstocks, technologies, testing, and permanence criteria (IBI, 2025). Only 47% of global biochar producers certify their carbon removals, which also provides a safeguard against indiscriminate application (IBI, 2023). The use of biomass for producing biochar should also comply with stringent sustainability criteria including land use and GHG emissions reduction requirements (DESNZ, 2025). This includes feedstock-specific sustainability requirements, such as Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification for woody biomass, as noted in an industry interview. As a result, Scottish-tailored guidance on labelling, sustainability certification, and contaminant limits would help reduce uncertainty and support market development (IPCC, 2022).

Regulatory divergence. In England, the Environment Agency has issued two low-risk waste positions (LRWP 60 and 61) for biochar production and application, providing a significantly more permissive framework than currently exists in Scotland (Environment Agency, 2025f). This creates a competitive disadvantage: English operations can produce and apply biochar from a wider range of waste feedstocks under simplified compliance, while equivalent Scottish operations require full waste management licensing. Multiple stakeholders identified this asymmetry as a barrier to investment. The UK ETS integration of GGRs, expected by 2029, will be a significant milestone for producers, though compliance market prices are likely to be lower than current voluntary market prices, affecting the revenue side of the business case.

Conclusions

This report aims to assess the potential for biochar deployment in Scotland, drawing on a rapid evidence assessment of published literature and stakeholder interviews. Our brief conclusions below are structured around supply chain viability, the effects of biochar on carbon sequestration and soil health, lessons from international experience, and key evidence gaps to be addressed to support future biochar use in Scotland.

State of evidence on biochar impacts

Carbon sequestration. Biochar provides stable, long-term carbon storage, with net removal values for dry woody feedstocks (most relevant for Scotland) typically above 3 tonnes (t) carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) per t of biochar. Carbon permanence is primarily determined by both pyrolysis temperature and soil temperature. Scotland’s cooler climate is favourable for long-term storage of biochar carbon, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change methodology estimating 72–88% of biochar carbon remaining after 100 years. However, no long-term field studies exist for Scottish soils, and a full life cycle assessment (LCA) under Scottish conditions has not been conducted. The role of soil moisture and rainfall in long-term permanence is also not yet fully clear.

Soil health and agricultural performance: Biochar generally benefits soil health, but impacts depend on initial soil conditions, and on biochar quantity and quality. Average crop yield increases globally range from 13–17%, but in temperate climates comparable to Scotland yield improvements from biochar applied alone are not consistent in the short term. However, indicative results from the Black Bull Biochar demonstrator in Scotland show 16–18% higher grassland yields and 34% higher arable yields when biochar was co-applied with organic fertilisers at low doses (0.5–1 t/hectare, ha). Biochar can also raise soil pH and reduce nitrous oxide emissions on mineral soils by 12–38%. Application to peat should however be avoided, due to potential increased emissions. A significant limitation is the lack of peer-reviewed Scottish field trials at economically realistic application rates.

Supply chain viability for biochar in Scotland

Feedstock availability. The availability of feedstocks is not likely to be a limiting factor for biochar production in Scotland. There are substantial biomass resources, including from forestry, agriculture, whisky production, and other waste streams. Forestry and sawmill co-products seem to be the most immediately viable feedstock, with well-characterised volumes and existing processing infrastructure in Scotland. Co-products from the whisky industry are also reliable in quantity, but current use as animal feed also delivers climate benefits. There is a significant lack of biochar-specific research for Scotland’s largest feedstock streams, such as agricultural residues, sewage sludge, waste wood, and horticultural residues. This needs to be addressed.

Infrastructure and logistics. The core pyrolysis technology for biochar production is commercially ready (Technology Readiness Levels 7–9), and operational plants already exist in the United Kingdom and in Europe. However, the integrated value chain, from feedstock preparation through application and verification, is less mature. Scaling up biochar production can present engineering complexities, and proximity of production to heat customers can be a key factor for commercial viability. The economic limits to transportation of feedstocks impacts on logistics and site selection. For wet wastes (liquid manure or slurry) this may be as low as 10 km, whilst for dry biomass it can be 30–50 kilometres.

Costs, benefits, risks and barriers. Biochar production costs are highly variable, ranging from £175–460/t globally, with Scottish lab-scale production from conifer brash at £370/t. Costs vary based on feedstock availability, technology configuration, plant scale, and regulatory requirements. High upfront capital expenditure – around £9.5 Million for a 20 kilotonnes/yr facility – is a potential barrier to scaling up biochar deployment. Operational expenditure (OPEX) also varies significantly from £42–399/t of biochar. The overall cost of biochar as an option for permanent carbon removal at £13–208/tCO₂, overlaps with some non-permanent removal options. Carbon credit revenue is an important component for most deployment pathways, particularly for application to agricultural soil, with a current value of £600–800/t biochar in the voluntary market. However, this value may decrease as the carbon removals market matures.

Other barriers to deployment include the classification of biochar manufacture as a waste management activity in Scotland, requiring full waste management licensing for facilities processing over 50 kilograms/hour. Stakeholders consistently identified this as a key impediment to investment. Several feedstocks also have existing, economically established uses, so it needs to be demonstrated that biochar can offer greater overall value. Public awareness of carbon removal technologies is low, and farmer adoption is constrained by limited Scottish evidence and uncertainty over returns. Health and safety concerns related to pyrolysis, such as the potential release of hazardous air pollutants and the flammability of biochar, also need to be addressed.

Lessons from international experience

Denmark has the most advanced biochar policy framework in Europe, with substantial funding and a governmental taskforce. Nevertheless, there is still a significant gap between the level of ambition related to biochar and its actual deployment. This is primarily due to regulatory hurdles related to end-of-waste permitting, highlighting the critical need for supportive regulation to advance in parallel with policy ambition. The Danish experience also highlights feedstock as the largest OPEX, and that scaling up of biochar production can introduce significant engineering complexity.

The Swedish biochar sector has been able to grow due to public co-financing and municipality-level support, treating biochar plants as both production infrastructure and learning sites. This collaborative, knowledge-intensive approach has been essential for its development.

Germany benefits from strong industrial capacity in pyrolysis technology and regulation that recognises the use of pyrolysis for phosphorus recovery from sewage sludge. This has helped to create a market for the technology, and demonstrates how specific regulatory frameworks can drive growth.

Key evidence gaps and areas for future action and research

Several critical evidence gaps need to be addressed. There are a number of related actions that could help to address these gaps, to inform and support future biochar deployment in Scotland.

Targeted support is needed to bridge the gap between pilot projects and expanding commercial operations. Stakeholders have identified that this critical stage is not addressed by current funding mechanisms. This would also help to support operations until mature markets provide stable revenue from each value stream, including carbon removal.

There is an absence of biochar-specific research for Scotland’s largest potential feedstock streams, including agricultural residues, sewage sludge and waste wood. It is critical to address this to provide a sound evidence base and commercial case for future deployment. Comprehensive comparative LCAs are needed for major potential Scottish feedstock streams, to evaluate the benefits of biochar against alternative uses. In addition, a comparative assessment of biochar versus alternative soil amendments for Scottish farming systems would be beneficial.

There is a need for Scottish field trials to establish economically realistic application rates for biochar derived from different feedstocks and to different soil types, particularly through integration with nutrient management. Such trials could offer sites for benchmark monitoring of biochar under Scotland’s cooler, high rainfall climate, including secondary effects on nitrous oxide emissions, native soil organic carbon, and the contribution of biochar to soil resilience.

Further opportunity mapping should be carried out for biochar production at different scales, identifying where existing and future infrastructure might favour investment, taking into consideration the feedstock logistics and end-uses, including the heat product.

Early engagement with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency would be beneficial to explore how end-of-waste criteria can support biochar deployment, in parallel with any future policy commitments. A standardised framework for biochar characterisation, traceability, and monitoring would also be beneficial, covering both climate claims and environmental safeguards.

References

Ahmed, S. et al., 2012. The potential role of biochar in combaring climate change in Scotland: an analysis of feedstocks, life cycle assessment and spatial dimensions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55(4), pp. 487-505.

Andrews, G. et al., 2025. Whisky decarbonisation potential using bio-waste. Fuel, 380(133188).

Arup, 2022. Integration of GGR technologies into linear infrastructure projects: DESNZ.

Aurangzeib, M. et al., 2024. Biochar Application Can Improve Most of the Chemical Properties of Acidic Soils: A Global Meta-Analysis. ACS Agricultural Science & Technology, 4(3).

Bagaria, S. et al., 2025. Black Bull Biochar: Direct Air Capture (DAC) & Greenhouse Gas Removal (GGR) Net Zero Innovation Programme (NZIP) Phase 2 Final Report: DESNZ.

Bekchanova, M. et al., 2024. Biochar’s effect on the soil carbon cycle: a rapid review and meta-analysis. Biochar, 6(88).

Bevan, E., Fu, J., Luberti, M. & Zheng, Y., 2021. Challenges and opportunities of hydrothermal carbonisation in the UK; case study in Chirnside. RSC Advances, Volume 55.

Biochar Europe, n.d. Work – Selected Contributions. [Online]
Available at: https://www.biochareurope.eu/work
[Accessed 24 02 2026].

Bolaji, I. et al., 2021. Multi-criteria decision analysis of agri-food waste as a feedstock for biopolymer production. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 172(105671).

Brown , R. et al., 2023. Biochar application to temperate grasslands: challenges and opportunities for delivering multiple ecosystem services. Biochar, 5(33).

Bruun, E. et al., 2022. Ash and biochar amendment of coarse sandy soil for growing crops under drought conditions. Soil Use and Management, 38(2), pp. 1280-1292.

Budai, A. et al., 2024. Qualitative evaluation of nine agricultural methods for increasing soil carbon storage in Norway. European Journal of Soil Science, 75(3), p. e13493.

CapChar Ltd, Biochar Project Services Ltd & UK Hardwoods Ltd, 2022. The CapChar Project, s.l.: DESNZ.

Carbon Gap, 2025. Carbon Removal Policy in Sweden. [Online]
Available at: https://tracker.carbongap.org/regional-analysis/national/sweden/
[Accessed 26 02 2026].

Carbon Gap, 2026. Germany’s potential to deploy CDR at scale and speed

Chagas, J., Figueiredo, C. & Ramos, M., 2022. Biochar increases soil carbon pools: Evidence from a global meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 305(114403).

Circle Economy, 2022. The Circularity Gap Report Scotland

Clarke, A., Creber, H., Sohi, S. & Whitaker, J., 2021. The Biochar Network – Demonstrating a Scalable GGR Solution: DESNZ.

Climate Change Committee, 2025. The Seventh Carbon Budget – Advice for the UK Government

ClimateXChange, 2020. Evidence review: Perennial energy crops

ClimateXChange, 2022. Managing permanent grasslands for carbon sequestration in Scottish soils

ClimateXChange, 2023. Organic farming, net zero targets and the impact of a changing climate: an evidence review

ClimateXChange, 2024. Understanding metrics for effective environmental measures under the Agricultural Reform Programme for Scotland

ClimateXChange, 2025b. Funding and financing heat networks in Scotland

ClimateXChange, 2025. Cost and profitability of direct air capture in Scotland

Cox, E., Waller, L., Palmer, J. & Bellamy, R., 2025. Carbon removal support is tempered by concerns over whether biological methods are worth it. Communications Earth & Environment, 6(711).

Dalby, J., 2025. BIOCCUS Phase 2, Final Report: DESNZ.

Danish Government, 2024. ) ‘Strategi og arbejdsprogram for pyrolyse’ (Strategy and Work Program for Pyrolysis)

Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2013. Bioenergy Strategy

DESNZ, 2023. A Public Dialogue on the Role of Biomassin Achieving Net Zero

DESNZ, 2025. Common Biomass Sustainability Framework

DESNZ, 2026. Direct Air Capture and Greenhouse Gas Removal Innovation Programme: Phase 1 projects

Duffy, C. et al., 2023. Optimising sustainability: Circular pathways for Scotch Whisky distillery co-products. Journal of Cleaner Production, 395(136436).

Edwards, C. et al., 2022. Recoverable resources from pot ale & spent wash from Scotch Whisky production. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 179(106114).

Environment Agency, 2025a. Evidence on potential environmental impacts and social implications of selected greenhouse gas removal technologies: summary. [Online]
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evidence-on-potential-environmental-impacts-and-social-implications-of-selected-greenhouse-gas-removal-technologies/evidence-on-potential-environmental-impacts-and-social-implications-of-selected-greenhouse-gas-r
[Accessed 24 02 2026].

Environment Agency, 2025b. Evidence on potential environmental impacts and social implications of greenhouse gas removal technologies – overview report

Environment Agency, 2025c. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage – evidence on potential environmental impacts

Environment Agency, 2025d. Biochar – evidence on potential environmental impacts and social implications

Environment Agency, 2025e. Summary report on the potential environmental impacts and social implications of biochar

Environment Agency, 2025f. Storing and spreading biochar to benefit land: LRWP 61

EU Cap Network, 2024. Use of Biochar in German Farms – Benefits for Climate, Soil and Animal Health

European Commission, 2022. Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing a Union certification framework for carbon removals. [Online]
Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52022PC0672
[Accessed 24 02 2026].

Feng, J. et al., 2023. Trade-offs in carbon-degrading enzyme activities limit long-term soil carbon sequestration with biochar addition. Biological Reviews, 98(4), pp. 1184-1199.

Forest Research, 2025a. Timber Statistics. [Online]
Available at: https://www.forestresearch.gov.uk/tools-and-resources/statistics/time-series/

Forest Research, 2025b. Forestry Statistics 2025: UK Government.

Forestry Commission Scotland, 2009. Business Health in the Forestry and Wood Industries

Forestry Commission Scotland, 2012. Scottish Government biomass incentives review: best use of wood fibre

Gaffney, P. et al., 2024. Water quality effects of peat rewetting and leftover conifer brash, following peatland restoration and tree harvesting. Journal of Environmental Management, 360(121141).

Gamaralalage, D. et al., 2025. Biowaste to biochar: a techno-economic and life cycle assessment of biochar production from food-waste digestate and its agricultural field application. Biochar, 7(50).

Government Office for Science, 2025. Net Zero Technology Outlook: UK Government.

Green Transition Denmark, 2024. Time to tame the hype about biochar as agriculture’s climate solution

Gross, A., Bromm, T. & Glaser, B., 2021. Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration after Biochar Application: A Global Meta-Analysis. 11(12).

Gross, A. et al., 2024. Long-term biochar and soil organic carbon stability – Evidence from field experiments in Germany. Science of the Total Environment, 954(176340).

Han, M., Hui, X., Yang, H. & Chen, Y., 2025. The impact of biochar addition on the carbon footprint of grain crop: A life cycle assessment of biochar management. European Journal of Agronomy, 170(127776).

Huang, Y. et al., 2023. A global synthesis of biochar’s sustainability in climate-smart agriculture – Evidence from field and laboratory experiments. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 172(113042).

IBI, 2023. Global Biochar Market Report

IBI, 2024. CONTAINING CONTAMINANTS: Harnessing Biochar for Effective Pollution Control

IBI, 2025. A Manual for Biochar Carbon Removal

IPCC, 2022. Climate Change and Land

Jalali, M., Panam, Z., Jalali, M. & Buss, W., 2025. The impact of feedstock type and pyrolysis parameters on the physical and chemical properties of biochars for sorption, agricultural and carbon sequestration applications: A meta-analysis. 192(107271).

Jaufmann, E., Schmid, H. & Hülsbergen, K., 2025. Soil carbon accrual and yield response to biochar. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, Volume 131, pp. 213-235.

Jeewani, P. et al., 2025. Wetter farming: raising water table and biochar for reduced GHG emissions while maintaining crop productivity in agricultural peatlands. Biochar, 7(1).

Jeffery, S. et al., 2022. Biochar application differentially affects soil micro-, meso-macro-fauna and plant productivity within a nature restoration grassland. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 174(108789).

Jeswani, H., Figueroa-Torres, G. & Azapagic, A., 2021. The extent of food waste generation in the UK and its environmental impacts. Sustainable Production and Consumption, Volume 26, pp. 532-547.

Jiang, Z., Huang, S. & Meng, Z., 2025. Long-term effects of biochar on the hydraulic properties of soil: A meta-analysis based on 1–10 years field experiments. Geoderma, 458(117318).

Jia, X., Yan, W., Ma, H. & Shangguan, Z., 2023. Antagonistic and synergistic interactions dominate GHGs fluxes, soil properties and yield responses to biochar and N addition. Frontiers in Environmental Science, Volume 11.

Joint Water Evidence Group, 2015. Production of Quick Scoping Reviews and Rapid Evidence Assessments: A How To Guide

Lapwing Energy, n.d. Reverse Coal: DESNZ.

Liao, X. et al., 2022. The impact of biochar on the activities of soil nutrients acquisition enzymes is potentially controlled by the pyrolysis temperature: A meta-analysis. Geoderma, 411(115692).

Liu, R. et al., 2024. The response of crop yield, carbon sequestration, and global warming potential to straw and biochar applications: A meta-analysis. Science of The Total Environment, 907(167884).

Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies, 2024. The use of biochar as a method to remove carbon can lead to mitigation deterrence. [Online]
Available at: https://www.lucsus.lu.se/article/use-biochar-method-remove-carbon-can-lead-mitigation-deterrence
[Accessed 24 02 2026].

Melo, L., Lehmann, J., Carneiro, J. & Camps-Arbestain, M., 2022. Biochar-based fertilizer effects on crop productivity: a meta-analysis. Plant and Soil, Volume 472, pp. 45-58.

Natural Scotland, 2010. Scotland’s Zero Waste Plan

Olsson, A., Fridahl, M. & Gronkvist, S., 2024. Expectations on biochar as a climate solution in Sweden: Carbon dioxide removal with environmental co-benefits. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Transition, 5(100087).

Pap, S. et al., 2022. Optimising production of a biochar made from conifer brash and investigation of its potential for phosphate and ammonia removal. Industrial Crops and Products, 185(115165).

PyroCore, et al., 2021. Greenhouse Gas Removal: Mersey Biochar – Executive Summary

Rhymes, J. et al., 2024. Biochar improves fertility in waste derived manufactured soils, but not resilience to climate change. Science of The Total Environment, 923(171387).

Ronkainen, J., Siljanen, H., Liimatainen, M. & Maljanen, M., 2025. The effect of soil amendments on the greenhouse gas production in agricultural peat soils. BOREAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH, Volume 30, pp. 21-37.

Saarnio, S., Kekkonen, H. & Lang, K., 2024. Addition of softwood biochar did not reduce N2O emissions or N leaching from peat soil in the short term. Science of The Total Environment, 944(173906).

Sanei et al, H., 2024. Assessing biochar’s permanence: An inertinite benchmark. International Journal of Coal Geology, Volume 281.

Schestak, I., Styles, D., Black, K. & Williams, A., 2022. Circular use of feed by-products from alcohol production mitigates water scarcity. Sustainable Production and Consumption, Volume 30, pp. 158-170.

Schmidt, H. et al., 2021. Biochar in agriculture – A systematic review of 26 global meta-analyses. GCB Bioenergy, 13(11), pp. 1708-1730.

Scottish Executive, 2007. Biomass Action Plan for Scotland

Scottish Forestry, 2025. [Online]
Available at: https://www.forestry.gov.scot/economic-contribution-forestry

Scottish Government, 2023a. Negative Emissions Technologies (NETS): Feasibility Study – Final report

Scottish Government, 2023b. Negative Emissions Technologies (NETS): Feasibility Study – Technical Appendices

Scottish Government, 2023c. Reducing emissions from agriculture: the role of new farm technologies

Scottish Government, 2023d. Scotland Natural Capital Accounts

Scottish Government, 2024. Draft Bioenergy Policy Statement

Scottish Government, 2025a. Climate Change Plan Monitoring Report

Scottish Government, 2025b. Waste Reprocessing Infrastructure in Scotland

Scottish Government, 2025c. Waste Reprocessing Infrastructure in Scotland

Scottish Government, 2025d. Carbon Neutral Islands Financing Roadmap 2025-202

SEPA, 2012. Position Statement – manufacture and use of biochar from waste

SEPA, n.d. Burning on-farm waste. [Online]

Shackley, S., Hammond, J., Gaunt, J. & Ibarrola, R., 2011. The feasibility and costs of biochar deployment in the UK. Carbon Management, 2(3), pp. 335-356.

Singh, H., Northup, B., Rice, C. & Prasad, P., 2022. Biochar applications influence soil physical and chemical properties, microbial diversity, and crop productivity: a meta-analysis. Biochar, 4(1).

Sixt, T. et al., 2025. Does woody biochar mixed with liquid organic fertilizer reduce ammonia volatilization following field application?. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, Volume 131, pp. 165-184.

SRUC, 2020. Materials to Land Assessment – Sustainability, Availability and Location: SEPA.

Štrubelj, L., 2022. Waste, Fertilising Product, or Something Else? EU Regulation of Biochar. Journal of Environmental Law, 34(3), p. 529–540.

Štrubelj, L. & Singh Ghaleigh, N., 2025. Biochar Regulation in the UK: A Wasteful Approach to Greenhouse Gas Removal

Sun, Z., Hu, Y., Shi, L. & Li, G., 2022. Effects of biochar on soil chemical properties: A global meta-analysis of agricultural soil. Plant, Soil and Environment, 68(6), pp. 272-289.

Teichmann, I., 2014. Climate Protection through Biochar in German Agriculture: Potentials and Costs, Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW).

UK Government, Scottish Government, Welsh Government, and Department of Agriculture, Environment & Rural Affairs for Northern Ireland, 2025. Integrating Greenhouse Gas Removals in the UK Emissions Trading Scheme: Main Response

Wei, B. et al., 2023. Drivers of biochar-mediated improvement of soil water retention capacity based on soil texture: A meta-analysis. Geoderma, 437(116591).

Woolf, D. et al., 2021. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Model for Biochar Additions to Soil. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(21).

Wu, W. et al., 2022. Impact of biochar amendment on soil hydrological properties and crop water use efficiency: A global meta-analysis and structural equation model. GCB Bioenergy, 14(6), pp. 657-668.

Xu, H. et al., 2021. Effects of biochar application on crop productivity, soil carbon sequestration, and global warming potential controlled by biochar C:N ratio and soil pH: A global meta-analysis. Soil and Tillage Research, 213(105125).

Ye, L. et al., 2019. Biochar effects on crop yields with and without fertilizer: A. Soil use and management, 36(1), pp. 2-18.

Zero Waste Scotland, 2022. Circular Bioeconomy Opportunities in Scotland: Valorising Agricultural Wastes and Co-products

Zhang, S. et al., 2023. Effects of soil amendments on soil acidity and crop yields in acidic soils: A world-wide meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Management, 345(118531).

Appendices

Study methodology

This appendix summarises the study methodology. The key research elements were to undertake a rapid evidence assessment (REA) of academic and grey literature, and carry out a series of stakeholder interviews carried out to complement the REA.

Our methodology was designed to identify information relevant to the key research topics, namely:

• Feedstock sources (including availability, scalability and competing uses);
• Carbon impact (life-cycle emissions considering carbon sequestration potential);
• Effect of biochar on soil health, land productivity and climate resilience; and
• Processing infrastructure, supply chain logistics and capital and operational expenditure (CAPEX and OPEX).

In addition, we aimed to capture information relevant to the economic assessment and PESTEL (political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal) analysis.

Rapid evidence assessment of literature

To fit within the short study timeline, we chose an REA method, and to supplement other recent reviews rather than reproduce them (for example on feedstock availability). REA involves targeted search strategies, streamlined screening of sources, prioritisation of synthesised evidence (meta-analyses and systematic reviews), and streamlined quality appraisal. Our review prioritised breadth and policy relevance over exhaustive coverage, enabling research evidence to be synthesised whilst still maintaining methodological rigour and a transparent evidence base. Our approach followed guidance from the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) (Joint Water Evidence Group, 2015).

To ensure relevance of the sources to the Scottish context, we focused first on evidence collected in the context of the Scottish or United Kingdom (UK) land, climate and economy, supplementing with evidence from comparable contexts (e.g. northern Europe or temperate maritime regions). To maintain a manageable quantity of sources to review, we focused on literature published since 2020, with the exception of earlier meta-analyses, seminal or highly cited work where they remain the best available evidence.

We identified sources via a combination of indexed academic databases and targeted organisations publishing grey literature.

For academic literature, we used the academic databases Web of Science & Scopus. Keywords used for the search were:

• General: biochar, pyrolysis, char, biocarbon, biomass, feedstock, forestry residue, agricultural waste, co-product, sewage sludge, draff, spent grain
  
• Geography/climate: (priority) Scotland, Scottish, UK, United Kingdom, Britain; (secondary) temperate, northern Europe, Scandinavia, Ireland, maritime climate, cool humid, boreal, New Zealand
  
• Feedstock: Supply, volume, resource, generation, waste stream, circular economy
  
• Carbon impact: sequestration, abatement, removal, storage, durability, permanence, stability, recalcitrance, persistence, half-life, H:C ratio, N₂O, nitrous oxide, CH₄, methane, greenhouse gas, GHG, life cycle assessment, LCA, GWP, global warming potential, carbon footprint, net zero, emissions profile
  
• Soil, land and climate: yield, crop productivity, biomass, barley, wheat, grassland, silage, pasture, nutrient use efficiency, liming, soil organic carbon, SOC, water holding capacity, pH, bulk density, porosity, drought tolerance, water stress, waterlogging, flood recovery, climate adaptation, extreme weather, soil moisture
  
• Infrastructure, supply chains, costs: techno-economic analysis, TEA, cost benefit analysis, CBA, CAPEX, OPEX, supply chain, logistics, infrastructure, pyrolysis, transport, storage

We screened identified academic literature using Covidence, a systematic review management platform. Search results were imported into Covidence and titles and abstracts were first screened using Covidence’s scoring system (include/exclude/maybe), then reviewed by the study team. We then carried out a full-text screening for the most relevant literature, based on geographical relevance, literature since 2020, quantitative studies (where possible), English language, and relevance to the key research topics.

For grey literature, we focused first on known sources, including: Scottish Government, Scottish Forestry, Zero Waste Scotland, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), UK Biochar Research Centre, Scotch Whisky Association, International Climate Research, ClimateXChange, UK Government (Department for Energy Security & Net Zero, DEFRA), International Biochar Initiative (IBI) and European Biochar Industry Consortium. We hand-searched their websites and used keywords in on-site searches (biomass, biochar, residues, organic waste, carbon sequestration, soil carbon). We supplemented this with Google Scholar searches using simple keyword phrases:

• Scotland biomass availability assessment
• Scottish forestry residues volume potential
• Scotland agricultural waste resource
• Scotland distillery co-products “spent grain” OR draff
• Scottish wood fuel supply chain

Review of search results was limited to the first two pages of results per search string.

Each relevant piece of academic and grey literature was reviewed by a team member, who extracted salient points and recorded them in shared data extraction Excel sheet, noting key document details and information of relevance to the research questions. In total, we reviewed in detail: 10 pieces of academic literature on feedstocks, 13 on carbon impacts, and 27 on soil impacts (15 global papers and 12 papers from Scotland or similar climates), plus 66 pieces of grey literature. This is a small fraction of the global literature referencing biochar (13,000 items), which has inherent biases but on which we have drawn (via comprehensive syntheses) to provide some contextualisation.

Stakeholder engagement interviews

To validate and complement the findings of the REA, we carried out a series of interviews with stakeholders involved in biochar supply and use chains. The study team drew up a longlist of potential interviewees, based on existing knowledge of relevant actors and reflections gained from the REA. We selected participants to invite for interview with the intention of engaging with:

• Different categories of stakeholders (academia, industry, forestry/agriculture, Government and Non-Governmental organisations, NGOs)
• Stakeholders with knowledge across the key research topics
• Stakeholders with knowledge relevant to economic costs (CAPEX, OPEX, economic benefits; scale-related cost variations; potential funding; how biochar valorisation can be increased; and
• Stakeholders with knowledge on political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal factors that can affect the deployment of biochar as a climate and land use solution in Scotland.

We sent personalised invitations for interview to 15 individuals. This resulted in 9 online interviews with 12 people, held over a four-week period in February and March 2026. Five interviews were held with industry (covering pyrolysis technology, biochar production and feedstocks), one with a government agency, one with a local authority, one with a research institute, and one with an NGO. Ten interviewees were male, and two female.

The interviews were around one hour long and semi-structured, based on a list of questions shared with the interviewees in advance (see Table 9‑1). With informed consent from the interviewees, interviews were recorded and transcribed using Microsoft Teams auto-transcription. Interviewers also took separate notes to record key insights. The recordings and notes were stored on the secure study SharePoint site for access by team members, with recordings deleted on conclusion of the study. We collated key points into a sheet in the study’s data extraction Excel sheet and integrated these into the relevant chapters of this report.

Table 9‑1: Overview of questions for stakeholder interviews

Summary of confidence regarding evidence on feedstock availability

This appendix provides additional background for the discussion presented in Section 5.1.

Table 10‑1 below summarises our confidence ratings based on volume of evidence, agreement between studies, and applicability to Scottish conditions. The main columns draw on the full international evidence base including temperate climate analogues. The final column indicates the availability of Scottish-specific evidence.

Table 10‑1: Confidence ratings of evidence assessed

Note: ‘Volume of evidence’, ‘Agreement’, and ‘Applicability’ draw on the full international evidence base, including studies from temperate climate analogues (UK, Scandinavia, Germany). ‘Scottish-specific evidence’ rates whether studies have been conducted using Scottish feedstocks, facilities, or conditions. Several feedstocks have strong international evidence but no Scotland-specific research.

IPCC methodology for biochar carbon accounting

The information here provides additional background on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) methodology referred to in Section 5.2.3.

The IPCC methodology for biochar carbon accounting (Woolf, et al., 2021) establishes two key factors that determine biochar carbon permanence, i.e. how much carbon persists in soil over the longer term. The first is the temperature used during pyrolysis, with higher temperatures (>600° Celsius, °C) typically resulting in longer permanence, even exceeding 500 years. The second is the mean annual soil temperature, with biochar typically breaking down faster in warmer soils. This suggests that biochar may degrade relatively slowly in Scottish soils, although studies have not yet quantified this.

1. Pyrolysis temperature. During pyrolysis above 500°C, the carbon is reconfigured to structures that are the most resistant to breakdown. The hydrogen to organic carbon ratio is used as a predictor of the permanence of biochar, since only carbon remains in pure biochar formations. Ratios in this below 0.6 indicate that at least 63–82% of carbon will remain stored after 100 years. Wood-based biochars typically meet this threshold (Woolf, et al., 2021; Jalali, et al., 2025), possibly owing to the relative ease of pyrolysing wood. In local studies, biochar produced from forestry brash resulted in 71.9% fixed carbon – a proxy for aromatic carbon (Pap, et al., 2022) – while biochar from food-waste digestate can achieve higher at 88% (Gamaralalage, et al., 2025). Meta-analyses suggest that mean residence of biochar in soil can exceed 500-year high temperature biochar (600°C+) (Schmidt, et al., 2021). Low-temperature biochar (250–400°C) include more labile forms of carbon that break down within the first year, providing short-term biological benefits analogous to more conventional organic inputs (Jalali, et al., 2025; Liao, et al., 2022).
   
2. Mean annual soil temperature affects degradation rate. Biological activity is higher in warmer soils, accelerating biochar breakdown, while in cooler soils it is slower. One meta-analysis found temperate studies showed an 86% relative increase in soil carbon, compared to 55% in tropical studies (Chagas, et al., 2022), although dosage and initial soil carbon levels may also differ. Scotland’s low mean annual temperature (around 8–9°C) should favour slower degradation compared to the warmer climates where most biochar research has been conducted. However, this benefit remains unquantified in Scottish conditions specifically.
   
   Full PESTEL analysis

This appendix provides our full Political, economic, social, technological, environmental, legal (PESTEL) analysis, with additional discussion to that contained in Section 7 of the report. It outlines our main findings in relation to the key political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal considerations to be taken into account when exploring future options for biochar deployment in Scotland. It should be emphasised that these findings identify key risks and barriers from literature and stakeholder consultation, and do not focus on the benefits of biochar in comparison to other technologies. Efforts have been made throughout to qualify the significance of barriers and concerns for Scotland.

Political considerations

Biochar stands out as a technological solution in its infancy. Stakeholders are expressing significant interest in biochar due to its versatility across various sectors. It has been suggested that deployment could be substantial, even without additional support (Scottish Government, 2023a).

However, stakeholders broadly recognise the need for Scotland to develop or advance regulation to support biochar deployment pathways. Scottish Government has indicated an interest in exploring opportunities for biochar use in agriculture and related carbon market opportunities (Scottish Government, 2024). However, there are as yet no Scottish policy incentives for biochar deployment at scale.

Stakeholder interviews indicate a range of views on which government actions would most effectively support the sector. Some interviewees highlighted the importance of clearer political signals on subsidies, grants and supply chains, as well as alignment with wider strategies such as United Kingdom (UK) timber utilisation or carbon roadmaps. Others suggested that a dedicated strategy, similar to those developed for sustainable aviation fuels or hydrogen, could help drive action, as it is marginally easier for firms to make progress with a strategy that backs action. However, some interviewees argued that progress may be faster through targeted funding schemes and technology de-risking rather than through a comprehensive biochar strategy.

The demonstrated potential of biochar to permanently store carbon is not sufficiently recognised in regulations and policies (Scottish Government, 2023a). Reducing policy uncertainty could indicate government support and provide long-term guarantees (Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2013) to incentivise market development. Lack of incentives also creates uncertainties in feedstock supplies. Several policy incentives to encourage market deployment have been suggested. Fertiliser taxation and fiscal incentives for integrated biorefinery clusters and anaerobic digestion (AD) to use and treat bio-wastes and residues could incentivise biochar application to soils (Circle Economy, 2022; Scottish Government, 2023b). Biochar could be also incentivised through inclusion in agricultural reforms (Scottish Government, 2023b).

Despite a lack of targeted policy incentives, Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs) projects and a mature market for biochar, respondents to a Scottish Government study anticipate significant expansion. There are over 700 AD plants across the UK that could leverage biochar products to enhance efficiency and increase biogas yield. This anticipated growth is driven by the urgent need for NETs to address climate goals. The development of certified, verifiable negative emissions credits is considered crucial for this sector, with other char products and AD additives like carbon black contributing to a broader emerging char market the industry in Scotland aims to cultivate (Scottish Government, 2023b).

The following Government interventions related to biomass could potentially support biochar deployment:

• UK Government funding of over £100 Million (M) has been allocated to develop Greenhouse Gas Removal (GGR) technologies and assess GGR potential to deliver negative emissions, improve cost effectiveness and enhance scalability. Biochar is explicitly included as a pilot pathway, creating opportunities for implementation and research. Of this total, £31.5 M will be delegated to five land based GGR demonstrator projects (including biochar and perennial bioenergy crops) under the Strategic Priorities Fund (Scottish Government, 2023a).
• The ‘Project Willow’ feasibility study, jointly funded by the UK and Scottish Governments in 2024, to examine the long-term industrial future for the Petroineos Grangemouth refinery site. This study is referenced in multiple interviews as offering potential for biochar. It identifies nine initial viable “project sets” suited to the site, including some related to wastes and bio-feedstock. Proposals most relevant to biochar include second generation bioethanol using Scottish timber, and AD of organic waste and biogas upgrading to produce biomethane. The Scottish Government has made £25 M available through the Grangemouth Just Transition Fund to support immediate opportunities arising from Project Willow, with an additional £200 M available from the UK Government’s National Wealth Fund to support investible propositions (Scottish Government, 2025b).

In the development of future biochar policy, it will be important to consider sustainability and safeguards. Firstly, the use of biomass must comply with stringent sustainability criteria, including land criteria and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction criteria (Scottish Government, 2024), as well as key standards such as the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification and the UK Forestry Standard. Secondly, safeguards are necessary to consider the limits and availability of sustainable biomass in order to avoid excessive demand of biomass for energy and associated negative effects on carbon sinks and stocks, biodiversity, air quality and the bioeconomy (European Commission, 2022). One interviewee also found biochar to be politically sensitive due to political debates on supporting climate investments. To communicate the benefits of biochar and overcome political barriers, they suggested that biochar’s positive economic impacts on farmers and ecologic impacts on rivers and air quality could be emphasised.

Economic considerations

Circular economy impacts and systemic risks

Scotland’s circular bioeconomy is relatively advanced, with well-tracked biomass resources. However, imbalances in material use and land emissions remain. In addition, there are limited economic models examining trade-offs between alternative biomass uses, such as biochar, in terms of monetary costs and GHG benefits.

The agrifood sector makes up a significant share of Scotland’s material footprint, with two-thirds of all biomass feedstocks consumed heavily dependent on imported biomass (Circle Economy, 2022). This import dependence creates exposure to global supply chain volatility and externalised environmental impacts, limiting domestic control over resource security (Scottish Government, 2023d). Globally, sustainable biomass is increasingly recognised and pursued as a resource to be leveraged in response to emissions reduction commitments, which is expected to increase global prices for sustainable biomass (Scottish Government, 2024).

At the same time, Scotland generates substantial bio-based waste and by-products. The production of whisky, beer and fish alone, according to 2022 data, produces around 4.6 M tonnes (t) annually, indicating untapped potential for more efficient use of domestic biomass resources. However, barriers to improving circularity remain. Increased circularity and more efficient waste utilisation would require additional infrastructure and logistical support to collect, process and redistribute biomass streams (Circle Economy, 2022). Between 2003-2020, biomass production volumes declined even as economic value increased, indicating tighter resource availability (Scottish Government, 2023d).

Some economic opportunities related to AD could contribute to supporting future biochar deployment, particularly where policies and markets support parallel growth of both sectors. The Scottish Government has explicitly acknowledged that expansion of the AD sector will influence the development trajectory of biochar plants (Scottish Government, 2023a). Beyond this interaction, AD also delivers co-benefits that strengthen the broader case for integrated biomass pathways. Digestate can improve nutrient management and reduce reliance on imported synthetic fertilisers, assuming stable sector growth and continued farmer uptake (Scottish Government, 2024). In addition, long-term institutional strategies reinforce this direction. For example, Scottish Water aims to maximise the value of sludge through AD or advanced AD, improving product quality while generating energy from the process, providing a signal for durable policy and infrastructure support for the sector (SRUC, 2020).

Market trends

There are some emerging risks concerning the potential deployment of biochar at scale. The evidence we have found covers global and UK-wide trends due to lack of evidence for Scotland.

In contrast to the increasing demand for biomass, biochar carbon markets are relatively smaller in scale: developing high quality markets will require improvements in the maturity of carbon markets to act as a source of income (IBI, 2023). There are UK biochar companies who have successfully sold their carbon removal credits to UK corporate buyers. Globally, ambition and interest for issuing and purchasing biochar credits are also growing. However, complexities in additionality requirements, costs of certification and markets mean many biochar producers do not yet generate biochar carbon removal credits (IBI, 2023).

In the UK, it is widely recognised that there is a market gap for cost effective GGR technologies, with the biochar market at early stage of development. This was consistently highlighted in our interviews. (Arup, 2022; Environment Agency, 2025b; Biochar Europe, n.d.). Thus far, biochar has struggled to scale up in the UK (Bagaria, et al., 2025). Scottish stakeholders interviewed emphasised that commercialisation has been a key bottleneck for many entrepreneurs seeking to develop viable biochar projects. Despite strong theoretical knowledge and investments in R&D, several initiatives have struggled to translate into commercially viable operations. Stakeholders also highlighted demand-side uncertainties for businesses, including unclear purchaser markets and concerns that current prices per tonne of product may not be economically viable.

Lastly, for market development, interviewees pointed to the need for stronger industry networks and clustering in Scotland to better connect actors across the value chain, such as linking feedstock suppliers with biochar producers. Interviewees noted that current efforts are more concentrated in academic research than in initiatives aimed at supporting business development and commercial collaboration. 

Competing uses for feedstocks

Competing uses of feedstock resources is a primary concern for the viability and scalability of the biochar market in Scotland. According to Zero Waste Scotland, over 27 Mt of biomass arisings were generated in Scotland in 2014, many of which had limited productive use (Zero Waste Scotland, 2022). Agricultural biomass accounted for 16.7 Mt, and production was geographically concentrated, with about half arising from Aberdeenshire, Highland, Dumfries and Galloway, and the Scottish Borders. Within the agricultural category, slurry and manure make up the overwhelming majority at 14.4 Mt, with straw contributing 1.65 Mt (Zero Waste Scotland, 2022). Woody biomass represents another important feedstock stream for biochar production, with Forest Research reporting total production of 6.4 million tonnes in Scotland in 2024 (Forest Research, 2025a).

Feedstocks in the UK have already found multiple circular economy uses, meaning the biochar supply chain has to be commercially viable and sustainable to be competitive and to be able to secure feedstock.

AD and biogas sites are target customers for biochar and growth of the AD sector will affect the development of biochar plants. Biochar has potential to be used in AD sites as an additive to increase biogas production, as elaborated above in Section 5.5 (Pathways). Currently, biogas production targets (as a % of total gas demand) across Europe are much more ambitious than in the UK, which currently has no mandated target (and sits at 1% of total gas demand) (Scottish Government, 2023a). For example, targets in Denmark and Poland are 100% and in Germany 25%. In 2023, Carbogenics reprojected that the UK biochar sector would double in the following three years and that the UK biogas sector would double in less than a decade (Scottish Government, 2023a). This rate of growth was anecdotally confirmed during our interviews. Taking this projected growth as a proxy for establishing a market, a timeline of around 2030-2035 could be proposed for NETs development (Scottish Government, 2023a).

Biomass is used in the UK for electricity generation, heat, power, industry, and other Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) technologies (Scottish Government, 2023a; Scottish Government, 2024; Scottish Executive, 2007). Industries in Scotland that currently use bioenergy include paper milling, wood panel manufacture, distilleries, breweries and wood pellet producers (Scottish Government, 2024). Electricity production from biomass is not yet a mature market in the UK, limiting potential competition for biochar feedstocks at present. In addition, generating electricity has low and decreasing carbon benefits in countries such as the UK, which already a large proportion of grid electricity from low carbon renewable sources. However, in other countries with similar biomass profiles such as Sweden, biomass supplies nearly half of the heat network (ClimateXChange, 2025b). Ultimately, whether use of biomass for industrial heat could lead to increased competition in the future depends on whether the economic value of biochar is higher than the alternative use of the feedstock.

Other potential biomass feedstocks mentioned by stakeholders during our stakeholder interviews include woody biomass, straws, and perennial energy crops such as willow and miscanthus. During the interviews, woody biomass stood out as a favourable material for biochar production in Scotland. However, wood fibre is a limited source, with increased demand in one pathway creating trade-offs with others (Forestry Commission Scotland, 2012). Scotland’s forestry product industry is large, sustaining over 16,000 jobs and adding around £878M/year to the Scottish economy, excluding the contribution of forest tourism and recreation (Scottish Forestry, 2025).

Lastly, feedstock use for biochar has been described as potentially conflicting with the policy goal of maintaining current domestic food production levels and avoiding further land use change for growing biomass for the purpose of biochar production (Environment Agency, 2025b).

Cost-related considerations

Biochar costs are highly variable and depend strongly on feedstock availability and chosen type, technology configuration, plant scale, and regulatory requirements. Upfront capital expenditure needs for pyrolysis facilities are substantial, while operational expenditure (OPEX) includes feedstock procurement and transport, energy inputs, labour, and application to land. Uncertainties around costs and high upfront investment needs remain among the primary barriers to starting up and scaling biochar deployment (Scottish Government, 2023a).

Studies conducted in 2019 and 2020 to estimate the cost of carbon capture through biochar found a wide range of costs. The cost depends on the choice and availability of feedstock, pyrolysis technology and scale, ranging from £13-208/t carbon dioxide (CO₂) (Scottish Government, 2023a).

Across the literature we reviewed, concerns are repeatedly raised regarding high costs of feedstock, pyrolysis plants and legal expenses (Shackley, et al., 2011; Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2013; IPCC, 2022; Scottish Government, 2023a; Scottish Government, 2025a). Taken together, high costs constrain the development of a profitable biochar market. This was echoed by industry interviewees in comments on commercial viability. Further government supported research could help reduce uncertainty by defining the economic value (market price) of biochar in regular operational use. Cost pressures appear particularly acute for farmers, who face a high purchase price for biochar relative to other soil amendments and limited short-term financial returns (IBI, 2023; Han, et al., 2025; Bagaria, et al., 2025). Stakeholders from industry also shared that prices are geography and distillery specific, feeding into high variability of costs.

Technology related costs add further pressure to the economics of biochar production. Frequently cited are dryer/kiln technology to reduce moisture and pre-treatment infrastructure needs for lower grade biomass, power and grid safety related costs (Lapwing Energy, n.d.; CapChar Ltd, et al., 2022) . While some sources suggest smaller scale deployment could lower technological costs, such as when traditional artisan methods are used, other sources suggest that scaling up could help lower per-unit costs (IBI, 2025).

Where producers seek to generate revenue through carbon markets, additional layers of cost arise. This includes monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV), certification, and associated administrative requirements, which can materially increase overall project costs, particularly for smaller operators (IBI, 2025). In addition, testing requirements may present an additional cost for waste-derived biochar production. At the same time, stakeholder interviews and some literature suggest that some of these cost pressures may reduce over time through scaling up, technological learning, supply chain optimisation, and improved access to finance (Scottish Government, 2023a).

Social considerations

Food, yield, agriculture, farming and land use concerns

There are concerns, including amongst the public, about the risk of biochar deployment at scale in Scotland resulting in trade-offs in food production and security if using domestic non-waste feedstocks (Scottish Government, 2024; Environment Agency, 2025d). Changes in land use, from growing domestic food supply to biomass crops for feedstocks, could therefore increase the price of agricultural commodities like food, with a risk of disproportionately impacting the poorest households (Scottish Government, 2023a). Distributional impacts like these, and the risk of creating or exacerbating socioeconomic inequalities, must be considered (Environment Agency, 2025d). Though the application of the resultant biochar can increase yields of remaining agricultural land, evidence to support this effect is relatively limited in temperate regions like Scotland (IPCC, 2022), though biochar co-applied with organic fertiliser has been shown to be effective by one Scottish trial (Bagaria, et al., 2025). Refer to Section 5.3.1 for more detail on the impacts of biochar on yield.

This dispute in land use priorities risks conflict (Environment Agency, 2025b; Environment Agency, 2025d) and local objections (Dalby, 2025). These are particularly notable for farmers, with a total agricultural workforce in Scotland of 66,800 people (Scottish Government, 2025c) who as noted by a stakeholder from the research sector are key to engage throughout the supply chain. An interviewee from the biochar industry sector also noted that farmers are typically slow adopters and may need incentives to encourage uptake of new technologies like biochar, such as targeted interventions via farming groups paying preferential prices for products that meet certain targets. Two interviewees built on this point by emphasising the challenge of getting buyers to trust biochar as a product, but had confidence that this would develop with time and use, if economic barriers were tackled.

For the above reasons, using biochar feedstocks that originate from waste may be seen as more socially acceptable, mitigating risks of land-use change and resultant conflicts (Environment Agency, 2025b). A local authority stakeholder confirmed that they are attempting to steer away from crops grown specifically for feedstock for these reasons, citing ethical concerns.

Health and safety concerns

Health and safety concerns around biochar production and storage may also act as a barrier to broader implementation in Scotland. This section focuses on human health and safety concerns; environmental impacts are considered in Section 10.7. There is a longstanding public perception that pyrolysis is on a par with incineration, risking the process being denied public license to operate if scaled up (Scottish Government, 2023a). This was corroborated by multiple interviewees across government and industry stakeholder groups.

Drying, grinding and crushing feedstocks can release hazardous air pollutants including acrolein, volatile organic compounds and particulate matter (PM) if not appropriately managed (Environment Agency, 2025b; Environment Agency, 2025d). These concerns can be feedstock specific, as one interviewee highlighted a risk of cancer associated with wood dust, and impacts of air quality around wood pellet mills. Concerns about air quality and associated health risks (Environment Agency, 2025d; Dalby, 2025) also extend to biochar application, as being exposed to airborne biochar particles during spreading increases risk of lung disease (Lapwing Energy, n.d.). However, there is an evidence gap relating to the impact of these airborne pollutants on human health (Environment Agency, 2025a), and impacts of large-scale application of biochar on human health are yet to be explored (IPCC, 2022). Impacts may also be able to be mitigated by appropriate handling and proper Personal Protective Equipment. Nonetheless, health risks were raised as common concerns by interviewees across industry and non-governmental organisation (NGO) stakeholder groups.

There are also potential operational hazards related to the flammability of biochar (Lapwing Energy, n.d.), with a risk of unplanned ignition and combustion of the feedstock (CapChar Ltd, et al., 2022) and spontaneous combustion of the product during storage (Environment Agency, 2025b; Environment Agency, 2025d). An industry stakeholder noted this risk can be a barrier to getting insurance for the facility.

Knowledge, education and skills

There is generally low awareness about biochar (Environment Agency, 2025b; Environment Agency, 2025d; IBI, 2023), and an evidence gap on the social impacts of scaling up biochar technologies among the scientific community (Environment Agency, 2025a). The lack of awareness of biochar and scepticism of its benefits were noted as issues by several interviewees. Information needs extend to biomass more broadly, including equipping UK publics with information to understand how biomass use may influence their everyday lives, and monitoring of the impact biomass has on achieving net zero against transparent performance indicators (DESNZ, 2023). This is particularly relevant for key users like farmers.

There is also a lack of knowledge regarding scaling up biochar in the agricultural sector in Scotland, with a lack of permanent skilled on-site operators (Bagaria, et al., 2025; IPCC, 2022; IBI, 2023). This issue was also raised by an industry stakeholder. These skill requirements reportedly inhibit the feasibility of decentralisation. Another industry representative noted that despite high-skill requirements, the actual number of employees required to run a pyrolysis plant is minimal, and the low direct job creation potential could discourage government investment in the technology. Education and training would be needed in various areas to aid successful scaling (IBI, 2023). Moreover, a hesitancy towards digital tracking tools, which would likely be needed to implement biochar at scale, has been identified among farmers (Bagaria, et al., 2025).

Technological considerations

Technology readiness levels and need for R&D

Concerns regarding technology readiness levels (TRL) and the need for further research predominantly relate to technologies used for biochar production, such as pyrolysis units. A major barrier to scaling up biochar implementation in Scotland in the short term is the relatively early stage of technological development of biochar production (IBI, 2023; Scottish Government, 2024), with application in the UK so far limited to trials (Environment Agency, 2025b). Biochar technologies were in their infancy in 2013 (Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2013), and even though substantial technological development has occurred recently globally, scaled-up deployment remains limited (IPCC, 2022). Large scale readiness is anticipated within a decade, but this is uncertain (Scottish Government, 2023a), with limited evidence on applicability at scale in Scotland (ClimateXChange, 2022) and the IPCC (2022) noting low current feasibility. Advancements in technology production and use are needed for biochar growth, since technology and equipment availability and capacity currently inhibits feasibility (IBI, 2023), though this landscape could change rapidly.

Described as ‘experimental’ by the Scottish Government (2024) and by a Local Authority interviewee, biochar technologies are rated as having a TRL between 3 and 9, depending on the technology and source. Biochar technologies may however progress through TRLs rapidly and lower TRLs may no longer be appropriate ratings in 2026. Biochar is presented as a technology option for many sectors in the UK, but is often labelled a ‘wildcard’ solution due to technological uncertainties and therefore varying confidence in its inclusion in net zero technology strategies (Government Office for Science, 2025). The Scottish Government (2023a) suggested that biochar production has a TRL of 3-6, placing it within the ‘proof of concept’ and ‘large [pilot plant] scale’ phases. Other studies have suggested a TRL of 7 (Arup, 2022), or between 4 and 9 depending on methods used (Environment Agency, 2025b). Specific biochar production technologies may be rated higher – for example, pyrolysis plants generally are at the full-scale commercial stage (Environment Agency, 2025c). The Environment Agency (2025d) suggest that pyrolysis and gasification have TRLs of 6-9, slightly lower for the latter if specifically for biochar production as the typical byproduct is an ashy waste with traces of char. Several interviewees across government and industry emphasised that R&D and projects on biochar technologies are not yet translating into fully commercially viable projects in the UK, typically remaining at a small-scale, trial or pilot basis. One industry stakeholder specifically noted that this small-scale, workshop level production will not suffice, requiring a ‘big player’ in the pyrolysis industry to scale biochar production. Larger scale facilities may however involve greater environmental implications, a concern raised by an NGO stakeholder.

Further research is required throughout the biochar supply chain, to build a strong knowledge and skills base (Scottish Government, 2023a). This will enable application of the most effective solutions in a given local context (Circle Economy, 2022). The Scottish Government (2024) notes a research need to understand the permanence of storage and optimum use for biochar. Additional research would also be useful to verify some biochar benefits, such as the potential of the pyrolysis process to effectively remove Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance contamination (IBI, 2024) – a benefit also suggested by two interviewees. Increasing R&D to build deep knowledge could include public funding for research, development and demonstration activities, pilot projects and infrastructure development (Circle Economy, 2022).

Improving TRLs and increasing knowledge will support increased investment in biochar technologies, by addressing investors’ lack confidence in its early stage, small-scale status which inhibits uptake (Lapwing Energy, n.d.). Similarly, the farming community and industry as primary stakeholders lack sufficient data to make informed decisions regarding biochar implementation, such as good understanding of technologies, or carbon calculators that incorporate up-to-date scientific knowledge (Arup, 2022; ClimateXChange, 2023). A research stakeholder emphasised that practical knowledge is needed at-scale in real world conditions to enable uptake. Research to support businesses, rather than academic research, was noted by a government stakeholder as a particular gap.

Process issues

Biochar scaling and implementation is also inhibited by technological issues in the processes of production and application.

One such aspect of production is the selection of appropriate feedstocks. For example, not all feedstocks are compatible with every production technology (IBI, 2025). One industry stakeholder noted that most pyrolysis technology is designed for wood feedstocks, introducing complexity and yield implications if other feedstocks are used, including cheaper options. Adjusting the unit is a three-to-four-month process, but this barrier can technically be overcome. A government agency stakeholder indicated that this process takes longer for larger plants. A Local Authority interviewee also emphasised that homogeny of feedstock is critical.

Other production process related technological constraints also exist. These often overlap with legal requirements (see Section 10.8). The production processes are highly specific, requiring specific temperature ranges for optimal production depending on feedstock. These processes, especially small-scale pyrolysis, can have low energy efficiency, exacerbated at higher temperatures (Han, et al., 2025). Furthermore, several interviewees noted that units have not been operating long enough to provide sufficient information to accurately predict outputs.

Technological constraints also arise with the use and application of biochar products. This links to the economic constraints detailed in Section 6. Very low contaminant levels are required in biochar for use in agriculture and horticulture. For use in construction and agricultural fertilisers, characteristics such as stability, specific surface area and cation exchange are critical (PyroCore, et al., 2021). This specificity in application was highlighted by multiple industry stakeholders. Stakeholders in the research sector noted the need for UK and Scotland trials examining applications of biochar, including in combination with fertilizer, various farming activities, and for different crops.

There is also a lack of standardised approach to MRV once biochar has been applied to soils. Existing methods are either outdated – typically conducted without digitalisation across the entire supply chain (IBI, 2025) – or do not account for storage permanence and the varying decomposition rates of biochar depending on feedstock and temperature (Scottish Government, 2023a). Improved MRV procedures will require improvements in modelling biochar spread, which is complex (Scottish Government, 2023a). Lessons could be learned from international examples, for example an industry stakeholder reported that Denmark’s farming sector uses an established digital MRV system for carbon capture, also supporting compliance requirements. This issue relates to uncertainty surrounding the assessment of biochar characteristics, such as its durability (IBI, 2025) and predictors for its effect on nitrous oxide emission rates from soil. Methods can also be costly and rely on a high degree of specialist knowledge, making them difficult to scale (ClimateXChange, 2024).

Environmental considerations

Carbon storage

Other carbon removal technologies depend on geological storage of captured CO₂. In contrast, deploying biochar for carbon removal (i.e., as a net carbon negative product) depends on permanent storage of the carbon in biochar in-situ in soil or alternative place of use (Scottish Government, 2023a; Arup, 2022).

As stated in Section 5.2, academic evidence strongly supports that biochar offers long-term carbon storage, at time scales of multiple centuries. Though field studies consistently also show biochar carbon durability in the short term, it should be noted that the stated 1000-year durability of biochar can never be usefully demonstrated in real time, especially when aiming for deployment on a 2045 timescale. Evidence of long-term stability therefore relies on the structural characteristics of biochar. Certified carbon removal using biochar is currently traded under accounting protocols published by Verra, Puro, or Isometric against 100- or 1000-year durability. However, biochar carbon accounting is still under development and depends on understanding of the potential for mobilisation of the stored carbon and its possible emission (Scottish Government, 2023a).

Several sources reviewed state that the permanence of carbon in biochar when applied to soils is an evidence-gap, or an area of uncertainty, requiring more research (Environment Agency, 2025a; ClimateXChange, 2022; Environment Agency, 2025c). This suggests that the scientific confidence in biochar carbon durability (in both soil and other applications such as construction) has not yet been successfully disseminated into public knowledge and understanding, including at a governmental and policy level (Scottish Government, 2023c; Biochar Europe, n.d.). This social aspect may present a barrier to deployment, despite a lack of environmental concern. Despite this, some specific applications of biochar could still raise environmental concerns regarding soil carbon. Particularly relevant to Scotland, one industry stakeholder noted the relatively high potential for biochar to release carbon from peat bogs.

Moreover, biochar is not entirely homogenous. Extrapolating permanence based on initial decomposition overestimates longer term decomposition in laboratory experiments. On the other hand, microbial communities in biochar-rich soils could become tuned to a change in substrate, resulting in enzymatic shifts that increase decomposability over time (Feng, et al., 2023). Permanence should also not be over-stated without proper biochar characterisation (Schmidt, et al., 2021).

The carbon storage of biochar also varies depending on the feedstock used, with waste-derived biochar exhibiting the lowest carbon removal potential (Scottish Government, 2023a). This could be problematic in approaching biochar as a carbon mitigation tool based on the current legislative landscape in Scotland as discussed in Section 10.8. Paper, cardboard, food waste, and sewage sludge feedstocks also do not typically result in net GHG removals compared to bioenergy crops and agricultural arisings, though do still contribute to carbon mitigation if pyrolysed (Environment Agency, 2025b). They are also considered by an industry interviewee to be high-quality feedstocks in terms of biochar quality. Interviewees noted the importance of knowing feedstock origin and ensuring that any biomass removed is being replaced to ensure net carbon negativity within a reasonable timescale.

Carbon storage potential is also altered by pyrolysis conditions, specifically temperature. With increasing temperature, the carbon content and aromaticity of biochar also increase (Environment Agency, 2025d), although the research bias towards lower pyrolysis temperatures results in less data availability for higher temperatures.

Emissions and impacts on climate change

Concerns have also been expressed regarding potential climate change impacts of biochar throughout its value chain, including feedstock, production, storage, transport, and application. It should be noted that biochar’s effect on emissions in various life cycle stages is not fully understood and requires further research (Scottish Government, 2023c). These emissions pose health risks (discussed in Section 7.3) and environmental impacts. The life cycle emissions of biochar production are summarised in Section 5.2.4.

Biochar production technologies have associated emissions, since they require heat generation. Biochar production is noted to lead to increased non-GHG emissions, an example of burden shifting (Scottish Government, 2023a). For example, Volatile Organic Compound emissions are generated by wood chip burners, as well as nitrous oxides, sulphur oxides, and carbon monoxide (CO) (CapChar Ltd, et al., 2022). Heat can also be generated by combustion of pyrolysis co-products, which emits a small amount of CO₂, steam, nitrogen dioxide, CO, methane, and sulphur dioxide (Clarke, et al., 2021). In addition, emissions vary with the type of feedstock used (Scottish Executive, 2007). These effects are exacerbated if the feedstock materials have a high moisture content, due to greater energy demand for drying before pyrolysis (Environment Agency, 2025e). The impact of these emissions can be mitigated to an extent through appropriate abatement technologies.

Emissions are also released from stored biomass (Environment Agency, 2025d), for example through CO₂ loss via oxidation when the product is exposed to air (Lapwing Energy, n.d.). During storage, as well as in transport, handling, and application, biochar can also emit PM, including black carbon aerosol (Environment Agency, 2025d). During transportation, emissions from road transport – currently a significant emissions source in the bioeconomy – need to be considered (Scottish Government, 2024). These issues were all corroborated by several stakeholders.

For application, impacts tend to be context specific. For example, biochar application to cultivated soils can decrease surface albedo (how much sunlight is reflected), though this does depend on dosage, application method, land use, and soil moisture content (IPCC, 2022). High experimental doses of biochar can also stimulate microbial activity in the short term, as a small labile fraction of carbon becomes relevant. Emissions are minimised at 5-10 t/ha, then rebound due to stimulation of native soil organic matter decomposition (Han, et al., 2025).

Land-use change

Another environmental concern is the potential impact on land-use change and competition for land (Environment Agency, 2025b; IPCC, 2022; DESNZ, 2025), as strongly emphasised by an NGO stakeholder, who corroborated several of the following points. This is separate to land use concerns from a social perspective as discussed in section 10.5.1. The Scottish Government (2023a) has identified this as a major challenge when virgin feedstock is used. This risks species loss and reduced biodiversity and has a greater land requirement than other carbon removal technologies like BECCS (Scottish Government, 2023a). However, this comparison does not account for the carbon value of heat generated by pyrolysis and electricity required by BECCS. Converting pasture to miscanthus, for example, has been linked to biodiversity loss, particularly for farmland bird species (Environment Agency, 2025b). Negative impacts have also been identified in the conversion of grassland and woodland to biomass crop (Environment Agency, 2025d). It was suggested that impacts on species is an area requiring further research.

If these land requirements cannot be met domestically, raw biomass may need to be imported, transferring potential negative externalities to other countries. This would be highly likely if biochar were to be scaled up. Growing dedicated crops for climate-relevant biochar production is likely to be unfeasible in the UK, as they require significant land and water resources which would have a large environmental footprint (Environment Agency, 2025e).

Impacts on soil and water, including contamination

Biochar has several potential negative impacts on soil and water health, mostly related to its application to soil. As with several other issues relating to biochar, its long-term soil health impact is poorly understood (Environment Agency, 2025b). There are potential – and uncertain – impacts on soil microbiomes (including viruses and protists that affect soil bacteria and fungi), microbial food web interactions, the abundance of microbial genes in the soil (which in turn affects nutrient transformation processes and microbes beneficial to plant growth and health), and interactions with plant roots (Environment Agency, 2025d). Properties of biochar upon application are also not yet fully characterised due to their variability (Arup, 2022). Similarly, large-scale impacts of biochar application on the full GHG-balance of soils have not been explored (IPCC, 2022).

Relating to feedstock growth and biochar production, demands for fertiliser and grid electricity increase, raising risks of acidification, eutrophication and ecotoxicity (Scottish Government, 2023a). Use of forestry residues as feedstock is feasible, but can risk soil health degradation over time, due to interference with natural nutrient cycling and soil carbon, as corroborated by an NGO interviewee who also raised the threat to soil invertebrates. Concerns have also been raised about the risk of deforestation (Environment Agency, 2025d).

The application of biochar to soil introduces the risk of contaminants (Arup, 2022; Bagaria, et al., 2025; Environment Agency, 2025d; ClimateXChange, 2022). This may include polyethylene terephthalate (SRUC, 2020), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (IPCC, 2022), heavy metals if produced from paper and pulp mill sludge or wood (Environment Agency, 2025b; Environment Agency, 2025d), and plastics if produced from waste (Scottish Executive, 2007). However, multiple stakeholders did emphasise that the temperature of the pyrolysis system, combined with scrubbing abatement systems, can remove plastics and pollutants, and levels of pollutants in the material are always lower after pyrolysis than before.

Additional risks to soil and water health from biochar application include potential increases in plants’ susceptibility to insects and pathogens (IPCC, 2022), and risk of nutrient losses and subsequent deposition through wind and water erosion (Lapwing Energy, n.d.).

All these threats are exacerbated by a risk of overapplication (Environment Agency, 2025d), especially near farms, AD plants, and distilleries (SRUC, 2020), a concern also raised by an NGO stakeholder. High biochar rates of >20 t/ha may reduce soil aggregate stability, negatively affecting soil structure, though evidence we found on this focuses on short-term rather than long-term effects (Han, et al., 2025).

Legal considerations

Relating to feedstock and waste

Legal definitions and classifications create constraints on the effective use of available of feedstocks. In particular, waste regulations can limit the ability to rely on exemptions and introduce additional compliance requirements.

Guidance on the waste status of relevant feedstocks remains unclear, increasing regulatory uncertainty for biochar producers and increase costs ( (Lapwing Energy, n.d.; PyroCore, et al., 2021). For example, forest residues are not legally classified as waste according to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), and there is currently no specific exemption permitting the use of certain waste materials in biochar applications (Scottish Executive, 2007; SEPA, 2012). Additional clarification is also required for materials such as biosolids and less conventional waste streams, including distillery residues (SRUC, 2020). Legal frameworks that require biowaste and farm wastes to be collected instead of going to landfill or energy recovery could present a significant opportunity for biochar, if the guidance regarding status and classification could effectively be improved (SEPA, n.d.).

Biochar’s classification as a waste material also limits its use and results in greater investment needs, permitting related costs and longer implementation times (Arup, 2022).

In Scotland, biochar manufacture is legally treated as a waste management activity. While the Scottish Environment Protection Agency’s 2012 Position Statement allows small-scale production from certain woody forestry and agricultural wastes (codes 02 01 03 and 02 01 07) without a licence, this remains a temporary position pending formal exemption (SEPA, 2012). Facilities producing above 50 kilograms/hour fall outside this small-scale threshold and face full regulatory requirements, which constrains commercial investment and limits scale-up (Arup, 2022). One interviewee also noted that current regulations restrict producers from experimenting with biomass feedstocks beyond the waste categories currently permitted, including coffee grains and sewage sludge for example.

Similar ambiguity exists across the wider UK framework (Štrubelj & Singh Ghaleigh, 2025). Biochar is generally treated as waste because it is derived from discarded biomass, unless produced from purpose-grown or otherwise non-waste materials such as wood pellets or virgin timber offcuts. This creates uneven incentives: producers may avoid residual biomass streams that attract regulatory controls and instead rely on dedicated feedstocks, contrary to circular economy principles.

These regulatory bottlenecks were consistently reflected in our stakeholder interviews. Industry actors and local authorities identified waste classification, end-of-waste criteria and recycling definitions as key sources of confusion, directly affecting implementation timelines and investment decisions. End-of-waste criteria, particularly, was raised as a major barrier by majority of the stakeholders interviewed. Finally, more clarity or guidance is needed on pyrolysis use in waste processing (DESNZ, 2025).

Another legal barrier is the lack of guidelines regarding the agricultural and soil-related applications and impacts of biochar (Bagaria, et al., 2025). As highlighted in earlier sections, biochar’s benefits to soil quality could be leveraged if regulations enabled biochar created from sewage sludge to be returned to the soil (Scottish Government, 2023a).

Standards, certification and regulation relating to product use

There are significant concerns about the standardisation of biochar quality and composition analysis across the UK and internationally (Schmidt, et al., 2021). This includes complexities around selling carbon credits as a source of income for biochar producers.

Biochar producers are expected to align their activities with reputable carbon credit certification standards and comply with those standards’ requirements. Six international carbon certification standards allow biochar producers to issue carbon credits. Each standard sets different requirements for certification, eligible feedstocks, approved technologies, end use, tracking, leakage assessment, testing, and permanence criteria such as hydrogen to carbon ratios (IBI, 2025). Due to regulatory and commercial barriers, only 47% of global biochar producers certify the carbon removals (IBI, 2023).

Governance mechanisms are needed for unified industry standards and market development. Guidance could be on but not limited to: labelling standards, sustainability certification schemes and regulation of biochar production and use, such as limits on contaminant/pollutant concentration or data monitoring requirements, for Scottish biochar developers, which could help with reducing the risks of adverse outcomes and developers to understand application of standards tailored to Scottish context, with easier transition to adapt international carbon crediting requirements (IPCC, 2022; Environment Agency, 2025d). There are currently no UK-specific certification standards governing the use of biochar for carbon offsetting (Arup, 2022). An industry interviewee highlighted that, in the absence of unified certification or standards, lower quality biochar would enter the market alongside higher quality products. This could create trade-offs between quality and scale, creating disincentives for producers investing in higher standards.

As biochar capacity increases, stronger carbon permitting frameworks and waste regulations are likely to be introduced to prevent environmental releases and manage impacts (Scottish Government, 2023a). While these measures are important for environmental protection, they may also increase compliance costs and administrative requirements for producers seeking to expand. As biomass availability is already a potential barrier, and imported biomass already constitutes a significant share of biomass used in Scotland, scaling biochar operations could introduce additional legal and governance complexities. In particular, concerns have been raised that imported biomass may not be subject to equivalent environmental regulation or robust carbon accounting frameworks in the country of origin. In the context of limited governance and standardisation for biochar, these uncertainties have contributed to UK farmers’ caution regarding the use of imported biomass in certified biochar production.

How to cite this publication:

Pendlebury, T., Watkins, E., Hill, D., Aycan, D., Gathorne-Hardy, A., Leake, A., Sohi, S. (2026) ‘Scoping the Potential for Biochar in a Scottish Context’, ClimateXChange. https://doi.org/10.7488/era/7561

© The University of Edinburgh, 2026

Prepared by Logika and Edinburgh Innovations on behalf of ClimateXChange, The University of Edinburgh. All rights reserved.

While every effort is made to ensure the information in this report is accurate as at the date of the report, no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors, omissions or misleading statements. The views expressed represent those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent those of the host institutions or funders.

This work was supported by the Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division of the Scottish Government (CoE – CXC).

ClimateXChange

Edinburgh Climate Change Institute

High School Yards

Edinburgh EH1 1LZ

+44 (0) 131 651 4783

info@climatexchange.org.uk

www.climatexchange.org.uk

If you require the report in an alternative format such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

1. Carbon farming is a set of agricultural practices designed to sequester atmospheric CO₂ into the soil and plant biomass, thereby using farms as carbon sinks. ↑
   

2. The six-tenths or 0.6 rule is an economic scaling method used to estimate changes in capital costs relative to scale, i.e. that a change in capacity will change the capital cost by 0.6 times the capacity ratio. ↑
   

   
   

Removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and storing them permanently is important for achieving net zero. Biochar – a solid carbon material similar to charcoal – is one of the most widely used carbon removal methods worldwide.

Biochar is made by heating biological material, usually plant material, to very high temperatures in a process called pyrolysis. The resulting material can store carbon for long periods.

This report assesses the potential for biochar in Scotland. It examines the availability of materials for biochar production, its potential impacts on carbon storage, soil health and crop yields, lessons from other countries, potential uses in Scotland, and the main barriers and opportunities to its wider use.

Key findings

• Barriers and opportunities: Waste management rules, high and variable costs, and limited support for scaling up production are major barriers to investment. Carbon credit income and stronger, independent evidence from Scotland could help build confidence among farmers and investors.
• Feedstock sources: Scotland has plenty of biomass that could be used to make biochar, including forestry, farming and whisky production waste. More research is needed to assess the potential of major sources such as farm waste, sewage sludge and waste wood.
• Carbon storage: Biochar can store carbon for a long time, with forestry waste offering strong potential in Scotland. Scotland’s cool climate and mineral soils may also help it remain stable in the ground.
• Soil health, crop yields and climate resilience: Early research suggests biochar could increase crop and grass yields when used with organic fertiliser, improve soil quality and reduce some greenhouse gas emissions. However, evidence from Scotland is limited, and biochar should not currently be used on peat because of concerns about emissions.
• Lessons from other countries: Scotland can learn from countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Germany, which have taken different approaches to supporting biochar. Their experience shows that government support, funding and clear regulations can help develop the sector, but do not always lead to widespread use.
• How biochar could be used in Scotland: Seven potential uses for biochar in Scotland have been identified. Using it on farmland, particularly alongside organic fertilisers, offers the greatest potential for carbon storage while requiring little change to existing practices.

Areas for future action

• Support early commercial projects: Provide targeted funding to help biochar projects move from demonstration to commercial production, filling a gap in current funding.
• Clarify regulations: Work with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) to develop clear rules for when biochar can be treated as a product rather than waste.
• Build the Scottish evidence base: Run field trials across Scottish soils and feedstocks to test realistic application rates and monitor the long-term effects on carbon storage and soil health.
• Identify opportunities for production: Map where biochar production could work best in Scotland, considering available materials, transport, infrastructure and potential uses for the heat produced.
• Compare environmental impacts: Assess the environmental impacts of different Scottish feedstocks and supply chains, including how biochar compares with other uses of the same materials.
• Develop common standards: Establish consistent standards for testing, tracking and monitoring biochar, including carbon claims and environmental safeguards.

If you require the report in an alternative format, such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

Page image by Nora Jane Long on Unsplash

Scotland’s Vision for Agriculture sets an ambition for Scotland to lead in sustainable farming – improving productivity while reducing emissions. However, there is limited evidence on how genetic and performance changes over the past decade have affected methane emissions from Scottish livestock.

This research examines these changes and their impact on productivity and methane emissions. It identifies options for action, assesses their potential impacts and value for money, and highlights priorities for implementation and future research.

Key findings

• We found three groups of interventions that could improve productivity and reduce emissions in the Scotland’s beef sector:
  • Breeding and genetics: Options include using genetic information to identify animals with lower methane emissions, adding methane traits to breeding indexes, improving replacement strategies, and using bulls rather than steers.
  • Feeding, nutrition, and grazing management: Options include better use of feed, high-energy diets, legumes, feed additives, and improved grazing practices.
  • Lifetime productivity: Options to help cattle produce more beef while reducing emissions include shorter gaps between calving, higher calving rates, matching calving with feed availability, and finishing animals earlier to reduce unproductive days.
• Together, the following five interventions could deliver around £250 million in annual benefits to the Scottish economy: changes to cattle breed and type, higher cow replacement rate, concentrate feeding, improved grazing management, reduced slaughter age
• Around £150 million of this could come from higher productivity and £100 million from lower emissions. This suggests the above package could offer good value for money, but further work is needed to assess costs, uptake and potential benefits.
• Further research is needed to understand how interventions could be adopted, including farmer support, infrastructure, timescales and the role of government.
• Better evidence and monitoring would help assess what works, how impacts vary across farms and regions, and how policies can be refined over time.

If you require the report in an alternative format, such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

Photo by Daniel Quiceno M on Unsplash

Research complete: May 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7488/era/7562

Executive summary

Aims

Scotland’s Vision for Agriculture sets a clear ambition to lead in sustainable farming (Scottish Government, 2022), creating a strong policy mandate for interventions that simultaneously improve productivity and reduce emissions. However, evidence remains limited on how far genetic progress and performance improvements over the past decade have already reduced methane emissions in Scottish livestock systems, and how these gains should inform future policy.

This research draws on recent evidence from academic and grey literature alongside engagement with industry stakeholders to examine genetic and performance improvement interventions in livestock production systems and assesses related improvements to productivity and methane emissions reduction. It identifies options for action, assesses their potential impacts, including via a high-level value-for-money assessment, and outlines key considerations for implementation and future research.

Key findings

We found three groups of promising interventions that can yield productivity improvements and emissions reduction in the Scottish beef sector:

1. Breeding and genetics: selecting and breeding animals that are more efficient, more productive, and lower emitting. These approaches provide a long-term route to reduce emissions while improving efficiency, profitability, and product quality. Key strategies include microbiome-informed genomic selection, adding methane traits to breeding indexes, optimising replacement strategies, and selecting bulls over steers.
   
2. Feeding, nutrition, and grazing management: optimising feed, diet composition, and grazing systems to improve productivity and reduce emissions. Evidence shows that strategies such as concentrate supplementation, high-starch or high-energy diets, inclusion of legumes, feed additives, and improved grazing management provide flexible and practical opportunities to improve efficiency, profitability, and sustainability.
   
3. Lifetime productivity: improving output across an animal’s lifetime to increase efficiency and reduce emissions per kilogram of beef. Strategies include shortening calving intervals, raising calving rates, aligning calving with feed availability, and finishing animals earlier to reduce unproductive days, increase carcass output, and lower emissions intensity per unit of beef.

Conclusions

On a conservative basis, our value-for-money assessment suggests that the following package of interventions for the beef sector could deliver around £250 million in annual benefits to the Scottish economy:

1. changes to cattle breed and type
2. higher cow replacement rates
3. concentrate feeding
4. improved grazing management
5. reduced slaughter age

This includes around £150 million per year in productivity gains and £100 million per year from reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions intensity. In context, the Scottish beef sector currently generates around £620 million in gross value added (GVA). This is a preliminary assessment, with the potential applicability, uptake, costs and benefits of these interventions will need to be considered further. However, while costs have not been estimated in this analysis, the scale of the benefits over and above any reasonable cost amount implies that the package of interventions is likely to offer value for money. Further work is required to assess how these interventions could be delivered in practice, including likely uptake and adoption by Scottish farmers, the extent to which benefits identified can be realised in Scotland, and the role of government in enabling adoption. This should include consideration of farmer support needs, delivery timeframes, infrastructure development, and any unintended consequences. The role of the Scottish Government in supporting implementation will need to be explored further.

This research also highlights areas where stronger evidence could support better policymaking and help demonstrate benefits to the industry ahead of any future implementation. This includes more long-term, real-world data from Scottish farms, and improved monitoring to show whether impacts are sustained, identify trade-offs, and build confidence in low-emission practices. A better understanding of how outcomes differ across farm types, regions, and production systems would be useful, including the distribution of costs, benefits, and barriers to adoption. Better data standards and collection would improve comparability and help ensure future interventions are effective across the sector.

In light of these evidence gaps, continued monitoring and collection of data would be valuable to ensure that policy can be reviewed and refined in a timely manner as the evidence base evolves. This may involve some uncertainty around initial effectiveness, requiring policies to be monitored and refined over time in response to emerging evidence generated alongside implementation.

Abbreviations and glossary

Introduction

Scotland’s ambition to reach net zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2045 requires reform within the agricultural sector, as set out in the Climate Change Plan (Scottish Government, 2025). Livestock, particularly cattle, represent a major source of emissions, with livestock-emitted methane alone accounting for around 11% of Scotland’s total GHG emissions. Previous work funded by the Scottish Government, including a readiness assessment of methane-reducing technologies (Eory et al., 2022). Research on breeding for lower emissions (Jenkins et al., 2025) has begun to strengthen the scientific evidence base. However, a clearer pathway is now needed to build on this growing body of evidence and translate it into practical policy measures that can support sustained improvements across Scotland’s livestock sector.

The Scottish Government has set clear expectations for lowering emissions and improving livestock efficiency, as outlined in the Vision for Agriculture (2022) and the Agricultural Reform Route Map (2025a). However, there is still crucially limited evidence on the extent to which genetic progress and performance improvements over the past decade have already helped reduce methane emissions in Scottish livestock systems, and how these gains should shape future policy. Strengthening this evidence base, alongside understanding the barriers, opportunities, and likely impacts of future interventions, is essential for shaping a credible roadmap for methane reduction and productivity improvements that align with Scotland’s climate targets and wider agricultural reforms.

Research aims

This research aimed to address this gap by reviewing evidence from the past decade on genetic and performance improvement interventions in beef and dairy systems and assessing their contribution to improving productivity and reducing methane emissions. It identifies intervention options for future policy consideration, assesses their potential impacts, and outlines key considerations for implementation and future research.

The analysis focused on the beef and dairy sectors as the largest source of emissions in Scotland, and sought to address the following four research questions:

• What genetic improvement programmes and management interventions have been implemented over the past decade through government or industry-led initiatives?
• How have these interventions affected key productivity indicators?
• To what extent have improvements in these productivity indicators translated into reductions in methane emissions intensity?
• What evidence gaps remain in assessing the effectiveness of these interventions in reducing emissions and improving efficiency?

Methodology overview

To address the research questions, we adopted a mixed-methods approach combining an in-depth review of existing evidence with engagement from key industry and policy stakeholders. The first phase involved a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) to identify evidence of interventions that improve productivity and reduce emissions in the beef and dairy sectors. This focused on academic and grey literature over the past decade across Scotland and comparable countries. A detailed REA protocol was developed to define the scope of the review and to set out the search strategy, screening criteria, and quality assessment framework. The full protocol is provided in Appendix A.

The interventions identified in the literature were grouped into eight overarching categories to form the intervention long list. A detailed summary of the evidence for each category can be found in Appendix C. These categories were subsequently reviewed and validated through stakeholder engagement, comprising one workshop with 13 stakeholders and two one-to-one in-depth interviews. In consultation with stakeholders, we assessed the relevance and feasibility of each category and provided wider insights on: (i) current adoption of genetic and performance improvement strategies in Scotland, (ii) evidence gaps and research needs, (iii) implementation barriers and support requirements, and (iv) industry perspectives on future policy directions.

Stakeholder insights were consolidated with the REA findings to refine the long list into a focused short list of three promising types of interventions with the strongest evidence for improving productivity and reducing methane emissions. Feasibility and strategic relevance to the Scottish context were also assessed, alongside alignment with the research questions. The resulting short list of policy options being taken forward is as follows:

1. Breeding and Genetics
   
2. Feeding, Nutrition, and Grazing Management (combining “Feeding and Nutrition Management” and “Land and Pasture Management”)
   
3. Lifetime Productivity (combining “Calving Systems” and “Age of Slaughter”)
   

To assess the potential implementation of each of these three interventions, we conducted a SWOT and PESTLE analysis, as well as a preliminary Value for Money (“economic”) assessment to estimate the potential scale of benefits to the Scottish economy from implementing each intervention.

The economic analysis draws on published evidence on the impacts of these interventions to estimate the possible impact they may have on productivity and emissions if implemented in Scotland. These impacts are then given monetary values to allow comparability of benefits to each other, as well as the potential cost of implementation. For example, monetised productivity benefits generally relate to increased beef weight per cow, therefore representing a possible increase in value to farmers, while monetised carbon and methane emissions represent intangible value that does not necessarily accrue to any specific individual.

The economic assessment is indicative as it assumes a stylised set of interventions being implemented. Further analysis of which interventions could feasibly be implemented in Scotland would be required, and therefore, the extent to which all benefits could be applicable. To account for this uncertainty, the analysis assumes only 10% of the benefits identified by published evidence would be realised. The full methodology is detailed in Appendix A.

Breeding and genetic initiatives

Overview

This intervention involves optimising the genetic potential within the herd to enhance productivity and reduce methane emission intensity across the Scottish livestock sector, specifically within beef production. This includes genetic selection and evaluation, use of advanced breeding technologies, and herd structure management to improve efficiency, fertility, and growth traits over time. Examples of such interventions include selective breeding, reducing cow size or weight, cattle type (bulls versus steers), cow replacement rate, sexed semen, rumen microbiome assessments, and estimated breeding values (EBVs).

The evidence suggests breeding and genetic interventions align well with the existing agricultural support structures in Scotland. The Beef Efficiency Scheme and MyHerdStats were cited as already creating a system for herd data collection and performance monitoring, which could be expanded in the future. However, more work is needed to make a broader range of interventions widely adoptable. For example, options include more complete and integrated data collection systems, greater access to user-friendly decision-making tools to translate performance and genetic information into breeding choices, and greater access to technologies such as genomic testing, microbiome assessments, and EBVs. These improvements may support more consistent and widespread adoption of breeding interventions, while recognising that such approaches may not be appropriate or feasible across all farm types.

The evidence review and stakeholder engagement indicate growing policy and industry interest in breeding and genetics as tools to improve productivity and environmental performance in the Scottish beef sector.

Interventions implemented by the government

The Beef Efficiency Scheme (BES) was launched in 2016 under the Scottish Government Rural Development Programme. This five-year scheme was designed to support beef producers in improving herd efficiency through the use of genetics, performance recording, and data management (Scottish Government, 2024). The BES required farmers to provide data on their herds, undergo a carbon audit, and have breeding animals genotyped. Farmers also identified management improvements to implement throughout their farms, such as improving growth rates, nutrition, or disease resistance.

The scheme established structured frameworks for herd-level data collection, performance monitoring, and advisory support. Between 2016 and 2022, the Scottish Government partnered with Neogen Europe to deliver genotyping services (Life Sciences in Scotland, 2019). DNA samples were processed to generate genomic predictions for traits including growth rate, maternal performance, and disease resistance. This work contributed to the development of the Beef Efficiency Scheme database, hosted within ScotEID, strengthening Scotland’s genetic and performance data infrastructure.

Beyond BES, core data infrastructure underpinning genetic evaluation includes the Cattle Tracing System (CTS), created in 1998 by the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) to track the births, deaths, and movements of cattle to improve disease control in the context of a bovine epidemic. CTS provides animal identity, pedigree, and movement data and underpins many genetic evaluation platforms. These datasets are critical for linking genetic, pedigree, and performance information across the national herd.

Interventions implemented by industry

Established in 2005 by SRUC, the Edinburgh Genetic Evaluation Services (EGENES) develops and delivers genetic improvement tools for livestock industries (SRUC, 2026). It provides genetic and genomic evaluations for UK dairy, beef, and sheep sectors on behalf of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, as well as for breed societies and commercial producers, supporting ongoing improvements in livestock breeding.

In 2018, the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) launched the National Beef Evaluations database, which provides estimated breeding values for key carcass and maternal traits based on national data from processors, breed societies, and cattle movement records. AHDB has also developed the EnviroCow and EnviroBeef genetic indices in 2021 and 2025, respectively. These were designed to improve environmental efficiency by identifying animals with lower emissions intensity without compromising productivity.

Quality Meat Scotland (QMS), a levy-funded body working closely with Scottish Ministers, has actively promoted genetic improvement across the sector. QMS delivered the Scotch Beef PGI Traceability and Performance project in 2021, which tested the use of maternal DNA to enhance both traceability and performance assessment (Quality Meat Scotland, 2021). This project estimated that improving key performance indicators through genetic selection, such as increasing the number of calves per 100 cows from 82 to 84 or reducing calf mortality from 6% to 5.88%, could generate industry values of £6.4 million and £4.1 million, respectively (Quality Meat Scotland, 2021). More recently, in 2024, QMS partnered with the Agri Food for Net Zero Network+ to explore breeding strategies that are cost-effective, practical, and aligned with Scotland’s net zero objectives to cut emissions while improving efficiency and animal welfare (AFN Network+, 2024). Findings showed that breeding approaches differ widely across farms, but highlighted strong potential for co-designed, data driven strategies, grounded in real farm data, to reduce emissions while maintaining productivity and welfare.

Research organisations have further strengthened the evidence base. Scotland’s Rural College and the SEFARI have conducted research funded under the Scottish Government Strategic Research Programme that resulted in the development of a livestock pedigree and genotype integration database (SEFARI, 2024). This dataset included over 123,000 genotyped animals across more than 40 breeds and extensive pedigree records, supporting analysis of genetic diversity, inbreeding, and long‑term breeding strategy development in Scotland. Research by SRUC indicated that incorporating residual feed intake into national breeding goals was estimated to increase economic response by 40% from £30.9 million to £43.4 million, and achieve greenhouse gas savings of 27% over a period of 20 years (Pritchard and Wall, 2019).

Additional tools support the integration of performance and environmental data. MyHerdStats, developed and supported by ScotEID in 2023, provides cattle keepers with consistent herd performance data to inform decision-making. Agrecalc, a privately developed carbon auditing tool used within the BES, links farm-level performance data with emissions estimates. While not a genetic dataset itself, it enables assessment of how improvements in productivity and breeding influence emissions intensity at the farm level.

Over the past 20 years, the Scottish beef sector has achieved substantial economic and environmental progress by using genetic data to refine herd performance. Between 2003 and 2023, consistent selection for specific traits has allowed cattle to reach market weights more quickly, which has lowered lifetime greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 10%. During this same period, carcass weights increased steadily as average genetic values rose from 4.3 kg below the UK average to 1.97 kg above it. Daily liveweight also improved from a loss of 0.01 kg per day to a gain of 0.007 kg per day (QMS, 2025).

Timeline

Figure 1 Timeline of breeding and genetic initiatives implemented by the government and industry

Productivity and emissions impacts

The evidence base indicates that several breeding and genetic interventions offer meaningful potential to reduce emissions intensity. The REA identified a total of nine papers that examined this type of interventions, spanning microbiome-informed genomic selection, incorporation of methane traits into breeding indices, and selection of cattle type for beef production.

Microbiome-based selection shows particularly strong potential. Scottish research led by SRUC identified large within-breed variations in methane emissions, ranging from around 170 g/day to over 330 g/day, driven by heritable differences in rumen microbial gene abundance (SEFARI, 2025). Selection based on microbial genes was estimated to reduce methane emissions by around 3% of the trait mean per year and increase finishing value by around £23 per animal over a 12-week period. Experimental evidence supports this, with microbial genes explaining around 88% of the variation in feed conversion efficiency in steers (Roehe et al., 2016).

While some studies, like the above, suggest that these genetic pathways may also deliver productivity gains, quantitative evidence on productivity outcomes is limited. Most of the identified evidence reports emissions reductions only, with little or no estimation of associated performance improvements. For instance, Martínez-Álvaro, Auffret, et al. (2022) suggest microbiome-informed selection could reduce methane emissions by 7% to 17% per generation. This study notes that the same genetic traits reducing methane emissions may also improve feed efficiency; however, no quantifiable productivity impacts are provided. Similarly, another study suggests that selecting for reduced methane production is complementary to traditional breeding strategies focused on growth and efficiency traits (Martínez-Álvaro, Mattock, et al., 2022).

Breeding index modelling by Eory et al. (2020) estimated that incorporating methane traits into Scotland’s national breeding objectives could deliver annual mitigation of 0.116 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per beef animal, driven by correlating improvements in efficiency. Similarly, long-term modelling by Quinton et al. (2018) projected cumulative national emissions reductions of 5% to 9.5% over 20 years through sustained genetic progress in Ireland.

For interventions focusing on cattle selection, differences in cattle type were examined empirically by McGee et al. (2023), who found that bulls grew faster than steers (1.23 to 1.46 kg/day versus 1.00 to 1.28 kg/day), produced carcasses around 44 kg heavier, and achieved 8.7% lower emissions intensity, despite slightly higher emissions per head. Murphy et al. (2017) modelled consistent results across five production systems, with bulls potentially achieving higher lifetime growth and lower emissions intensity, at 8.5 to 8.9 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per kg carcass for bulls compared with 14.9 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per kg carcass for steers.

Overall, the evidence suggests breeding interventions can deliver durable reductions in emissions intensity while also improving feed efficiency, carcass output, and profitability, although productivity impacts are reported less consistently than emissions outcomes. However, given that greenhouse gas reductions are modelled rather than directly measured, these findings should be interpreted as indicative of relative improvements in emissions intensity rather than precise estimates of absolute reductions, which remain uncertain.

Economic impacts

This section summarises the indicative economic benefits resulting from the adoption of three stylised interventions identified in the literature under breeding and genetics:

1. replacing all steers to bulls
2. replacing all Aberdeen Angus to Limousin, and
3. increasing the cow replacement rate from 18% to 20%.

The estimations are based on quantitative evidence identified through the REA and reflect modelling undertaken by the authors of this report using this evidence. Although the literature identified further interventions within breeding and genetics, only these three were included in the modelling, as they were supported by adequate quantitative data on productivity and emissions impacts. Further details on the methodology can be found in Appendix A.

Among the interventions modelled under breeding and genetics, increasing cow replacement is estimated to deliver productivity gains of approximately £4.1 million per year and emissions benefits of £2.9 million per year. Replacing all steers with bulls is associated with estimated emissions benefits of £7.8 million per year and productivity improvements of £1.9 million per year. Replacing all Aberdeen Angus to Limousin is estimated to yield emissions benefits of £5.63 million and productivity gains of £1.13 million per year. These specific breeds were selected for the model because the literature identified in the REA provided the sufficient quantitative data and numerical estimates required to calculate these impacts. While this demonstrates significant potential, it is recognised that further work is required to achieve a comprehensive picture on the merits of breed selection.

The comparatively lower figures for the interventions targeting cattle type or breed reflect that these measures apply only to a subset of the total cattle population (22% and 19%, respectively), whereas increasing cow replacement rate would affect the entire herd. Notably, type and breed-specific interventions are estimated to generate proportionally greater benefits from emissions reductions than from productivity improvements, suggesting their primary impact is environmental rather than on output. Table 1 summarises the results. Note that these findings should be interpreted as indicative, with a number of caveats; further details on the limitations of the analysis are provided in Appendix A.

Table 1: Indicative economic benefits from reduced emissions intensity from selected breeding and genetics interventions. Source: McGee et al. (2023), 2 Roehe et al. (2016), 3 Taylor et al. (2020).

SWOT and PESTLE findings

We conducted two detailed analyses of the results:

• strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) and
• political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental

A summary of findings from these analyses is presented below, drawing on both stakeholder perspectives with insights from the literature. These provide a structured assessment of implementation strengths and weaknesses, external drivers and constraints, and wider policy, economic, and regulatory factors relevant to each intervention. A detailed write-up is provided in Appendix D.

SWOT analysis

Table 2: SWOT analysis for breeding and genetic initiatives

PESTLE analysis

Table 3: PESTLE analysis for breeding and genetic initiatives

Implementation support options

Stakeholders recommend investing in high-quality data collection for herd performance, genetics, and methane emissions to support effective mitigation. Expanding national datasets, like ScotEID MyHerdStats, and integrating regional initiatives, like the BES, into UK-wide infrastructure, is essential for creating consistent, long-term information on herd performance and genetics. This integrated approach would provide a user-friendly platform to combine livestock data with emissions measurements, ensuring more reliable monitoring and decision-making across the sector.

Accurate EBVs and breeding metrics depend on robust models and consistent, high-quality data, especially for subjective traits like calving ease and docility. Reliable data improves confidence in EBVs and supports better breeding decisions. Stakeholders also stressed the need for balanced breeding goals, warning against focusing too narrowly on KPIs and highlighting the importance of considering both reproduction and meat production to safeguard herd health.

Stakeholders emphasised that farmers need accessible tools and clear guidance to make informed breeding decisions. User-friendly platforms such as Herdwatch can turn complex data into practical insights, support benchmarking, and link supply chain information. However, tools must be tailored to Scottish systems, clearly demonstrate measurable benefits, and pose no risk to performance or profitability if they are to be widely adopted. Linking them with national datasets and incentive schemes could further encourage uptake and support genomic evaluation.

Improving access to technologies such as sexed semen, testing facilities, and advanced equipment is also essential, particularly in rural and island areas where availability remains uneven. Stakeholders highlighted the need for fair access, strong evidence of benefits, and clear communication. They also noted that competition from international breeding companies can drive innovation and encourage adoption of lower-emission breeding approaches, supporting long-term industry progress.

Evidence gaps and research priorities

Stakeholders stressed the need to rigorously test low-emission breeding strategies in real commercial herds. Much of the current evidence identified by the REA is based on pedigree animals or modelled averages, which may not reflect the range of climate, nutrition, and management conditions on typical farms. Sector-wide trials and adaptive on-farm testing, supported by appropriate risk compensation, would help ensure results are practical and avoid unintended consequences.

Most research focuses on emissions intensity, with limited evidence on long-term productivity. Traits such as growth, fertility, carcass quality, and economic returns are rarely tracked over multiple production cycles, leaving uncertainty about whole-farm impacts. Long-term monitoring is therefore essential to build confidence and demonstrate both environmental and performance outcomes.

Stakeholders also highlighted the value of balanced selection tools, such as EnviroBeef, which combine emissions, productivity, and welfare traits. Further research is needed on the role of genetics and the inherited gut microbiome in methane production. Improving the accuracy, accessibility, and usability of genomic evaluations and methane-related breeding values will be key to supporting informed decisions and sustained genetic progress.

Feeding, Nutrition, and Grazing Management

Overview

This intervention group involves optimising the quality, composition, and use of feed and forage resources to improve productivity and reduce methane emissions in beef production. This includes feed composition and dietary strategies, feed efficiency and utilisation, grazing systems and pasture management, and soil and land management. Intervention examples include starch-based diet, finishing diet strategy, grass-only versus grass plus concentrate supplementation, feed efficiency, rotational grazing, adaptive grazing, integrating legumes, and soil fertility and drainage.

Feeding, nutrition, and grazing interventions sit within a policy landscape where no mandatory requirements currently exist for feed choice or grazing strategy. Nevertheless, several measures align well with Scotland’s existing support programmes. The SBCS encourages practices such as increasing legumes in the sward, enhancing botanical diversity, and adopting rotational or paddock-based grazing, all of which were highlighted as having potential to reduce emissions while improving soil health and pasture resilience.

Interventions implemented in Scotland

Efforts from the Scottish Government and the beef production industry have supported the development of tools and programmes designed to reduce emissions while maintaining productivity through improved nutrition, feeding strategies, and grazing management.

Interventions implemented by the government

The Beef Efficiency Scheme (BES), in addition to its genetic component, requires participants to assess the whole-farm performance. The scheme involves carbon audits and identification of potential herd-level management improvements, such as changes in feeding strategies and forage utilisation.

The Preparing for Sustainable Farming programme, introduced in 2022, further strengthens this focus by providing financial support for farmers to undertake soil analysis and carbon audits (Scottish Government, 2023b). Improved soil fertility and grassland productivity can enhance forage utilisation and reduce reliance on purchased concentrates, contributing to both economic and environmental objectives.

In 2020, the Suckler Beef Climate Scheme (SBCS) was launched in Scotland. It was developed as a scheme to support farmers to adopt evidence-based practices to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions from suckler beef systems by improving soil and grassland management and enhancing on-farm efficiency (Scottish Government, 2020). Interventions include increasing legumes within the sward to replace synthetic nitrogen fertiliser, increasing botanical diversity to improve soil structure and resilience, and considering adopting either rotational or continuous grazing systems. Independent modelling of the scheme’s recommendations indicates a potential to cut farm-level carbon emissions by up to 37.6% (Bell et al., 2021).

Interventions implemented by industry

Industry bodies and research organisations have also played an important role in advancing feeding, nutrition, and grazing management practices across the Scottish beef sector. Quality Meat Scotland (QMS) launched the Better Grazing initiative in 2017, which supports farmers in identifying opportunities to improve their utilisation of grazed grass as a low-cost feed option and increase meat output per hectare (Quality Meat Scotland, 2017).

The Monitor Farm Scotland Programme is a farmer-led national initiative that supports improvements in the profitability, productivity, and sustainability of Scottish farm businesses. It is jointly managed by QMS and AHDB, with funding from the Scottish Government (Monitor Farm Scotland, 2026). The programme uses commercial host farms to trial and demonstrate best practice, such as rotational grazing systems. One case study farm reported a 30% increase in production and a £75,000 rise in sales between 2017 and 2019 after adopting rotational grazing, which increased livestock numbers and improved production efficiency (Monitor Farm Scotland, 2019).

The Strategic Research Programme is funded by the Scottish Government to support research across agriculture, environment, food and land use. Research delivered by SRUC and the SEFARI under this programme has included work on precision nutrition, examining how alternative forage and dietary strategies, such as the inclusion of white clover and high sugar or high lipid grasses, influence enteric methane emissions and overall system performance (Duthie et al., 2024). Findings indicate that feeding high lipid grasses can reduce methane emissions by around 37% per animal per day, while multispecies sward diets can achieve reductions of up to 15%.

GrassCheckGB is a UK-wide grassland monitoring initiative launched in 2019. It involves around 50 beef, sheep, and dairy farms that collect weekly measurements of grass growth, grass quality, and local weather conditions throughout the grazing season to support improved pasture management and utilisation (GrassCheck GB, 2022). By providing timely, high-quality grass growth and quality information, the project helps livestock producers make informed decisions on grazing, forage use, and grassland planning to drive productivity and sustainability in grass-based livestock systems.

Furthermore, the continued use of Agrecalc, a farm carbon calculator, allows producers to link specific feed rations to their greenhouse gas outputs, providing a clear metric for how nutritional improvements directly contribute to Scotland’s Net Zero targets.

Timeline

Figure 2 Timeline of feeding, nutrition, and grazing management initiatives implemented by the government and industry

Productivity and emissions impacts

Evidence and expert insight on feeding, nutrition, and grazing management show a varied but broadly encouraging potential to reduce emissions while supporting or improving productivity. The REA identified ten papers examining these interventions.

Concentrate supplementations

Integrating concentrate supplementation into the diet was frequently associated with improved productivity and reduced emissions intensity. For example, McGee et al. (2023) modelled 3.2 kg/day of concentrates for 97 days, increasing average daily gain (ADG) by 0.36 kg/day. At the system level, pasture-only management showed 4.1% higher GHG emissions intensity than supplemented systems. Supplementing male cattle only increased carcass weight per hectare by 8.1% and reduced emissions intensity by 10% (kg CO2e per kg carcass). However, the model assumed greater concentrate absorption efficiency, largely driving the methane reduction, meaning results may reflect model structure rather than measured performance.

In Scotland, Roehe et al. (2016) found steers fed high-concentrate diets consumed around 10% more dry matter but emitted approximately 30% less methane, due to improved rumen fermentation efficiency. This suggests methane reductions were linked to digestive efficiency rather than lower intake, though effects likely vary by system and diet.

Concentration volume and type also act as important confounding factors. Murphy et al. (2017) modelled finishing systems for bulls and found that continuous concentrate feeding was associated with 19% lower emissions intensity and 24.9% higher carcass output per hectare compared with supplemented pasture finishing. However, productivity gains in some systems rely on substantially higher feed inputs, which may offset emissions benefits.

Similarly, Taylor et al. (2020) modelled high- and low-average daily gain (ADG) systems. Higher ADG increased slaughter weight and profitability but also raised emissions per kilogram of output due to greater feed demand. When feed intake was held constant, higher ADG doubled productivity and reduced emissions by 3.9 kg CO2e per kg carcass. As a model-based study, these results depend heavily on built-in assumptions about intake and growth.

Overall, while concentrate supplementation often appears to improve productivity and reduce emissions intensity, caution has to be taken when analysing results as many findings are model-based and sensitive to assumptions. In addition, upstream emissions from concentrate production are not always clearly accounted for in whole-system comparisons.

Forage-based approaches

Forage-based approaches, such as increasing clover or other legumes within the sward, were consistently discussed as a route to reducing emissions, for example, by lowering the need for synthetic nitrogen fertiliser. While these measures were not cited as direct drivers of productivity, there is evidence that they can maintain or improve pasture yields and reduce input costs, thereby improving margins and lowering emissions intensity. For instance, Kearney et al. (2023) found that introducing clover into finishing diets increased net margin by between 13% and 25%, and reduced emissions intensity by between 4% and 8%.

Starch-based diets

Starch-based diets were also found to reduce enteric methane formation by 0.162 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per head per year at no additional cost, although the magnitude of the effect depends on the type and proportion of starch supplied (Eory et al., 2020). Feed additives such as 3-NOP were also viewed as effective in reducing methane, though cost remains a limiting factor for beef systems. Eory et al. (2020) found that feed additive 3-NOP could reduce emissions by 0.423 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per head in beef cattle.

Nitrate-based additives

Nitrate-based additives also demonstrated mitigation potential, but with greater performance variability and lower financial attractiveness. Richardson et al. (2019) reported results from two experiments. In the first, using a mixed forage concentrate diet for Charolais and Luing steers, nitrate reduced methane emissions from 25.1 to 20.6 g CH4/kg dry matter intake and lipid reduced methane emissions from 25.1 to 23.1 g/kg dry matter intake. In the second experiment, involving Aberdeen Angus × Limousin steers fed a single mixed basal diet, nitrate supplementation reduced methane emissions from 24.0 to 22.1 g of methane (CH4) per kg of dry matter intake, lipid supplementation reduced it to 23.4 g of methane (CH4) per kg of dry matter intake, and the combined treatment achieved the largest reduction at 20.9 g of methane (CH4) per kg of dry matter intake.

Grazing management

Grazing management was widely recognised as an important lever for reducing emissions and delivering broader environmental benefits. Evidence from Scotland suggests that improved sward management and legume inclusion can contribute to emissions reductions (Scottish Government, 2025c). For example, legume inclusion can reduce nitrate oxide emissions by up to 60% through lower fertiliser use (Jensen et al., 2011), while Bell et al. (2021) suggested that improved sward management can reduce emissions intensity by around 6.3%.

Evidence found also suggested that more intensive grazing systems are often more productive and generate lower emissions per unit of output. However, no single system consistently outperforms others once soil carbon sequestration is considered. Alemu et al. (2017) found that high continuous grazing systems produced between 30% to 46% more kilograms of carcass weight per hectare and emission intensity 7% to 9.2% lower than light continuous grazing. However, when soil sequestration was taken into account, emission intensity for light continuous grazing falls by between 12% to 25%, narrowing the differences between light and high continuous grazing systems.

Findings from Stanley et al. (2018) found that feedlot finishing achieved higher productivity than Adaptive Multi Paddock (AMP) grazing, with finishing completed 29.3 days sooner, double the average daily gain, and a carcass weight of 406 kg compared to 280 kg for AMP. Feedlots also had lower direct emissions intensity at 6.09 kg CO2e per kg carcass weight, versus 9.62 kg CO2e for AMP. However, AMP systems sequestered 3.59 Mg carbon per hectare per year, resulting in net emissions of −6.65 kg CO2e per kg carcass weight after accounting for soil carbon, compared to 6.12 kg CO2e for feedlots. These results indicate that including soil carbon can significantly change assessments of emissions performance. The study relied on IPCC model projections, where emissions are directly linked to growth. Consequently, emissions and growth always change together, so the models cannot determine if productivity improvements alone would reduce GHG emissions. Overall, the discussion suggested that feeding and grazing changes can make meaningful contributions to emissions reduction, but the scale and nature of benefits depend strongly on local conditions and implementation choices.

When studies rely on models, these models might use fixed, predefined relationships. This limits their ability to capture how emissions might respond independently to changes in management or productivity, reducing their usefulness for assessing potential environmental benefits of performance improvements in real-world settings.

Beyond the findings from individual case studies and programme evaluations, no further evidence was identified linking these feeding and grazing changes to wider, national-level improvements in the performance of Scotland’s herd. The available information focuses mainly on participating farms and projected outcomes, rather than whole-country data.

Economic impacts

This section summarises the indicative monetary benefits resulting from the adoption of four feeding, nutrition, and grazing management interventions identified in the literature:

1. supplementing male cattle diets with 3.2 kg DMI of concentrate,
2. providing bulls with an ad-libitum concentrate diet at finishing,
3. feeding steers a 92% concentrate diet, and
4. shifting from low continuous grazing to heavy continuous grazing.

The estimations are based on quantitative evidence identified through the REA and reflect modelling undertaken by the authors of this report using this evidence. Although other interventions were also identified in the literature, only these four were modelled, as they were supported by quantitative data suitable for estimating changes in emissions intensity, and, where available, productivity. Further details on the methodology can be found in Appendix A.

These estimates show that switching from a low to a heavy continuous grazing system would yield the largest benefits among those modelled in this intervention group, with productivity gains of approximately £100 million per year and emissions-related benefits of nearly £36 million per year. Notably, this is the only intervention in this set where productivity gains exceed the corresponding value of emissions reductions. Estimated annual emissions benefits range from around £9.6 million for moderate concentrate supplementation to approximately £5.0 million for steers and £2.8 million for bulls under higher-concentrate diets. Corresponding productivity benefits are estimated at £4.6 million for moderate supplementation, compared with £2.2 million for bulls receiving higher concentrate levels. Notably, the results do not suggest that increasing concentrate dosage delivers proportionately greater productivity or emissions improvements, indicating diminishing returns at higher levels of supplementation.

Although soil carbon sequestration can substantially influence the emissions impact of grazing interventions, our analysis focuses only on direct emissions. This aligns with the approach taken for all other interventions, which also model emissions intensity without accounting for sequestration.

As anticipated, the benefits associated with concentrate-based interventions are smaller in absolute terms, reflecting that these measures apply only to male cattle, which are estimated to account for around 26% of Scottish beef production. However, the scale of benefits is not proportional to population size alone, indicating that moving to heavy continuous grazing has a relatively strong effect on productivity and emissions outcomes for the cattle to which it is applied. It should be noted that, in our model, concentrate-based interventions are applied only to male cattle, as the evidence base in the literature is related exclusively to male cattle. Table 2 summarises these results.

Table 4: Indicative economic benefits from reduced emissions intensity from selected feeding, nutrition, and grazing interventions

Sources: McGee et al. (2023), 2 Murphy et al. (2017),3 Roehe et al. (2016), 4 Alemu et al. (2017).

SWOT and PESTLE findings

A summary of findings from the SWOT and PESTLE analyses is presented below, drawing on both stakeholder perspectives with insights from the literature. These provide a structured assessment of implementation strengths and weaknesses, external drivers and constraints, and wider policy, economic, and regulatory factors relevant to each intervention. A detailed write-up is provided in Appendix D.

SWOT analysis

Table 5: SWOT analysis for feeding, nutrition, and grazing interventions

PESTLE analysis

Table 6: PESTLE analysis for feeding, nutrition, and grazing interventions

Implementation support options

Stakeholders emphasised the need for targeted policy support to promote low-emission feeding and grazing practices, including subsidies for multi-species sward seeds, legume integration, and precision-feeding technologies. Stakeholders’ views differed on incentives: some considered subsidies essential, while others believed farmers should bear the costs to ensure proper valuation of inputs. External factors such as market conditions, prices, and feed availability were recognised as major influences on feeding decisions. Practical constraints in stratified systems, where not all farmers can change diets at every stage, were also noted. Stakeholders stressed the importance of considering the unintended consequences of dietary changes, particularly impacts on biodiversity and broader environmental outcomes.

Improving access to practical, low-cost tools for monitoring emissions from feeding and grazing was identified as a priority. Existing measurement methods are considered expensive and difficult to use, highlighting the need for simple digital tools that present emissions and productivity data in a format farmers can easily understand. Additional barriers to optimising feeding systems include limited agronomic advice, a lack of suitable seed, and the high cost of soil testing. Soil pH correction with lime was identified as a highly effective but underused solution, largely because it is not seen as innovative or new.

Stakeholders discussed mitigation options, including authorised feed additives such as Bovaer. However, adoption remains limited due to cost, social licence concerns, and restricted applicability in beef systems. Feed efficiency was also connected to breeding objectives, with interest in selecting animals that produce more with less feed. This highlights the value of win-win solutions across intervention categories.

Evidence gaps and research priorities

Stakeholders identified a need for further research on diet composition and feed efficiency. Key priorities are evaluating starch-based finishing diets, grass-only systems, and forage-concentrate combinations, as well as clarifying how diet-related methane outcomes vary with genetics, animal type, and starch levels. Stakeholders also noted that grass quality varies significantly between years and that methane emissions are typically estimated rather than directly measured, making it difficult to separate nutritional from genetic effects. Additional research is required to understand how feed-efficiency traits relate to breeding, such as selecting cattle with lower feed intake per unit of growth.

Further research is needed on the rumen microbiome and its relationship with diet. Experts noted the challenge of separating dietary effects from genetic influences, as dietary changes and microbial shifts are closely connected. There is interest in whether the microbiome can predict diet-driven methane emissions, since microbial analysis offers the most accurate measure of methane output. Stakeholders also stressed the importance of exploring ways to manipulate rumen flora, especially methanogenic archaea, because dietary strategies or supplements that reduce these populations may directly lower emissions. Reducing methane-producing microbes may also improve productivity by conserving more energy for the animal.

Stakeholders emphasised the need for research on pasture and land management, including mixed swards, legumes, and herbal leys. While some soil data has been collected, it remains underutilised. Further research is needed to clarify the effects on forage quality, fertiliser use, and sustainable grazing. Stakeholders also identified knowledge gaps in emerging production systems, such as mob grazing, especially regarding their impact on methane emissions. Improved understanding of the interactions among genetics, diet, environment, and grazing practices would support the development of more efficient, lower-emission systems.

Lifetime productivity

Overview

This intervention involved maximising productive output over an animal’s lifetime to improve efficiency and reduce methane emissions in beef production. This involves reproductive efficiency, growth and development management, and finishing strategies to reduce unproductive days and enhance overall system performance. Intervention examples include calving intervals, age of slaughter, age at first calving, rearing efficiency, and finishing age.

Calving interval, calving rate, and age at slaughter are key metrics that align closely with Scotland’s agricultural support frameworks. The Scottish Suckler Beef Support Scheme (SSBSS) uses the 410-day calving interval requirement as a minimum fertility standard, providing a clear benchmark for herd performance within coupled support. These measures are also recognised in the SBCS, where calving interval, calving rate, and earlier slaughter age act as levers to improve herd management, reduce emissions intensity, and enhance technical efficiency.

Interventions implemented in Scotland

The Scottish Government and industry stakeholders have supported several interventions and research programmes and tools with the aim of improving reproductive and finishing efficiency in the beef production sector.

Interventions implemented by the government

A major initiative is the Scottish Suckler Beef Support Scheme (SSBSS) that provides financial support to farmers who produce calves. From 2025, the scheme incorporated a calving interval condition requiring calves to be born to dams with a calving interval of 410 or less. This measure was designed to improve reproductive efficiency by reducing the inter-calving intervals and lowering the feed emissions required per unit of breed produced (Scottish Government, 2025c).

Historically, the Beef Efficiency Scheme (BES) laid the groundwork for these metrics by requiring participants to record weaning weights and daily liveweight gains, creating a massive dataset for rearing efficiency. The foundational Cattle Tracing System (CTS) provides the longitudinal birth-to-death records necessary to benchmark finishing ages at a national scale. By monitoring these specific dates, the government can track the industry’s transition toward a faster, more efficient lifecycle that aligns with national climate mandates.

Interventions implemented by industry

Industry and research bodies have complemented government efforts through data-driven tools, benchmarking studies, and applied research. The ScotEID platform and the MyHerdStats tool automatically pull data from birth, movement, and death registrations to provide farmers with automated reports on their age at first calving and average age at slaughter.

The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB) manages the National Beef Evaluations database, which calculates estimated breeding values (EBVs) for traits such as age at first calving, days to slaughter, and other performance indicators that affect rearing efficiency and finishing age. Since 2022, this database has also included maternal EBVs for age at first calving, productive lifespan, and calf survival, supporting selection for improved reproductive performance across the national herd. The EnviroBeef index, published in 2025, includes days-to-slaughter EVBs, which allows producers to genetically select animals that reach target weights faster, which in turn improves finishing age.

QMS long-term genetic trend data (2003–2023) shows that targeted industry promotion of EBVs has improved the national average for “days to slaughter” from 9.11 days above the mean to 7 below the UK baseline, a shift that directly correlates with lower lifetime methane emissions per animal. Similarly, the genetic trend for age at first calving improved from 3.14 days above the mean to 7.82 days below it. This shift toward earlier calving increases lifetime output and reduces the total greenhouse gas emissions attributed to each calf produced. Additionally, calving intervals maintained an overall trend toward improved reproductive health. By optimising the time between births, producers can increase total offspring per cow, which effectively lowers the environmental impact per unit of beef (QMS, 2025).

Timeline

Figure 3: Timeline of lifetime productivity interventions initiatives by the government and industry

Productivity and emissions impacts

This section draws on evidence from the literature and our economic modelling to describe the impacts of calving systems and age at slaughter on emissions intensity and productivity in beef systems. The REA identified five papers examining these interventions. Evidence from the literature and stakeholder insight indicates that reducing calving intervals, increasing calving rates, and lowering slaughter ages can reduce emissions intensity, assuming the total cattle population remains constant.

It is worth noting that all estimates of emissions intensity in the identified literature for these interventions are based on modelling. The main models used are the ADAS/SRUC Smart Inventory model and the BEEF Systems GHG emissions model, which simulate emissions reductions under different farming practices. As such, estimates are derived from fixed, predefined relationships incorporated in these models, which is an important consideration when interpreting the results.

Calving systems

Shorter calving intervals and higher calving rates improve biological efficiency by reducing non-productive days and increasing output from the existing herd, which lowers emissions per kilogram of carcass. At the same time, these measures can deliver productivity gains by increasing total carcass output. However, where improvements in fertility or herd performance led to an increase in the number of animals, total emissions may rise even as emissions intensity falls.

In Scotland, analysis of national Cattle Tracing System data shows that suckler herds have average calving intervals of around 400 days, above the 365-day benchmark. It was found that reducing the national mean calving interval by five days was estimated to cut emissions by 12.5 kt of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year, equivalent to 39 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per cow (Thomson et al., 2023). Reflecting this evidence, from 2025, cows must achieve a calving interval of 410 days or less for their calves to qualify for payments under the Scottish Suckler Beef Support Scheme, explicitly linking agricultural support to reproductive efficiency and national emissions reduction objectives (Scottish Government, 2025c).

Modelling from Ireland further shows that increasing calving rates from 75% to 85% reduces emissions intensity through a strong dilution effect, with each one percentage point increase lowering emissions intensity by 0.04 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per kg carcass, despite higher total emissions as output expands (Taylor et al., 2020).

Age of slaughter

Evidence also shows that reducing slaughter age can deliver substantial emissions intensity reductions through faster turnover and improved lifetime efficiency. Murphy et al. (2017) found that emissions intensity increased from 8.9 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per kg carcass at 15 months to 14.9 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per kg carcass at 24 months, with emissions per animal rising sharply with slaughter age, although intermediate systems achieved stronger economic performance.

Kearney et al. (2023) modelled a range of slaughter age scenarios and found that earlier slaughter increased the number of cattle finished per hectare by 22% and carcass output per hectare by 8% compared with later slaughter, while reducing emissions intensity by 3% to 7% in pasture-based systems. In suckler beef systems, finishing at 22 months rather than 30 months reduced emissions intensity from 31.6 to 23.5 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per kg carcass and increased gross margin from €155 to €373 per hectare, although total emissions per hectare increased due to higher throughput (Taylor et al., 2020).

The evidence shows that improving reproductive performance and reducing age at slaughter can deliver substantial reductions in emissions intensity alongside productivity gains, although the impact on total emissions depends on whether higher efficiency leads to increased animal numbers or throughput.

Economic impacts

This section summarises the indicative economic benefits resulting from the reduction of slaughter age by an average of three months.

The estimations are based on quantitative evidence identified through the REA and reflect modelling undertaken by the authors of this report using this evidence. Although other interventions under this intervention area were identified in the literature, only this was modelled as it was supported by quantitative data suitable for estimating changes in emissions and productivity. Further details on the methodology can be found in Appendix A.

We estimate that reducing slaughter age by an average of three months could generate approximately £38.6 million per year in productivity gains and £33.6 million per year from reduced emissions. Although no other lifetime productivity interventions were modelled, these benefits rank as the second highest among all interventions considered, exceeded only by switching from low to heavy continuous grazing. Notably, productivity improvements exceeding emissions reduction are observed only for this intervention and for heavy continuous grazing and calving replacement rate. Table 3 summarises these results.

Table 7: Indicative economic benefits for the Scottish economy and emissions benefits from reduced emissions intensity from reducing the age of slaughter

Sources: Kearney et al. (2023), Taylor et al. (2020), Murphy et al. (2017)

SWOT and PESTLE findings

A summary of findings from the SWOT and PESTLE analyses is presented below, drawing on both stakeholder perspectives with insights from the literature. These provide a structured assessment of implementation strengths and weaknesses, external drivers and constraints, and wider policy, economic, and regulatory factors relevant to each intervention. A detailed write-up is provided in Appendix D.

SWOT analysis

Table 8: SWOT analysis for lifetime productivity initiatives

PESTLE analysis

Table 9: PESTLE analysis for lifetime productivity initiatives

Implementation support options

Stakeholders highlighted several forms of implementation support that could be considered by the Scottish Government. Stakeholders emphasised the need for government funding and infrastructure to improve lifetime productivity, including bull fertility testing, cow health checks, better handling facilities, and comprehensive herd health programmes. Expanding access to integrated data and decision-making platforms was also seen as a priority to support farmers’ voluntary improvements. Tools like ScotEID could connect reproductive and finishing data to provide benchmarks, monitor unproductive days and emission reductions, and support more informed herd management.

Market-driven incentives and industry collaboration are important. Partnering with meat processors to reward efficient finishing ages may increase voluntary adoption. Financial incentives tied to measurable improvements in carcass quality and PGI compliance can encourage farmers to optimise herd performance. Clear, consistent guidance from industry bodies will also help reduce confusion and support best practice.

Training and knowledge exchange were highlighted to support voluntary adoption. Clear guidance on calving interval data and peer-led demonstrations can help farmers interpret averages, outliers, and optimal performance. Stakeholders noted that slaughter age is the simplest metric to track, but unclear thresholds and indicators can cause confusion about when interventions are needed.

Stakeholders emphasised that slaughter-age strategies should identify the optimal age for each system, rather than applying a single target. Given varying production systems and market needs, a flexible approach, such as gradual reduction or the use of genetics to determine optimal age, is preferable. This supports production cycles, market demands, and farm management while minimising risks to profitability and product quality.

Evidence gaps and research priorities

Stakeholders identified a need for further research on how calving intervals affect methane emissions and herd efficiency, emphasising the importance of reducing non-productive days while maintaining cow health. Improving reproductive efficiency requires a closer look at both cow and bull health, as underlying issues can impact results. For example, some bulls with normal semen quality still fail to achieve pregnancies, with infertility affecting an estimated 30% of bulls (figure reported by stakeholders).

Additional research is needed to determine the optimal slaughter age across different production systems, carcass types, and markets to improve efficiency without compromising product quality. Stakeholders noted that relying on a single trait, such as slaughter age, can lead to unintended consequences and emphasised the role of genetics in optimising slaughter age across systems without affecting performance.

Overall economic benefits across all intervention groups

This chapter considers the total productivity and emissions benefits across the three policy scenarios: breeding and genetics, feeding, nutrition and grazing management, and lifetime productivity. This results in total estimated productivity benefits of £150 million per year and emissions-related benefits of £100 million per year, which together sum to £250 million annually, expressed in 2025 prices. A summary of these results is shown in table 10, which brings together the estimates from the preceding chapters. Further detail on the methodology is in Appendix A.

Table 10: Economic benefits across all intervention groups

Source: Alma Economics calculations.

These estimates assume that interventions are implemented independently and that their effects are additive. They should therefore be interpreted as indicative of the potential scale of benefits rather than precise forecasts. In practice, interactions between interventions, including complementarities or trade-offs, may arise and are not captured in this analysis.

We estimated the Gross Value Added (GVA) of the Scottish beef sector using Quality Meat Scotland’s estimate that the red meat sector contributed £1.05 billion in 2024, combined with Scottish Government data indicating that beef accounts for around 59% of finished livestock output (Quality Meat Scotland, 2025; Scottish Government, 2025d). On this basis, the GVA of the Scottish beef sector is estimated at approximately £620 million.

In this way, value for money is evidenced as the estimated benefits represent around 40% of the sector’s GVA. It is therefore unlikely that the costs of the programme would be of a similar magnitude.

Future research and implementation priorities

While the three intervention categories presented in this report were identified as having the strongest evidence base and considered most feasible and strategically relevant in a Scottish context, this research also highlighted several cross-cutting priorities that require further attention. These include both areas for future research to address remaining evidence gaps and considerations for implementation support that policymakers should factor when designing next steps.

Priorities for future research

This section summarises the key evidence gaps identified across the literature and stakeholder engagement, highlighting key areas for future research that are not specific to individual intervention categories. These gaps constrain the robustness of current assessments of productivity and emissions reduction outcomes in Scotland’s beef and dairy sector and therefore represent important considerations for future policy development. It should also be noted that, in light of these evidence gaps, future policy intervention is also likely to contribute to the ongoing development of the evidence base alongside delivery. This may involve some uncertainty around initial effectiveness, requiring policies to be monitored and refined over time in response to emerging evidence generated alongside implementation.

Overarching evidence gaps

Across the evidence base, the lack of long-term data was a persistent limitation. From the list of 26 papers read in full, 17 studies relied on short-duration trials or cross-sectional data. This may constrain our understanding of how interventions affect behavioural, environmental, and social outcomes over time, including impacts on farms, animals, and emissions. Similarly, there was limited evidence to support sustained monitoring for policy development. This reflects the absence of a long-term data collection infrastructure that would enable policymakers to track progress, recalibrate assumptions, and respond to emerging risks. Social and economic outcomes are also underrepresented, particularly in relation to labour requirements and farmer decision-making, underscoring the need for longitudinal research under real-world farm conditions.

Data quality and comparability presented further challenges. Firstly, studies used diverse methodologies. Some measured methane directly (e.g., respiration chambers) while others relied on emission estimates from feed intake or IPCC emission factors, which may overestimate emissions. Additionally, differences in measurement periods, modelling assumptions, and treatment of confounding variables made synthesis difficult. Key factors, including post-farm emissions, soil carbon changes, labour inputs, and weather variability, were also often excluded. Standardising measures of interest could improve comparability and, therefore, the selection of preferred policy options.

The evidence also provided limited insight into causal pathways. The majority of studies report associations between interventions, productivity, and methane emissions. However, some studies employed limited or less robust evaluation methods, making it difficult to establish a clear causality of impact. Greater robustness of methods would be required to investigate causality further, ideally in a real-world setting, to ensure validity and applicability in Scotland.

Finally, we still lack clear evidence on who bears the costs and who benefits from these interventions. Few studies examined how impacts vary by farm type, size, or region, or how interventions affect different actors across the supply chain. While international frameworks, such as the IPCC, provide standard methods for estimating emissions and comparing results across countries, these frameworks also rely on assumptions about climate, farm systems, and management that do not necessarily reflect Scottish farming conditions.

As a result, we need more locally grounded research to inform context-specific policy design that considers the farm types, sizes, and regions specific to Scotland. In addition, the literature is heavily weighted towards dairy systems, leaving a relative lack of evidence for beef production systems. These gaps have important implications for the equity, targeting, and effectiveness of strategies aimed at improving productivity and reducing methane emissions across Scotland’s livestock sector.

Overarching findings on future research needs

This research identifies several potential priorities for future research:

1. Collect data from real-world farms: Future research should prioritise long-term, on-farm trials conducted under real-world conditions, particularly within Scotland, rather than relying primarily on controlled experiments or modelling. Collecting data from commercial farms may help to capture variability in weather, labour, markets, management practices, systems, breeds, and regional conditions. Furthermore, studies should assess both environmental outcomes, such as methane emissions, as well as key productivity indicators, including growth, fertility, health, carcass traits, and profitability. Providing robust, Scotland-specific, real-world evidence will help farmers understand the full effects of interventions, identify which approaches work best under different conditions, and reduce the risk of unintended consequences, supporting confident adoption.
   
2. Prioritise long-term, standardise data collection, monitoring, and evaluation: Future research should focus on establishing consistent data standards and longitudinal monitoring systems to track farm performance over multiple years. By aligning definitions, collection methods, and timeframes, the industry can improve comparability across studies and build a robust evidence base. Key indicators—such as growth rates, fertility, feed efficiency, and emissions—must be monitored consistently to reveal whether intervention effects are sustained or subject to trade-offs over time. Currently, inconsistent data storage and fragmented datasets limit confidence in results and hinder decision-making. Developing integrated, long-term systems for sharing data would reduce duplication and provide stakeholders with the accurate, comprehensive information needed to benchmark performance. Ultimately, these systems support policymakers in refining evidence-based strategies and help farmers build trust in the long-term efficacy of low-emission practices.
   
3. Assess distributional impacts: Future research should examine how intervention impacts vary across different farm types, sizes, and regions. Farmers operate under diverse conditions, and interventions may affect them differently depending on land, herd characteristics, local climate, soils, and forage quality. For instance, regional evidence comparing emissions and productivity across upland, lowland, island, and mixed farms will enable more tailored, context-specific findings rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.
   
4. Consider barriers to adoption: Research should also explore the practical constraints farmers encounter when implementing interventions, including cost, time, and uncertainty about outcomes. This could help inform the design of targeted support, guidance, and incentive mechanisms alongside any future policy options. Understanding these differences may also help to identify any inequities in costs, benefits, and barriers on the ground, including who gains or who may face additional implementation challenges, as well as how to design fair and effective policies.
   
5. Strengthen evidence from beef systems: Most existing research on livestock interventions has focused on dairy farms, leaving gaps in understanding for beef systems. Future studies should examine how feeding, grazing, and management interventions perform specifically in beef herds. This will help ensure that findings are relevant and practical across the wider livestock sector. Strengthening evidence for beef systems will help farmers make more informed decisions and support targeted, effective productivity and emissions-reduction strategies.
   

Potential policy interventions

This section summarises the key priorities for implementation support identified through the literature review and stakeholder engagement, focusing on cross-cutting considerations and enabling infrastructure that would support implementation across intervention categories. Addressing these priorities would ensure that future interventions are feasible, effectively adopted, and capable of delivering the intended productivity and methane reduction outcomes in Scotland’s beef and dairy sectors.

Overarching evidence gaps

Much of the available evidence is drawn from international studies, meaning that further work is required to confirm its applicability to Scotland. In particular, there is limited evidence on whether the productivity and emissions outcomes reported in the literature can be achieved under Scottish farming conditions, or how these interventions would operate in practice across different systems and regions.

There is also limited evidence on how interventions interact when implemented together. The literature largely assessed measures in controlled or isolated settings, whereas in practice, farmers may adopt multiple interventions simultaneously. As a result, combined impacts on productivity, emissions, costs, labour requirements, biodiversity, or wider GHG emissions remain poorly understood. Without this evidence, there is a risk that policies aimed at reducing methane could generate unintended knock-on effects in other areas. This gap is particularly important given that effective policy is likely to depend on combinations of interventions rather than single measures, with explicit acknowledgement of potential trade-offs between productivity and emissions reduction.

Further evidence gaps relate to the practical requirements for implementation on the ground. Existing studies provide limited insight into how differences in farm size, geography, infrastructure, and management capacity influence the feasibility and effectiveness of interventions. There is also further evidence needed on how Scottish farmers access, interpret, and use information and decision-making tools, or how guidance can best be delivered to build confidence and support uptake. Addressing these gaps will require a stronger understanding of how knowledge, tools, and support systems function across the wider sector, including the roles of industry collaboration, supply-chain coordination, and farmer-led innovation in driving longer-term behavioural and cultural change within the beef and dairy sectors.

Options for implementation support

1. Consider interactions of multiple policy options, with the mix being tailored to the needs of farmers: Policy development should recognise that achieving low-emission outcomes will likely require a combination of interventions rather than a single measure. Effective policies need clearly defined objectives, acknowledging potential trade-offs between productivity and GHG reductions, and should guide farmers toward low-emission practices while allowing flexibility for farm-specific solutions. For example, setting clear methane-reduction targets and allowing farmers to choose how best to achieve them enables different cattle-rearing systems and sectors (e.g., beef versus dairy) to find bespoke pathways. Targets could be gradually ramped over years to decades, with government support, such as grants for measurement equipment, helping producers adapt. This approach encourages innovation and private investment without requiring the government to select specific technologies or interventions, while still driving progress toward policy objectives.
   
2. Enhance access to tools, technology, and decision support: The role of the Scottish Government in supporting implementation could be explored further. Future support could prioritise practical, user-friendly tools that clearly present information and help farmers understand the potential impacts of different management decisions. Many existing tools are complex, requiring time and expertise to interpret, which can deter adoption. Tools that integrate with national datasets and allow farmers to test management scenarios and producers to benchmark their performance could improve consistency, strengthen productivity, and reduce methane emissions. In addition, access to practical infrastructure and technologies, such as genomic testing, sexed semen, feed and diagnostic tools, handling facilities, and grazing equipment, is limited, particularly in rural and island areas. Expanding access to these resources would enable farmers to make more informed decisions, support the adoption of low-emission practices, and ensure progress is maintained across different regions and production systems.
   
3. Provide clear, practical guidance and training: Future support should prioritise providing credible, industry-led guidance that supports voluntary farmer engagement. The stakeholder engagement conducted for this study indicated that farmers are more likely to adopt new practices when advice is clear, relevant, and delivered by trusted sources. It was also advised that future support should focus on knowledge and training, covering areas such as breeding strategies, genetic technologies, grazing management, feed planning, and reproductive efficiency. Trials and training should also demonstrate clear, measurable benefits for farmers beyond emissions reduction, including productivity, fertility, animal health, meat quality, and profitability. This evidence can help farmers make informed decisions and assess how low-emission practices fit their business needs, building confidence and encouraging effective adoption.
   
4. Consider unintended consequences of interventions: Policies should be designed with caution to avoid negative knock-on effects in other areas. For instance, reducing methane emissions alone may inadvertently increase other GHGs, such as carbon dioxide, resulting in potentially negative net climate benefits. Practices that reduce methane but require more frequent cattle movement or trading over long distances could also raise carbon dioxide emissions. Changes to feeding systems may similarly impact the environment and biodiversity, and interventions that are difficult to measure carry additional risks. Ensuring a holistic assessment of impacts across environmental, social, and economic dimensions is essential when promoting low-emission practices, particularly where evidence may be lacking.
   
5. Strengthen industry collaboration and knowledge exchange: Future support should encourage closer collaboration across the livestock sector to support the adoption of low-emission practices. According to the stakeholders engaged, the beef sector could learn from more data-driven areas, such as dairy, to accelerate the uptake of breeding innovations and management strategies. Improved communication along the supply chain was also emphasised, with inconsistent messaging causing confusion for farmers, for example, regarding eligibility criteria for schemes like the SSBSS. Clear, consistent guidance from processors, retailers, and industry bodies would build trust, reduce uncertainty, and encourage wider adoption of low-emission interventions.
   
6. Engage the next generation of farmers: Engaging younger and early-career farmers could help accelerate the adoption of low-emission practices across the livestock sector. Empowering these farmers with skills, training, and opportunities to participate in innovation enables them to act as “change agents,” sharing new ideas, influencing peers, and embedding good practice as they move into leadership roles. Strengthening next-generation involvement can therefore contribute to long-term cultural change and sustained progress towards lower-emission farming.
   

Conclusion

This research examines the current state of evidence on genetic and performance improvements in the beef sector over the past decade, with a particular focus on their potential to improve productivity and reduce methane emissions in Scotland.

Based on this evidence, three broad groups of interventions were identified, selected for having the strongest evidence for improving productivity and reducing methane emissions, while also considering feasibility, strategic relevance, and alignment with the research questions. The interventions are:

1. Breeding and genetics
   
2. Feeding, nutrition, and grazing management (combining “feeding and nutrition management” and “land and pasture management”)
   
3. Lifetime productivity (combining “calving systems” and “age of slaughter”)
   

We identified evidence that these interventions have the potential to reduce emissions while maintaining and enhancing the resilience and productivity of the beef and dairy sectors. However, we also identified limitations in the quality of evidence, which could constrain the applicability of the results to Scotland. For example, we found a few Scottish examples of evaluated interventions. This meant that our evidence review was expanded to cover evidence from other “comparable” developed economies and, therefore, may be less relevant to Scotland. We also found evaluations were limited in the robustness of their methodology, with very few offering proper consideration of a counterfactual. Capturing longer-term impacts was also limited, reflected by limited monitoring data. There was little evidence on the implementation costs of the intervention.

If these interventions were implemented to some degree in Scotland, our indicative economic modelling indicates that annual benefits of around £250 million could be generated, expressed in 2025 prices. This includes approximately £150 million per year in productivity gains and £100 million per year in reduced GHG emissions intensity (this contextualised roughly a result of c.17% improvement in beef productivity, for an industry worth £620m). These results should be treated as indicative, as they are based on a stylised selection of interventions being implemented, recognising that further work will be required to assess the feasibility of implementation in Scotland and the extent to which the benefits outlined in the evidence base can be achieved in practice.

For most interventions, the largest contributions to the total benefits come from reductions in emissions, except for:

1. Breeding and genetics
2. Feeding, nutrition, and grazing management(combining “feeding and nutrition management” and “land and pasture management”)
3. Lifetime productivity (combining “calving systems” and “age of slaughter”)

Heavy continuous grazing was the individual intervention estimated to have the greatest impact, with productivity gains of approximately £100 million per year and emissions reductions of £36 million per year. Across all interventions, average annual benefits per individual intervention were estimated at approximately £22 million from productivity and £13 million from emissions. Once grazing is excluded, these averages fall to £8.7 million and £10 million, respectively.

While it was not possible to estimate cost of implementation at this stage, the c.17% of productivity improvements per year would indicate that implementation costs would need exceed 17% of industry GVA per year for implementation to not be value for money. Given this is probably an unlikely scale, it is concluded that the implementation of these interventions would likely be value for money.

These policies provide a starting point for future policymaking, highlighting the interventions with the strongest evidence. However, before further implementation, several areas require additional consideration, including the applicability of international evidence to Scottish conditions, the potential interactions between multiple interventions, and the practical requirements for effective implementation.

This research highlights the need for long-term, real-world data from Scottish farms to support evidence-based policymaking and demonstrate the sustained benefits of low-emission practices. By improving data standards and monitoring across different regions and farm types, the sector can better understand trade-offs, costs, and barriers to adoption, ultimately building greater industry confidence. Given these evidence gaps, establishing continuous data collection systems is essential for the timely refinement of policy; this allows for an adaptive approach where interventions are iteratively adjusted in response to emerging evidence generated during implementation.

References

AFN Network+ (2024) ‘Breeding better beef and sheep: co-designed breeding strategies to achieve net zero (2024)’, AFN Network+. Available at: https://www.agrifood4netzero.net/funding/funded-projects/funded-scoping-study-projects/breeding-better-beef-and-sheep-co-designed-breeding-strategies-to-achieve-net-zero-2/ (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

Agriculture and Food Development Authority (no date) ‘Finishing Holstein Friesian dairy beef steers’, Teagasc | Agriculture and Food Development Authority. Available at: https://teagasc.ie/animals/beef/dairy-calf-to-beef/dairybeef-500/dairybeef-500-factsheets/finishing-holstein-friesian-dairy-beef-steers/ (Accessed: 6 December 2025).

AHDB (2025) Feed prices and markets. Available at: https://ahdb.org.uk/dairy/feed-prices-and-markets (Accessed: 6 December 2025).

AHDB (no date a) Beef markets. Available at: https://ahdb.org.uk/beef/beef-markets (Accessed: 6 December 2025).

AHDB (no date b) EnviroBeef | AHDB. Available at: https://ahdb.org.uk/envirobeef (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

AHDB (no date c) Veal market in the UK. Available at: https://virtualbeefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/prime/media/specifications/Veal.pdf.

Alemu, A.W. et al. (2017) ‘Assessment of grazing management on farm greenhouse gas intensity of beef production systems in the Canadian Prairies using life cycle assessment’, Agricultural Systems, 158, pp. 1–13. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.08.003.

Bell, J. et al. (2021) Suckler Beef Climate Change Group – Farm Carbon Case Studies. The Scottish Government. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/suckler-beef-climate-scheme-research-papers/ (Accessed: 3 December 2025).

Cabinet Secretary of Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands (2025) Results from the Scottish Agricultural Census: June 2025. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/results-from-the-scottish-agricultural-census-june-2025/pages/continuing-decline-in-cattle-numbers/ (Accessed: 6 December 2025).

Department for Energy Security & Net Zero and Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (2021) Valuation of greenhouse gas emissions: for policy appraisal and evaluation, GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/valuing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-policy-appraisal/valuation-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-for-policy-appraisal-and-evaluation (Accessed: 6 December 2025).

Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (2025) Monthly UK statistics on cattle, sheep and pig slaughter and meat production– statistics notice (data to October 2025), GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/cattle-sheep-and-pig-slaughter/monthly-uk-statistics-on-cattle-sheep-and-pig-slaughter-and-meat-production-statistics-notice-data-to-october-2025 (Accessed: 6 December 2025).

Duthie, C.-A. et al. (2024) ‘Routes to Reduce Methane Emissions from Livestock Systems’.

Eory, V. et al. (2020) ‘Marginal abatement cost curve for Scottish agriculture’. Scotland’s Rural College. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7488/ERA/755.

Fortier, S. et al. (2025) ‘Environmental impacts associated with the removal of productivity-enhancing technologies from three different beef steer post-weaning management systems’, Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 105, pp. 1–20. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1139/cjas-2024-0155.

GrassCheck GB (2022) ABOUT – GrassCheck GB. Available at: https://www.grasscheckgb.co.uk/about (Accessed: 17 February 2026).

Jensen, E. et al. (2011) ‘Legumes for mitigation of climate change and the provision of feedstock for biofuels and biorefineries. A review’, Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 32. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-011-0056-7.

Kearney, M. et al. (2023) ‘Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in pasture-based dairy-beef production systems’, Agricultural Systems, 211, p. 103748. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103748.

Life Sciences in Scotland (2019) Scottish Government extends genomics partnership with Neogen, Life Sciences Scotland. Available at: https://www.lifesciencesscotland.com/news/scottish-government-extends-genomics-partnership-neogen (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

Martínez-Álvaro, M., Auffret, M.D., et al. (2022) ‘Bovine host genome acts on rumen microbiome function linked to methane emissions’, Communications Biology, 5(1), p. 350. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-022-03293-0.

Martínez-Álvaro, M., Mattock, J., et al. (2022) ‘Microbiome-driven breeding strategy potentially improves beef fatty acid profile benefiting human health and reduces methane emissions’, Microbiome, 10(1), p. 166. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-022-01352-6.

McGee, M. et al. (2023) ‘Pasture-finishing of late-maturing bulls or steers in a suckler calf-to-beef system: Animal production, meat quality, economics, greenhouse gas emissions and human-edible food-feed efficiency’, Agricultural Systems, 209, p. 103672. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103672.

Miller, G.A. et al. (2023) Existing and near-to-market methane reducing feed additives and technologies: Evidence of Efficacy, Regulatory Pathways to Market and Mechanisms to Incentivise Adoption.

Monitor Farm Scotland (2019) Rotational Grazing Theme Report. Available at: https://www.monitorfarms.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/281119_rotational_grazing_theme_report_sm-kb1.pdf.

Monitor Farm Scotland (2026) Monitor Farms | Monitor Farms Scotland, Monitor Farms. Available at: https://www.monitorfarms.co.uk/ (Accessed: 17 February 2026).

Moxey, A. (2020) ‘Estimated Suckler Beef Climate Scheme effects within the National GHG “Smart” Inventory’.

Murphy, B. et al. (2017) ‘An economic and greenhouse gas emissions evaluation of pasture-based dairy calf-to-beef production systems’, Agricultural Systems, 154, pp. 124–132. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.03.007.

Pritchard, T. and Wall, E. (2019) Beef Feed Efficiency Final Milestone Report. Available at: https://projectblue.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/Research%20Papers/Beef%20&%20Lamb/61100002%20Final%20Report%20Mar%202020.pdf.

QMS (2025) 20 Years of Genetic Gain: Building a More Efficient Scottish Beef Herd. Available at: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/quality-meat-scotland/documents/Red-Meat-Topic-Sheet-20-Years-of-Genetic-Gain-Building-a-More-Efficient-Scottish-Beef-Herd.pdf.

Quality Meat Scotland (2017) New “Better Grazing” Initiative Launched by QMS, QMS. Available at: https://qmscotland.co.uk/news/new-better-grazing-initiative-launched-qms (Accessed: 17 February 2026).

Quality Meat Scotland (2021) Scotch Beef PGI Traceability and Project. Available at: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/quality-meat-scotland/documents/Industry/Scottish-Beef-PGI-Traceability-Summary-Document.pdf.

Quality Meat Scotland (2025) Resilience of Scotland’s Red Meat Sector Highlighted in New Industry Report, QMS. Available at: https://qmscotland.co.uk/news/resilience-of-scotlands-red-meat-sector-highlighted-in-new-industry-report (Accessed: 10 December 2025).

Quinton, C.D. et al. (2018) ‘Prediction of effects of beef selection indexes on greenhouse gas emissions’, Animal, 12(5), pp. 889–897. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731117002373.

Ricardo Energy & Environment (2020) ‘Establishing a manure/slurry exchange in Scotland’, ClimateXChange, June. Available at: https://www.climatexchange.org.uk/projects/establishing-a-manure-slurry-exchange-in-scotland/ (Accessed: 3 December 2025).

Richardson, I. et al. (2019) ‘Nutritional strategies to reduce methane emissions from cattle: Effects on meat eating quality and retail shelf life of loin steaks’, Meat Science, 153, pp. 51–57. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.03.009.

Roehe, R. et al. (2016) ‘Bovine host genetic variation influences rumen microbial methane production with best selection criterion for low methane emitting and efficiently feed converting hosts based on metagenomic gene abundance’, PLoS Genetics, 12(2), pp. 3–9. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1005846.

Scotland’s Rural College (2016) Rural Scotland in Focus – 2016. Available at: https://pure.sruc.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/42774916/RSiF_2016_full_report_1_.pdf.

Scottish Government (2020) Suckler Beef Climate Scheme. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/independent-report/2021/01/suckler-beef-climate-scheme-final-report-2/documents/suckler-beef-climate-scheme-final-report/suckler-beef-climate-scheme-final-report/govscot%3Adocument/suckler-beef-climate-scheme-final-report.pdf.

Scottish Government (2022) Sustainable and regenerative farming – next steps: statement. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/next-step-delivering-vision-scotland-leader-sustainable-regenerative-farming/ (Accessed: 10 December 2025).

Scottish Government (2023a) Climate change plan. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/policies/climate-change/ (Accessed: 10 December 2025).

Scottish Government (2023b) Preparing for Sustainable Farming. Available at: https://www.ruralpayments.org/topics/all-schemes/preparing-for-sustainable-farming–psf-/ (Accessed: 17 February 2026).

Scottish Government (2024) Beef Efficiency Scheme. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-rural-development-programme-2014-2020-ex-post-evaluation-annex-scheme-summary-report/pages/2/ (Accessed: 13 February 2026).

Scottish Government (2025a) Agricultural Reform Route Map. Available at: https://www.ruralpayments.org/topics/agricultural-reform-programme/arp-route-map/ (Accessed: 10 December 2025).

Scottish Government (2025) Scotland’s draft Climate Change Plan: 2026-2040. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-climate-change-plan-2026-2040/ (Accessed: 6 May 2026).

Scottish Government (2025b) Scottish agriculture greenhouse gas emissions and nitrogen use: 2023-24. Available at: https://data.gov.scot/scottish-agriculture-greenhouse-gas-emissions-nitrogen-use-2023-24/ (Accessed: 6 December 2025).

Scottish Government (2025c) Scottish Suckler Beef Support Scheme full guidance, Rural Payments and Services. Available at: https://www.ruralpayments.org/topics/all-schemes/scottish-suckler-beef-support-scheme/scottish-suckler-beef-support-scheme-full-guidance/ (Accessed: 3 December 2025).

Scottish Government (2025d) Total income from farming estimates: 2018-2024. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/total-income-from-farming-estimates-2018-2024/pages/value-of-output-remains-stable/ (Accessed: 10 December 2025).

SEFARI (2024) Enhancing livestock resilience and adaptability to environmental challenge, while protecting and enriching genetic diversity | SEFARI. Available at: https://sefari.scot/research/projects/enhancing-livestock-resilience-and-adaptability-to-environmental-challenge-while (Accessed: 16 February 2026).

SEFARI (2025) Breeding to Reduce Methane Emissions from Beef Cattle. Available at: https://sefari.scot/research/breeding-reduce-methane-emissions-beef-cattle (Accessed: 4 December 2025).

SRUC (2026) Genetics & genomics. Available at: https://www.sruc.ac.uk/research/research-areas/genetics-genomics/ (Accessed: 23 April 2026).

Stanley, P.L. et al. (2018) ‘Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems’, Agricultural Systems, 162, pp. 249–258. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.02.003.

Taylor, R.F. et al. (2020) ‘Bioeconomic and greenhouse gas emissions modelling of the factors influencing technical efficiency of temperate grassland-based suckler calf-to-beef production systems’, Agricultural Systems, 183, p. 102860. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102860.

Thomson, S. et al. (2023) ‘Calving intervals in Scottish Cattle: Population Conditionality Options’.

Williams, A. et al. (2015) ‘A systems-life cycle assessment approach to modelling the impact of improvements in cattle health on greenhouse gas emissions’, Advances in Animal Biosciences, 6(1), pp. 29–31. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S2040470014000478.

Appendices

1. 
   : Methodology
   

This section outlines the methodological approach taken to assess livestock interventions for beef production and their impact on productivity and methane emissions. To do so, we employed a mixed-methods approach comprising an REA, stakeholder engagement, and quantitative analysis. We used this evidence to inform future policy scenarios and support a productive, lower-emission livestock sector in Scotland.

Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA)

An REA is a commonly used research methodology that allows researchers to prioritise and review studies from a large body of sources from across the academic and grey literature, using a transparent, well-defined, and replicable approach.

This sub-section will comprise the REA’s: (i) key research questions, (ii) the search strategy for literature, and (iii) the inclusion/exclusion criteria that have been used to decide if the retrieved studies are relevant to the research questions of this evidence review. An REA protocol was developed at the commencement of the research, outlining the key objectives of the evidence review, the search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and quality assessment criteria for the identified literature.

Developing the REA protocol

The REA protocol was designed to identify and assess relevant, high-quality evidence to address the following research questions:

1. What genetic improvement programmes and management interventions have been implemented in the Scottish beef and dairy sectors through government or industry-led initiatives?
2. How have these interventions affected key productivity indicators?
3. To what extent have improvements in these productivity indicators translated into reductions in methane emissions intensity?
4. What evidence gaps remain in assessing the effectiveness of these interventions in reducing emissions and improving efficiency?

The protocol first established the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the REA, specifying the countries within scope, the areas of focus, publication date, language, and study types within scope. It then detailed the search strategy, outlining the search terms, the databases to be consulted, and the procedures for keeping records. Third, it set out the relevance and quality assessment criteria used to evaluate the strength of the evidence.

Searches were conducted across databases and online libraries, including JSTOR, ScienceDirect, Taylor and Francis, SpringerLink, and JSTOR. Recognising that much of the relevant evidence lies in grey literature, the protocol also incorporated a targeted search of policy documents, institutional reports, and programmes from the UK and devolved governments, think tanks, research institutes, and third-sector organisations. Grey literature from countries with comparable livestock systems was also included.

The implementation of the search strategy yielded an initial ‘long list’ of 629 documents, comprising academic papers, reports, and books. After an initial title and abstract screening based on the exclusion criteria, the list was refined to 200 papers. At this stage, papers included interventions relating to either beef or dairy production. To further refine this to a ‘short list’ of papers, only studies examining interventions applicable to beef production, either exclusively or in combination with dairy, were included. This resulted in a ‘short list’ of 26 papers, which were read in full.

The findings of the reading list studies were summarised in a Research Extraction Sheet (RES). In addition to the studies’ title, authors, and publication year, the RES was filled with information on the country/region of focus, abstract/executive summary, methodological approach, research question(s) addressed, intervention area (e.g., breeding and genetics, feeding, nutrition and productivity, etc.), and whether the intervention is currently implemented by the Scottish Government. Finally, a quality scoring system was applied to assess each study on credibility, methodological approach, and relevance to the project’s objectives.

Synthesis of key findings

The final stage of the REA involved synthesising key findings extracted from the literature review into a long list of eight intervention categories. The evidence was critically appraised for overall consistency, gaps identified, and the insights used to reach informed conclusions. The eight categories were refined in subsequent study phases to form three shortlisted policy scenarios. Both the long list and short list are summarised in this report.

Stakeholder engagement

One online workshop with 13 stakeholders and two one-to-one interviews were conducted with industry, academic, and policy stakeholders to review, validate, and refine the long list of eight intervention categories developed from the REA. Discussions informed the development of the final short list of policy scenarios, assessing each category individually and evaluating the relevance and feasibility of potential measures. These discussions also gathered broader insights on: (i) current adoption of genetic and performance improvement strategies in Scottish livestock farming, (ii) barriers to implementation and areas requiring further support, and (iii) industry perspectives on future policy interventions.

The workshop lasted two hours, and interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes, all following a semi-structured discussion guide. This ensured core research questions were addressed while allowing flexibility to capture unanticipated insights.

Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis, following four iterative steps: familiarisation, coding, theme development, and write-up. The analysis considered patterns, as well as similarities and differences within and between stakeholder groups. The key outcome of this engagement phase was the refinement and validation of the policy scenario long list into a focused short list of three policy scenarios: (i) Breeding and Genetics, (ii) Feeding, Nutrition, and Grazing Management, (iii) Lifetime Productivity.

SWOT and PESTLE analysis

A SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) and PESTLE (Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal, and Environmental) analysis was undertaken to assess the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats, and wider contextual factors influencing the feasibility of the shortlisted interventions. The analysis drew on qualitative data gathered through stakeholder engagement, as well as insights from the REA.

Themes from both sources were coded and synthesised to identify recurring patterns, areas of agreement or concern, and external drivers shaping implementation. These findings were then mapped systematically across the SWOT and PESTLE frameworks to provide a structured overview of internal and external considerations relevant to future policy and practice. Findings for the SWOT and PESTLE analysis are included in Appendix D.

Value for Money assessment of selected interventions

The literature identified in the REA was reviewed to determine which of the associated shortlisted intervention types were supported by sufficient quantitative evidence to allow their effects to be modelled. This included numerical estimates of changes in productivity and GHG emissions. The review also considered which interventions had not yet been widely implemented in Scotland, to focus on the potential impact of new measures.

As a result, six intervention types within the three shortlisted policy scenarios were modelled:

• Breeding and genetics: cattle type (bulls versus steers), breed selection, and cow replacement rate.
• Feeding, nutrition, and grazing: integration of concentrates into diets and grazing strategy (high versus low stocking rates).
• Lifetime productivity: age at slaughter.

Within each intervention type, the literature covered specific interventions (e.g., particular levels of concentrate supplementation and distinct slaughter ages), which served as the basis for the quantitative modelling.

It should be noted that this analysis is centred on changes to overall GHG emissions rather than methane-specific emissions intensity. Although RQ3 pertains to methane emissions, the literature predominantly reports effects on total GHG emissions; thus, this analysis focused on total GHG emissions to maintain consistency across studies. Only one study, Roehe et al., 2016), provided estimates for methane alone, and in that instance, methane-specific results were used and modelled.

Deriving percentage effects from the literature

For each study, the intervention and comparator groups were identified. The intervention group comprised cattle receiving the intervention under investigation, while the comparator group, which did not receive the intervention, served as the baseline. The effect of the intervention was estimated by calculating the percentage difference in key outcomes between the two groups, including carcass weight per hectare, feed conversion efficiency, and emissions intensity expressed as kilograms of CO2e per kilogram of carcass. All outcomes were measured per unit of beef output rather than per individual animal, ensuring the analysis reflected changes in production efficiency.

Where studies reported several variants of an intervention, the variant associated with the largest productivity improvement was used as the representative effect. For example, if a study compared different slaughter ages and found that multiple ages improved productivity relative to the baseline, the comparison was made using the age associated with the greatest productivity gain. For interventions that differed substantially in intensity, such as a full concentrate diet versus concentrate supplementation, each level was modelled separately to reflect the distinct impact of more intensive treatments.

A note on percentage effects for concentrates: For interventions that integrate concentrates into the diet, we drew on evidence from three studies identified in the REA. Two of these studies, Murphy et al. (2017) and McGee et al. (2023) reported that increasing dietary concentrate levels improved carcass output per hectare and reduced emissions intensity. A third study, Roehe et al. (2016), reported reductions in emissions intensity but did not provide information on productivity outcomes, such as average daily gain, feed efficiency, or carcass output per hectare, as its focus was primarily on genetic factors rather than diet. Consequently, we have included the emissions reductions from this study in our modelling, but we have not applied any productivity improvements.

Applying percentage effects to Scottish baseline data

To estimate indicative intervention impacts, the estimated effects (i.e., percentage changes) were applied to corresponding Scottish figures for beef output and GHG emissions. A proportional change approach was adopted, as it was not possible to define a single representative baseline system for Scotland. Production systems, diets, grazing practices, and management regimes vary considerably across the country. Consequently, each study’s comparator group, comprising cattle that did not receive the intervention, was treated as a proxy for the current practice of the cattle type relevant to each treatment.

Due to a lack of available data, Scottish beef output per year was estimated by multiplying Defra figures on average dressed carcass weights by cow type (October 2025) with herd figures of beef cattle in Scotland published in the Scottish Agricultural Census (Cabinet Secretary of Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, 2025; Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, 2025). The total beef herd was the sum of female beef cattle, male cattle, and calves. As such, dairy cows were excluded from this analysis, and all calves were assumed to be used for beef production.

Annual GHG emissions from beef production in Scotland, in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), were estimated by multiplying the annual beef output by the carbon emission intensity per kilogram of carcass. The emissions intensity values were taken from the Scottish Government’s 2023–24 Farm Business Survey (Scottish Government, 2025b). As emissions intensity is reported separately by farm type (e.g., less favoured areas cattle), a simple average across farm types was used. Baseline methane emissions were estimated by applying the Scottish Rural College estimates that methane accounts for 80% of total emissions (Moxey, 2020).

Monetising estimated benefits

Productivity improvements were monetised using the market value of beef. Namely, the additional beef produced as a result of an intervention was valued using the corresponding beef prices. GB cattle prices published by AHDB were used for all cattle types except calves. (AHDB, no date a). As meat prices for calves were not available from this source, the price per kilogram was estimated using AHDB figures on retail sales per annum, and the corresponding value of retail sales (AHDB, no date c). To estimate the average price of meat per kilogram, a weighted average was estimated using the corresponding shares of beef output estimated previously.

For all modelled interventions, productivity improvements were measured as additional carcass weight per hectare. The only exception was replacing all Aberdeen Angus to Limousin, for which the relevant study reported only feed efficiency as a productivity metric. For these interventions, the monetary benefit was estimated as the cost savings from reduced feed intake. Using a single percentage to represent feed intake reductions was considered impractical, as intake varies substantially by live weight, production stage, breed, diet, and cattle type, making any aggregate figure unreliable for precise calculation. Although feed requirements vary considerably depending on diet, production stage, and management practices, the value of concentrate was used as a proxy, and was based on the most recently available average price per tonne published by AHDB (AHDB, 2025).

Reductions in GHG emissions were monetised using the carbon values published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, which represent the estimated economic cost of one tonne of CO2e (Department for Energy Security & Net Zero and Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, 2021). These values are the UK government’s prices for GHG emissions, used in appraisals and modelling to consistently value the costs and benefits of changes in emissions. For each intervention, the reduction in emissions was multiplied by this carbon value to estimate the associated monetary benefit. The central estimate for 2025 was used and adjusted to current prices.

Additionality assumption

To provide a conservative estimate of the potential benefits of each intervention, we applied a 10% additionality assumption. This means that only 10% of the total productivity and emissions improvements identified in the REA are assumed to be realised in practice. This adjustment accounts for the fact that not all interventions may be fully adopted by farmers, or that even if adoption is widespread, only a portion of the potential benefits may actually materialise on the farm due to practical constraints, variations in management, or other real-world factors. Applying this assumption ensures that our results provide an indicative, pessimistic estimate of the likely scale of benefits rather than an overstatement.

Aggregation of total economic benefits

To estimate the total annual economic benefit across all modelled interventions, the monetised productivity gains and emissions reductions were aggregated across the three policy scenarios: breeding and genetics, feeding, nutrition and grazing management, and lifetime productivity. This results in total estimated productivity benefits of £150 million per year and emissions benefits of £100 million per year, which together add up to £250 million annually, expressed in 2025 prices.

Table 11: Aggregation of total economic benefits across intervention groups. Source: Alma Economics calculations.

Estimating the GVA of the Scottish beef sector

To estimate the GVA of the Scottish beef sector, we used Quality Meat Scotland’s estimate that the red meat sector contributes £1.05 billion in GVA during 2024, and applied Scottish Government data indicating that beef represents around 59% of finished livestock output (Quality Meat Scotland, 2025; Scottish Government, 2025d). As such, we estimate the GVA for the Scottish beef sector is approximately £620 million.

Limitations and interpretation of results

The estimates produced are intended to provide an order-of-magnitude indication of the potential impacts under each intervention rather than precise forecasts. They illustrate the scale of potential productivity gains and emissions reductions associated with individual interventions. Notably, emissions benefits from the literature are often derived from simulation models rather than observed outcomes. This analysis is based on the quantitative evidence available. It does not attempt to quantify other potential benefits, such as improvements in animal welfare, soil quality, or long-term farm resilience, nor does it consider additional costs or practical constraints that farmers might encounter when implementing these interventions. Consequently, findings should be interpreted as indicative, with further assessment required on the role of the government in enabling adoption, and on the practicalities of implementation, including the uptake by Scottish farmers and the extent to which these benefits can be realised in practice in Scotland.

List of assumptions

The tables below provide additional detail on the key assumptions and methodological steps taken to derive estimates for each individual intervention.

Table 12: List of assumptions: breeding and genetics

Table 13 List of assumptions: Feeding nutrition and grazing management

Table 14 List of assumptions: Lifetime productivity

Source: Alma Economics calculation

1. : REA findings
   

This section summarises the evidence on interventions over the past decade that have influenced productivity and methane emissions in the beef and dairy sectors. We reviewed 629 academic and grey literature sources covering in-scope countries to identify interventions that improve productivity and reduce methane emissions. From these, 26 full-text studies were selected for detailed analysis. We assessed how the interventions described in these papers were implemented and their reported impacts on key productivity indicators and emissions intensity in the beef sector. Our search REA Protocol for the review is provided in Appendix A, and the full list of papers reviewed is presented in Appendix E.

Interventions identified through the review were grouped into eight overarching categories to form the project’s initial long list. Three of these categories were later assessed as out of scope due to:

• The evidence often lacking quantitative estimates for both productivity and emissions, or considering emissions alone, without linked productivity effects.
• Some interventions not being permitted in the UK, such as certain biochemical or technological approaches.
• Stakeholders judging them unfeasible or unsuitable for policy development in Scotland.

The excluded categories remain included in this section for completeness, along with the rationale for their exclusion. The full set of categories, in order of reporting, is as follows:

• Breeding and Genetics
  
• Feeding and Nutrition Management
  
• Land and Pasture Management
  
• Calving Systems
  
• Age of Slaughter
  
• Animal Health and Welfare (out of scope)
  
• Manure and Nutrient Management (out of scope)
  
• Technological Innovation (out of scope)
  

In the remainder of this section, we summarise the evidence base for each of these interventions, along with the identified estimates from the literature on their effects on productivity and emissions, including both methane and total GHG emissions.

It should be noted that while the evidence base is extensive, some interventions are supported by more evidence than others. This may reflect the differences in how widely each intervention is being adopted by farmers in practice, how feasible it is to implement and test the intervention, as well as the different resources, climate, and farming conditions required to apply or study it.

Breeding and Genetics

Breeding and genetic improvement interventions focused on selecting animals that are more efficient, more productive, and lower emitting. Unlike management or nutrition measures, which generate immediate changes, genetic gains accumulate over successive generations and become permanent at the herd level.

The evidence base identified through this REA covered several complementary strategies, including microbiome-informed genomic selection, selection based on estimated breeding values and national breeding indexes, exploiting biological differences between types of cattle, and adjusting herd replacement dynamics. Within the literature identified, most interventions were evaluated through controlled trials, genomic analyses, or national-scale breeding simulations, with increasing emphasis on the role of the rumen microbiome in driving both methane emissions and feed efficiency.

The first intervention type focused on microbiome-informed genetic selection to reduce methane emissions and improve feed efficiency. A Scottish research programme led by the SRUC Beef and Sheep Research Centre applied a combination of individual feed intake recording, respiration chamber measurements, and rumen metagenomic sequencing to quantify host microbial interactions in both stabiliser cattle and commercial crossbred beef animals (SEFARI, 2025). The work demonstrated very large natural variation in methane emissions within breeds, ranging from around 170 g per day to over 330 g per day among animals managed identically. This variation was strongly associated with heritable differences in microbial gene abundance, indicating that the host genome partly determines the structure and function of the rumen microbiome. Microbial gene markers also predicted feed conversion efficiency independently of diet, enabling the identification of cattle that both emit less methane and eat less feed per kilogram of output. In the Stabiliser cattle population, animals in the most efficient third were worth around £23 more over a 12-week finishing period than the least efficient third, due to lower feed costs for the same weight gain. Scaled to Scotland’s 388,700 prime cattle, the research estimated potential industry-wide savings of £8.9 million over three months. Selection based on microbial gene abundance was predicted to reduce methane by around 3% of the trait mean per year, generating sustained improvements in emissions efficiency (SEFARI, 2025).

Controlled experimental work supported these findings. Roehe et al. (2016) studied 72 steers using a 2×2 factorial design, meaning that they investigated two factors: breed (Aberdeen Angus or Limousin) and diet (forage-based or concentrate-based). Steers were fed either a forage-based or a concentrate-based diet, and combined respiration chamber data and metagenomic sequencing to show clear host genetic variation in methane production. Aberdeen Angus steers emitted 183.8 g of methane per day on average compared with 164.4 g per day in Limousin steers. Approximately 88% of the variation in feed conversion efficiency is explained by microbial gene abundance. This confirms that host genetics influence efficiency via the microbiome.

Industry-led evaluations have further quantified these impacts. The AHDB’s EnviroBeef provides a framework in which a -10% score indicates the animal has the genetic potential of reducing the carbon footprint of suckler beef by 10% compared to the UK average (AHDB, no date). Furthermore, the Scotch Beef PGI Traceability and Performance project estimated that improving key performance indicators through genetic selection, such as increasing the number of calves per 100 cows from 82 to 84 or reducing calf mortality from 6% to 5.88%, could generate industry values of £6.4 million and £4.1 million, respectively (Quality Meat Scotland, 2021). Similarly, data from the BES and associated trials indicate that incorporating residual feed intake into national breeding goals was estimated to increase economic response by 40% from £30.9 million to £43.4 million, and achieve greenhouse gas savings of 27% over a period of 20 years (Pritchard and Wall, 2019).

Martínez-Álvaro, Auffret, et al., (2022) analysed 363 steers on forage or concentrate rations and identified 30 heritable microbial genes that were highly genetically correlated with methane yield, with genetic correlations ranging from 0.59 to 0.93. Their modelling suggested that selecting animals based on these microbial gene abundances could reduce methane emissions by between 7% and 17% per generation. A related study by Martínez-Álvaro, Mattock, et al. (2022) expanded this approach by integrating selection for improved beef fatty acid composition (higher N3 and CLA indices) with methane reduction. In 285 cattle across four breed types, they found microbial pathways that simultaneously improved fat quality and constrained methanogenesis, predicting reductions of 4% to 9.4% of the population mean methane per generation alongside improved fatty acid profiles. Across all microbiome-based research, the evidence indicates that genomic selection informed by microbial biomarkers offers a feasible route to sustained methane mitigation that also improves feed efficiency and meat quality traits.

The following set of studies focused on how genetics could affect breeding values where methane traits are integrated into existing genetic improvement systems. These breeding values are derived from animals’ genetic profiles and enable farmers to select cattle that are genetically predisposed to produce lower methane emissions while maintaining growth performance. Eory et al. (2020) modelled the effect of incorporating methane traits into Scotland’s breeding objectives using national heritability estimates, UK Smart Inventory parameters, and a response to selection framework. Rather than trialling individual animals, the study simulated realistic rates of genetic gain arising from the gradual uptake of low methane sires in the national herd. The results indicated annual mitigation of 0.116 tonnes CO2e per beef animal and 0.627 tonnes CO2e per dairy animal, with net economic savings due to correlated improvements in feed efficiency. The modelling highlighted the compounding and permanent nature of genetic gains and demonstrated that emissions and productivity traits can improve simultaneously. A parallel analysis of breeding index effects in Ireland reinforced these findings. Quinton et al. (2018) evaluated how the Maternal Replacement Index and Terminal Index used in the Beef Data and Genomics Programme influence long-term emissions. The maternal index lowers emissions intensity by reducing mature cow size, improving cow survival and shortening reproductive cycles, while the terminal index increases carcass yield and feed efficiency in finishing cattle. The study predicted reductions in emissions intensity of 0.009 kg CO2e per kg of meat per euro of gain in the maternal index and 0.021 kg CO2e per kg of meat per euro of gain in the terminal index. Over 20 years, national emissions could fall by 5% to 9.5% through sustained genetic progress, further supporting breeding values as a credible and scalable route for long-term mitigation.

Differences in the type of cattle also act as a form of breeding-related intervention because choosing to finish bulls rather than steers influences productivity and emissions intensity. McGee et al. (2023) studied 60 Charolais-Limousin cross animals using a factorial design comparing two factors: cattle type (bulls versus steers) and finishing strategy (grass only versus grass plus concentrate). Bulls grew faster, between 1.23 and 1.46 kg per day, versus steers growing 1.00–1.28 kg per day. Bulls also produced carcasses around 44 kg heavier and generated higher net margins of €17.3k–€18.6k, while steers produced a net margin of €12.1k–€15.3k. Although emissions per head were slightly higher for bulls, their emissions intensity was 8.7% lower because they produced more output. Bulls generated 16.3 kilograms of CO2e per kilogram of carcass compared with 17.9 kilograms of CO2e per kilogram of carcass for steers under grass-only conditions.

Murphy et al. (2017) provided further evidence using 147 Holstein Friesian males across five production systems. Bulls exhibited significantly higher lifetime gain, stronger conformation, greater kill out, and markedly lower emissions intensity. Bulls grew substantially faster: carcass weight gained per day of age was 0.16 to 0.17 kilograms higher for the 15-month bulls than for the 21- and 24-month steers, and lifetime average daily gain was 0.44 and 0.41 kilograms higher, respectively. Emissions per head were similar or slightly higher in bulls owing to greater intake, but emissions intensity per kilogram of carcass was markedly lower. The 15-month bulls emitted 8.9 kilograms of CO2 equivalent per kilogram of carcass, and the 19-month indoor-finished bulls emitted 8.5 kilograms, compared with 14.9 kilograms in 24-month steers. Both studies show that finishing bulls reduces emissions intensity relative to steers by producing more beef from similar total emissions, although total methane output per animal remains similar or slightly higher.

Replacement rate also influenced genetic and productivity outcomes. Taylor et al. (2020) modelled Irish suckler systems to assess how small adjustments in replacement rate affect emissions efficiency. Increasing the replacement rate from 14% to the Irish BETTER Beef Programme target of 16% to 18% increased net margin by €7 to €8 per hectare by generating more cull cows for sale. Total emissions rose slightly due to the additional youngstock, but emissions intensity declined because cull output increased. Conversely, a lower replacement rate reduced total emissions but increased emissions intensity due to reduced beef production. These results suggest that replacement rate optimisation forms part of a broader breeding strategy and influences emissions efficiency through changes in herd age structure and output.

Collectively, the breeding and genetics evidence base showed that genetic improvement offers a reliable and cumulative pathway to lowering emissions intensity while supporting productivity gains. Microbiome-based genomic selection provides some mitigation potential at the level of individual animals. National breeding value systems demonstrate that integrating methane traits into existing selection indexes can deliver sustained reductions at scale. Choices around cattle type and replacement rate shape herd-level productivity and emissions profiles, with bulls and optimised replacement strategies potentially lowering emissions intensity. Overall, genetic and genomic interventions constitute a long-term but high-value mitigation route with complementary benefits for efficiency, profitability, and product quality.

Feeding and Nutrition Management

Feeding and nutrition management interventions influenced emissions primarily by altering growth rate, diet composition, and fermentation pathways, as well as reducing the need for external nitrogen fertiliser. The evidence base spanned two broad categories of interventions: (i) modifying finishing diets through concentrate supplementation, and (ii) incorporating nutritional amendments, such as clover, high-starch or high-energy rations, and methane-inhibiting additives, including nitrate, lipid supplements, and 3-nitrooxypropanol. These interventions differ in mechanism and applicability but collectively highlight the central role of feeding strategies in reducing emissions intensity.

Differences in finishing diet composition through concentrate supplementation were tested in both Irish and Scottish studies. In Ireland, McGee et al. (2023) conducted a feeding trial in which steers and bulls were finished either on a grass-only system for 192 days or grass plus concentrate supplementation at 3.2 kg/day during the final 97 days. Supplementation increased average daily gain by approximately 0.36 kg/day, increased carcass weight by about 37 kg and improved conformation and fat scores. Net margins rose markedly, for example, from €12.1 thousand in grass-only (G-O) steers to €15.3 thousand in steers supplemented with concentrate (G-C) and from €17.3 thousand to €18.6 thousand in supplemented bulls. Total methane emissions per head rose slightly due to greater intake from 2,699 to 2,731 kg CO2e in steers and from 2,742 to 2,768 kg CO2e for bulls. Emissions intensity, however, was 8.7% lower for bulls than steers and 4.1% lower for G-C than G-O systems.

A related Scottish experiment (Roehe et al., 2016) used a 2×2 factorial design with 72 crossbred steers (Aberdeen Angus × Holstein-Friesian and Limousin × Holstein-Friesian) fed either a grass silage diet or a high-starch concentrate diet. Concentrate-fed steers consumed 10% dry matter on average, reflecting higher voluntary intake under high-energy diets. Despite this, concentrate feeding substantially reduced methane emissions, with daily methane output falling from 205.2 g CH4/day under forage to 142.9 g CH4/day under concentrate, a reduction of approximately 30%. Methane yield also declined markedly, from 21.63 to 13.69 g CH4 per kg dry matter intake. These results indicate that higher-energy concentrate diets can substantially reduce methane yield and emissions intensity, primarily through changes in rumen fermentation rather than reductions in feed intake.

Murphy et al. (2017) compared five beef production systems, two of which focused on bulls finished at 19 months. One group was supplemented with concentrates ad libitum for 21 days, while the other was pasture finished and supplemented with 5 kg dry matter of concentrate per day for 10 days. The ad libitum system achieved lower emissions intensity, at 8.5 kg CO2e per kilogram of carcass weight, compared with 10.5 kg CO2e per kilogram in the pasture-supplemented system. It also delivered higher beef output per hectare, at 1,496 kg compared with 1,198 kg.

Taylor et al. (2020) modelled the effects of changes in average daily gain (ADG) on productivity and emissions. Higher ADG systems resulted in heavier slaughter weights and greater profitability, but also higher emissions per kilogram of output, driven by a 14% increase in concentrate use and a 17% increase in inorganic nitrogen fertiliser, compared with only a 6% increase in carcass output. These differences largely reflect higher feed demand in high ADG animals, which increases emissions. Nevertheless, ADG can also be influenced by animal health, feed efficiency, forage quality and management. When feed intake was held constant in the model, higher ADG was associated with more than a twofold increase in productivity and a reduction of 3.9 kg CO2e per kilogram of carcass.

A second group of interventions involved adding forage species or additives that modify nitrogen use or suppress methanogenesis. In Ireland, Kearney et al. (2023) modelled the introduction of clover into pasture-based finishing diets using a whole-farm bioeconomic and life-cycle model for dairy-beef steers. Clover replaced part of the nitrogen fertiliser requirement via biological fixation, maintaining dry matter yield while reducing fertiliser use. Across three slaughter periods, clover increased net margin by 13%, 25%, and 17%, and reduced emissions intensity by 8%, 6%, and 4%.

Eory et al. (2020) focused on biochemical mitigation strategies and evaluated two such interventions using economic and emissions modelling: increasing starch concentration in rations and supplying 3-nitrooxypropanol (3NOP). Higher-starch diets could reduce enteric methane formation by 0.162 tonnes CO2e per head per year at no additional cost, though they require changes in land use that may affect soil carbon stocks. The feed additive 3NOP could reduce emissions by 0.855 tonnes CO2e per head in dairy cattle and 0.423 tonnes CO2e per head in beef cattle, at a cost of £17.78 and £31.38 per head per year, respectively, with straightforward delivery in housed systems.

Further experimental evidence on feed additives came from Scottish cattle trials using factorial designs to test nitrate and lipid supplementation. Richardson et al. (2019) conducted two controlled experiments. Experiment 1 used a 2×2×3 design with 84 Charolais and Luing steers aged 13–16 months, fed either a high-concentrate or mixed forage–concentrate basal diet and assigned to Control, Nitrate, or Lipid treatments. Under the mixed diet, nitrate reduced methane emissions from 25.1 to 20.6 g CH4/kg dry matter intake and lipid reduced methane emission from 25.1 to 23.1 g/kg per dry matter intake. Neither additive reduced methane under the high-concentrate diet. Experiment 2 involved 80 Aberdeen Angus×Limousin steers fed a single mixed basal diet with four treatments (Control, Nitrate, Lipid, and Nitrate + Lipid). Nitrate reduced methane intensity from 24.0 to 22.1 CH4 g/kg of dry matter intake, lipid to 23.4 CH4 g/kg, and the combined treatment achieved the largest reduction at 20.9 CH4 g/kg.

Taken together, these studies show that feeding and nutrition interventions can reduce emissions intensity and increase feed efficiency through several mechanisms. Mitigation outcomes depend strongly on diet composition, with forage and concentrate systems showing the greatest potential for additive-based reductions. These findings underscore the importance of aligning dietary strategies with system characteristics when designing interventions for Scottish beef production.

Land and Pasture Management

Land and pasture management interventions focused on improving the condition, productivity, and ecological function of grazed grasslands through changes in grazing systems, grassland composition, and soil management practices. These measures aim to enhance forage quality, nutrient cycling, and soil carbon dynamics while reducing reliance on synthetic inputs and lowering greenhouse gas emissions intensity.

A key example is the Suckler Beef Climate Scheme (SBCS) in Scotland, which was developed as a scheme to support farmers to adopt evidence-based practices to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions from suckler beef systems by improving soil and grassland management and enhancing on-farm efficiency (Scottish Government, 2025c). Interventions include increasing legumes within the sward to replace synthetic nitrogen fertiliser, increasing botanical diversity to improve soil structure and resilience, and considering adopting either rotational or continuous grazing systems.

Evidence indicated that legume inclusion can substantially reduce nitrous oxide emissions by 60% through reduced fertiliser use (Jensen et al., 2011), while modelling by Bell et al. (2021) reported that improving sward management can reduce emissions intensity by around 6.3%. Across all measures, the SBCS frames soil and grassland function as central levers for emissions reduction while supporting wider co-benefits for soil health, biodiversity, and production efficiency.

Evidence from outside Scotland reinforced the influence of grazing management on emissions intensity and land-use efficiency. Alemu et al. (2017) evaluated grazing systems in a typical three-stage Canadian beef system (cow–calf, backgrounding, and finishing) using an eight-year Life Cycle Assessment. Four grazing strategies were modelled: light continuous (LC), heavy continuous (HC), and two mixed systems (LCMR and HCMR) combining continuous grazing for cow–calf pairs with moderate rotational grazing during backgrounding, which is the intermediate phase between weaning and finishing. Grazing pressure influenced both performance and land use.

In this study, cattle under HC and HCMR achieved 13–16% lower average daily gain on re-established rangeland and required 15–23 additional finishing days compared with LC and LCMR. Land-use efficiency differed sharply: LC required 35% more rangeland than HC, and LCMR required 26% more than HCMR. As a result, HC produced 66 kilograms of carcass weight per hectare compared with 45 kg carcass weight per ha under LC, a 46% improvement; HCMR produced 64 kg/ha compared with 49 kg/ha in LCMR, a 30% improvement. Greenhouse gas intensity decreased when increasing the stocking rate. In this way, GHG intensity was 24.1 kg CO2e/kg carcass weight for heavy continuous (HC) grazing systems compared to 26.6 kg CO2e/kg carcass weight for light continuous (LC) grazing systems. This presents a 9.2% decreased in emissions intensity. Similarly, LCMR systems had 7% higher GHG intensity than HCMR. When soil carbon sequestration was considered, GHG intensity decreased by 12–25%, with the largest reductions in LC (22%) and LCMR (24%) because these systems used more rangeland with greater carbon gain. These results show that heavier stocking and efficient land use reduce emissions intensity, while more lightly stocked systems can generate larger soil carbon gains but require substantially more land.

Similarly, a study of Adaptive Multi Paddock (AMP) grazing in the United States demonstrated the potential for regenerative grazing systems to deliver significant soil carbon sequestration benefits using a comparative Life Cycle Assessment of finishing systems (Stanley et al., 2018). AMP is characterised by short grazing bouts and long recovery periods, designed to promote forage regrowth and soil carbon accumulation. When compared with feedlot (FL) finishing, AMP cattle had lower productivity: finishing took 200.8 days versus 171.5 days in FL, average daily gain was 0.9 kilograms per day versus 1.8 kilograms, and carcass weight was 280 kilograms versus 406 kilograms. Feedlot cattle also had a better feed conversion ratio (5.7 versus 13.0) and produced less enteric methane (777 kg CO2e per animal versus 1434.1 kg CO2e). Before accounting for soil carbon, greenhouse gas intensity favoured feedlots: 6.09 kilograms CO2e per kilogram carcass weight versus 9.62 kilograms under AMP. However, AMP systems sequestered 3.59 Mg carbon per hectare per year, resulting in a net emissions outcome of -6.65 kg CO2e per kilogram carcass weight once soil carbon was included, compared with 6.12 kg CO2e in feedlots after accounting for slight soil carbon losses. Although AMP required roughly double the land area of feedlots, these results demonstrate that AMP grazing has the potential to offset GHG emissions through soil sequestration.

The evidence shows that land and pasture management interventions can reduce emissions intensity by improving forage quality, increasing nutrient efficiency, enhancing soil carbon storage, and reducing reliance on synthetic inputs. While the scale of benefits varies by system and geography, improvements in sward composition and grazing management can strengthen production efficiency and support lower-emissions beef systems.

Calving Systems

Calving system interventions focused on improving reproductive efficiency, aligning calving with feed availability, and reducing non-productive days within suckler herds. Across the literature, improved calving intervals, higher calving rates, and optimised calving dates to improve seasonal alignment consistently enhanced technical efficiency and reduced emissions intensity, primarily through increasing output per cow and shortening periods of low productivity.

A central intervention examined in Scotland concerns the use of calving interval as a performance requirement within agricultural support schemes. Thomson et al. (2023) analysed national Cattle Tracing System data from 2015 to 2021 and found that Scottish suckler herds have an average calving interval of roughly 400 days, compared with the 365-day industry benchmark. Longer intervals were associated with poorer fertility, inefficient bull performance, and avoidable emissions. The study estimated that, with cow numbers held constant, reducing the average calving interval by five days would have reduced total cow emissions in 2021 by 12.5 kilotonnes CO2e, equivalent to around 39 kilograms CO2e per cow. Relatedly, policy change happened in Scotland as from 2025 onwards, cows must achieve a calving interval of 410 days or less for their calves to qualify for Scottish Suckler Beef Support Scheme payments, linking support to reproductive efficiency and contributing to national emissions reduction objectives (Scottish Government, 2025c).

Taylor et al. (2020) examined the effects of increasing calving rate from 75% to 85%, representing one standard deviation below and above the farm average in Ireland. Higher calving rates increased stocking rate from 1.94 to 2.16 livestock units per hectare and boosted total liveweight and carcass output by producing more calves from the same breeding herd. Gross margin per hectare increased because fixed costs were spread across a larger number of saleable animals. Total emissions rose with herd size, but emissions intensity declined, since the additional beef output more than offset the higher emissions. Each one-percentage-point increase in calving rate reduced emissions intensity by 0.04 kilograms CO2e per kilogram of carcass, demonstrating the strong dilution effect of improved reproductive performance.

The same study also assessed adjusting the calving date while holding other performance indicators constant. Earlier calving aligned cow nutritional requirements and early growth stages with spring grass availability, extending the grazing season, and reducing reliance on conserved forage and winter housing. This improved cost efficiency and technical performance by lowering feed costs and enhancing growth rates. The effect on emissions intensity was limited. Lower winter-feeding emissions were largely offset by higher grazing-related emissions, meaning the primary benefit of earlier calving was improved profitability rather than significant emissions reductions (Taylor et al., 2020).

Overall, the evidence indicates that calving system interventions materially influence herd efficiency and emissions performance. Reducing calving interval and increasing calving rate consistently lowers emissions intensity by increasing the volume of output relative to emissions. Earlier calving improves profitability through better seasonal grazing alignment. Although total emissions may rise where improved fertility increases stocking rate, emissions per kilogram of carcass decline due to enhanced biological and technical efficiency.

Age of Slaughter

This category refers to interventions that modify the timing at which cattle are finished with the aim of improving biological efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions per unit of output. Across the literature, studies consistently showed that earlier slaughter shortens the production cycle, reduces lifetime emissions, and improves emissions intensity.

Earlier versus later slaughter was examined in detail by Murphy et al. (2017), who compared five production systems combining different finishing strategies and slaughter ages. Holstein Friesian male calves were finished at 15, 19, 21, or 24 months. Earlier slaughter substantially increased biological efficiency. The 15-month system achieved carcass weight gains per day of age that were 0.16 and 0.17 kilograms higher than the 21- and 24-month systems, and lifetime average daily gain was 0.44 and 0.41 kilograms higher, respectively. Feed use varied sharply, with the 15-month system requiring 1,602 kilograms of concentrate per head compared with 1,081 kilograms in 19-month indoor-finished bulls, 464 kilograms in 19-month pasture-plus-concentrate bulls, 329 kilograms in 21-month steers, and 439 kilograms in 24-month steers. While the 15-month system was least profitable due to concentrate accounting for 68% of variable costs, the 19-month pasture-plus-concentrate system delivered the strongest balance of margins, moderate inputs, and high carcass output. Emissions per animal rose with slaughter age, from 2,498 kilograms CO2e at 15 months to 4,531 kilograms CO2e at 24 months. Emissions intensity increased from 8.9 kilograms CO2e per kilogram of carcass at 15 months to 14.9 kilograms at 24 months.

Similarly, Kearney et al. (2023) evaluated earlier slaughter in pasture-based dairy–beef systems by modelling finishing ages around three baselines of roughly 20, 24, and 28 months. Earlier slaughter increased the number of cattle finished per hectare by 22% and increased carcass output per hectare by 8%. Net margin rose for both early and late slaughter variants across all periods, indicating that modifying slaughter age can be economically neutral or beneficial. Emissions intensity decreased progressively from late to baseline to early slaughter, averaging reductions of between 3% and 7%. Absolute emissions per animal also declined because animals spent fewer days alive, with correspondingly fewer feeding and methane-producing days.

Earlier slaughter as a mitigation strategy in suckler beef systems was assessed by Taylor et al. (2020), who compared finishing at 22 months with a baseline of 30 months. Earlier finishing reduced emissions intensity from 31.6 to 23.5 kilograms CO2e per kilogram of carcass, with each month of reduced slaughter age lowering emissions intensity by approximately 3.2%. Gross margin improved substantially, rising from €155 to €373 per hectare as faster turnover increased carcass output from 342 to 445 kilograms per hectare. However, total emissions per hectare increased because more animals were finished within the same land base.

These findings demonstrate that earlier slaughter and higher stocking rates consistently reduce emissions intensity, although feed costs strongly influence economic outcomes.

Out of scope categories

Three categories – “Animal Health and Welfare,” “Manure and Nutrient Management,” and “Technological Innovation” – were identified but subsequently assessed as out of scope for this project. They are included here to provide a complete picture of the interventions identified in the review.

The main reasons for exclusion were:

• The evidence often lacked quantitative estimates for both productivity and emissions or considered emissions alone without linked productivity effects.
• Some interventions were not permitted in the UK, such as certain biochemical or technological approaches.
• Stakeholders judged them unfeasible or unsuitable for policy development in Scotland.

Further details on the evidence found for these interventions are provided below.

Animal Health and Welfare

The evidence showed that poor cattle health and endemic diseases such as Bovine Viral Diarrhoea (BVD), Johne’s disease, liver fluke, mastitis, lameness, and calf pneumonia can significantly reduce growth, fertility, and survival, which increases emissions intensity by lowering production efficiency. A wide range of interventions are used in practice to address these conditions, including vaccination, improved biosecurity, targeted use of antibiotics and anthelmintics, and better calf and cow management. Improvements to hygiene, pasture drainage, and fertility monitoring are also commonly implemented. These measures broadly enhance productivity and reduce emissions intensity, although evidence gaps, inconsistent quantification, and policy feasibility constraints meant that animal health and welfare interventions were considered out of scope for the policy short list.

Eradicating or controlling major infectious diseases provided the greatest productivity and emissions gains. BVD can increase emissions intensity by up to 113% in affected beef systems, while Johne’s disease increased emissions by 40% and IBR by 20% (Williams et al., 2015). Implementing vaccination, removing persistently infected animals, and strengthening biosecurity reduced these increases substantially, restoring much of the lost productivity. The Scottish Government (2020) reported similar benefits, including reductions in emissions intensity up to 56% for BVD eradication, up to 17% for IBR removal, and almost 30% for Johne’s control, reflecting faster growth, improved reproductive performance, and fewer unproductive animals.

Targeted antibiotic use supported herd health and limited productivity losses associated with disease. Avoiding unnecessary antibiotic treatments has been shown to reduce emissions from dung by approximately 44% (Scottish Government, 2020). While wider production benefits are well-recognised, quantified effects on both productivity and emissions remain limited.

Controlling internal parasites such as liver fluke and gastrointestinal worms improved growth and fertility. Liver fluke can increase emissions intensity by 7% to 10% (Williams et al., 2015), and effective parasite control can reduce emissions intensity by up to 9% by improving feed conversion and reducing disease-related growth delays (Scottish Government, 2020).

Improvements in calf hygiene, housing, and vaccination reduced morbidity and mortality from calf pneumonia and scour. Williams et al. (2015) noted that these conditions reduce growth rates and increase emissions per kilogram of output. Evidence from the Scottish Government (2020) suggests that improved calf health management can reduce emissions intensity by approximately 4%, largely due to lower mortality, reduced ill-thrift, and improved growth trajectories.

Conditions such as mastitis, lameness, and neosporosis negatively affect fertility, longevity, and milk or calf output. Improved cow health management can reduce emissions intensity by up to 5.6% through better feed efficiency, reduced treatment needs, and improved reproductive outcomes (Scottish Government, 2020).

Animal health and welfare interventions can substantially reduce emissions intensity by improving biological efficiency, but evidence limitations and feasibility concerns placed this category out of scope for the policy short list.

Manure and Nutrient Management

Manure and nutrient management interventions are typically aimed at reducing emissions from slurry storage, manure application, and fertiliser use by improving handling, timing, and storage, or through the use of additives and inhibitors. These practices can improve nutrient-use efficiency and lower reliance on synthetic fertilisers, but evidence is highly variable across systems and often lacks consistent productivity metrics. Some measures are technically complex, economically marginal without support, or dependent on specialist equipment, which contributed to the exclusion of this intervention group from the policy short list. However, the evidence base identifies several interventions with demonstrated mitigation potential.

The Scottish Government (2020) identified that improving manure application and nutrient use efficiency by adapting it according to crop need, season, and soil conditions improves nitrogen-use efficiency, reduces synthetic fertiliser requirements, and enhances soil health. In a modelled scenario, integrated manure and nutrient planning reduced emissions intensity by 6.9%. Bell et al. (2021) found that improved manure and nutrient management, including covering manure, switching from splash-plate to low-emission spreading, and shifting application to spring, reduced annual farm emissions from 739,836 to 710,822 kg CO2e, lowering emissions from 24.90 to 23.92 kg CO2e per kg beef while maintaining identical output.

Kearney et al. (2023) modelled optimised slurry management in Irish beef systems, combining low-emission spreading with chemical acidification using ferric chloride. Slurry acidification reduced ammonia emissions during storage by 97% and methane by 74%, although implementation reduced net farm margins by 4%, 11%, and 6% across three slaughter periods. Emissions intensity decreased by 2% for early slaughter steers and by 4% in later periods, with the greatest benefits in systems with extended winter housing, reflecting the larger share of emissions from slurry storage. In Scotland, Eory et al. (2020) found that impermeable slurry store covers can reduce emissions by 0.225 tonnes CO2e per head annually at a small net benefit of £0.25 per head. The Scottish Government (2020) reported that covering open slurry stores increased storage capacity by 25%, reduced handling costs (>£1,600 per year in a case study), and reduced ammonia emissions by approximately 80%, contributing to a potential 2% reduction in total Scottish agricultural greenhouse gas emissions.

Another intervention found was the application of nitrification inhibitors alongside synthetic nitrogen fertiliser to reduce nitrous oxide emissions from soil. Bell et al. (2021) reported that introducing inhibitors reduced farm-level emissions by 43,928 kg CO2e annually compared with improved manure management alone (from 710,822 to 666,894 kg CO2e). Emissions intensity declined from 23.92 to 22.44 kg CO2e per kg beef, again without changing production output. The Scottish Government (2020) similarly reported that fertiliser optimisation and inhibitor use reduced soil nitrous oxide emissions by approximately 5%, contributing to system-level emissions intensity reductions.

Ricardo Energy & Environment (2020) explored the feasibility of manure exchange schemes between livestock and arable farms in Scotland, identifying existing informal practices such as muck-for-straw exchanges, manure exports, and away-wintering of livestock. These schemes can reduce synthetic fertiliser demand, improve soil structure and redistribute nutrients to where they are most needed. However, the study found that barriers include transport distance, uneven cost-sharing, infrastructure gaps, and high transaction costs. Scenario modelling estimated net abatement of 22 kt CO2e per year with 30% farm participation, 36.8 kt CO2e at 50%, and 51.6 kt CO2e at 70% engagement. Even under the most optimistic scenario, total abatement was equivalent to only 0.68% of Scottish agricultural emissions, indicating limited national-level mitigation potential.

Overall, while the manure and nutrient management evidence demonstrates clear mitigation benefits, particularly for ammonia, soil nitrous oxide, and short-lived methane, concerns regarding profitability and the practical feasibility of large-scale adoption led to this category being assessed as out of scope for policy consideration.

Technological Innovation

The technological innovation category includes interventions based on technological or biochemical enhancements intended to increase production efficiency or directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These ranged from productivity-enhancing compounds, methane-capturing devices, and engineered housing systems to early-stage monitoring technologies. While some showed substantial mitigation potential, they were assessed as out of scope because they are either not legally permitted for use in UK beef systems, lack peer-reviewed validation, or remain too commercially immature for policy development.

Fortier et al. (2025) evaluated the effect of removing productivity-enhancing technologies (PETs), including hormonal implants (zeranol, trenbolone acetate, estradiol) and feed additives, such as monensin and tylosin. Evidence from Canadian systems nonetheless demonstrates material impacts on efficiency. Steers receiving PETs required 22% fewer days on feed to reach a 646 kg finishing weight and had 9–22% lower land requirements and 12–25% lower water use than untreated cattle. Total greenhouse gas emissions ranged from 1,648 to 3,992 kg CO2e per head for treated steers compared with 1,854 to 4,270 kg CO2e for untreated ones. Emissions intensities were 13% lower for heavy-treated steers, 9% lower for medium-weight animals, and 7% lower for light animals. Reductions were consistent across methane (3–9% lower), manure methane (4–8%), direct nitrous oxide (10–16%), indirect nitrous oxide (11–16%), and carbon dioxide (12–24%). These results indicate strong efficiency and emissions advantages of PETs in systems where they are permitted, but their legal status in the UK precludes consideration as a policy intervention.

Miller et al. (2023) reviewed emerging technologies, such as the ZELP methane-oxidising device fitted on cattle heads, which converts exhaled methane to carbon dioxide using a catalytic system and simultaneously collects animal health and behaviour data. The technology is also not currently deployed or supported in Scottish beef systems. Consequently, despite potential co-benefits for monitoring and welfare, its speculative efficacy and early-stage commercial readiness limit its suitability for policy development.

Duthie et al. (2024) assessed methane direct air capture systems such as GreenSheds, which recirculate shed air and oxidise captured methane via anaerobic digestion, producing low-carbon fertiliser, energy, and by-products to support vertical farming. Estimated abatement is substantial at approximately 222 tonnes CO2e per shed per year, equivalent to around 60% lifetime methane reduction for a 100-head finishing unit. Projected adoption of 3% of UK specialist beef finishers and 0.5% across the EU by 2030 could deliver approximately 111 kt CO2e annually. Although these systems offer additional welfare and circular-economy benefits, they require considerable capital investment and are not yet commercially established.

While technological innovations offer significant mitigation potential in some contexts, regulatory constraints, insufficient robust evidence, and limited commercial readiness mean they are not appropriate for near-term policy support in Scotland.

SWOT and PESTLE results

Below are the results of the SWOT and PESTLE analyses for each of the three policy scenarios: (i) Breeding and Genetics, (ii) Feeding, Nutrition, and Grazing Management, (iii) Lifetime Productivity. The SWOT and PESTLE analyses for all three policy scenarios were developed using evidence from the REA and insights gathered through stakeholder engagement.

The SWOT analysis identifies each scenario’s internal strengths and weaknesses, as well as the external opportunities and threats that may impact it. The PESTLE analysis examines the wider political, economic, social, technological, legal, and environmental factors influencing each scenario. Together, these approaches provide an overview of the strategic considerations, risks, and external drivers that policymakers could consider when assessing each of the policy scenarios.

Breeding and Genetics

SWOT analysis

Strengths

Selective breeding offers clear strengths for reducing emissions. There is clear evidence that it can raise productivity while simultaneously lowering methane per animal. For instance, farmers can use genetic tools to select for animals that grow well, stay healthy, and use feed efficiently. These choices mean fewer animals are needed to maintain output, which reduces total emissions. Currently, there are existing tools like EnviroCow, EnviroBeef, and MyHerdStats, which are being used in dairy farming and, more recently, in the beef sector. These tools can give farmers a way to identify lower-emission animals without harming performance or productivity. These tools are already created and in use; they offer a strong base for wider uptake of low-emission breeding across the industry. Furthermore, there have been successful past Scottish Government initiatives, such as the Beef Efficiency Scheme (BES). This was a five-year program that supported beef breeders in using genetics and management data to improve their herd’s efficiency. The BES required farmers to provide data on their herds, undergo a carbon audit, and have animals genotyped. Farmers also identified three management improvements to implement throughout their farms, such as improving growth rates, nutrition, or disease resistance. The BES established frameworks for herd data collection, performance monitoring, and advisory support. Such frameworks provide a basis for identifying animals with desirable productivity and low-emission traits. These initiatives could provide a strong foundation for similar data-collection and performance-tracking efforts going forward.

Weaknesses

Several weaknesses slow the adoption of low-emission breeding. Firstly, human and practical constraints may slow uptake. Common barriers included resistance from experienced staff, a limited understanding of the potential benefits of low-emission breeding, and uneven access to veterinary or testing services in remote areas, which make it harder for farmers to implement changes. It was also identified that farmers may be uncertain about how low-emission breeding might affect an animal’s health, productivity, or long-term performance. This may reduce confidence in these approaches.

Another weakness that was identified was the poor integration of livestock data systems. Currently, data is scattered across different platforms, and regions collect information in different ways. This creates gaps and inconsistencies. Scotland does have a national livestock identification and traceability system, called ScotEID. This system provides detailed records of individual animals, including births, movements, and performance indicators. However, not all farmers use the system fully or are aware of the performance tools it offers. This uneven coverage makes breeding recommendations less reliable and makes it harder to coordinate low-emission strategies across the industry. Additionally, when farmers do utilise data for herd management and productivity enhancement, they find that the available genetic data comes mainly from pedigree herds, and not the commercial farms that make up most of the industry. This makes results less reliable and applicable for everyday farm systems.

Finally, funding limits mean fewer farms may take part in data collection, which weakens the overall dataset and reduces its value. When fewer farms contribute, the information becomes less representative. This may make it harder to spot trends or give reliable breeding advice. Stakeholders also expressed that there was poor data sharing between supply-chain partners.

Opportunities

There are opportunities that the Scottish Government can implement to help farmers’ uptake of low-emission breeding. Firstly, raising awareness and building farmer confidence may help to strengthen low-emission breeding. Having clear, user-friendly tools and guidance could highlight how the changes work in practice and the benefits that farmers can expect.

Expanding the current research base on selective breeding in Scottish beef cattle presents an additional opportunity. Increasing evidence helps to demonstrate to farmers what methods perform well and gives them information that they can trust. This may enhance adoption by reducing uncertainty and helping farmers plan how breeding changes will spread through their herds over time. Balancing low-emission traits with productivity goals is likely to encourage farmer uptake. Farmers are more likely to adopt tools that protect both emissions and income.

Additionally, collaboration between sectors, such as beef and dairy, lets farmers share skills, data, and practical experience. Dairy sector experience shows how genomic indices and performance data can guide emissions reduction while improving productivity. Together, these opportunities could help to make low-emission breeding more attractive for farmers as part of long-term planning.

Opportunities also include digital tools, such as software apps to calculate and model GHG production. This could potentially be leveraged to help farmers understand the emissions profile of their herds and benchmark performance metrics. Linking app results to variable subsidies or incentives could reward improvements and encourage consistent adoption of low-emission practices. Furthermore, market-driven pressures from meat processors and consumers may offer additional motivation. Demand for lower-emission products can translate into commercial benefits for farmers who adopt these practices.

Threats

Several factors can limit the effectiveness of selective breeding programs. One of the most common concerns raised was low farmer engagement. This is likely due to the benefits of low-emission breeding not being clear or measurable for farmers, as well as their concerns around how low-emission breeding may compromise animal performance or profitability.

For instance, there is evidence to suggest that focusing on too few traits in selective breeding can harm genetic diversity or long-term herd performance. Additional concerns include market and consumer pressures, as some low-emission interventions may compromise carcass quality or other product characteristics. For instance, one potential strategy to reduce emissions is to shift from steers to bulls, as bulls grow faster and reach slaughter weight at a younger age. This will ultimately reduce lifetime methane emissions. However, leaner bull meat is not always as commercially desirable as steer meat and therefore, emission reduction production changes may be less attractive to farmers if they reduce prices or consumer demand. Interventions like these may prevent uptake from farmers due to the risk of reducing productivity, increasing costs, or creating uncertainty about the long-term impacts on their herds.

Additionally, the existence of poor-quality data sets or small data sets can lead to unreliable breeding values. Evidence suggests that there is also a lack of coordinated policy, clear guidance, or strong infrastructure, which could slow progress and reduce confidence in existing breeding programmes. These issues may threaten the uptake of selective breeding by further reducing farmers’ trust in the system. Without support from wider management practices, voluntary progress may be inconsistent and slow progress toward emissions targets.

Finally, relying only on genetics is another risk, as it cannot deliver rapid reductions in emissions on its own. It should be used in collaboration with other management techniques, such as feeding practices. Furthermore, focusing solely on methane emissions may inadvertently increase CO2 or N2O emissions if broader herd and farm management practices are not considered. For example, changes in feed, housing, or manure management aimed only at reducing methane could shift nutrient flows, alter fertiliser use, or affect energy consumption, leading to higher emissions of other greenhouse gases. This highlights the importance of a holistic approach that considers the full spectrum of emissions across the entire farming system, rather than targeting a single gas in isolation.

PESTLE analysis

Political

Government policy could be used to help shape the pace and extent of low-emission breeding adoption. In Scotland, selective breeding for lower emissions is currently voluntary, and there are no formal requirements for farmers to use genetic tools. While this allows flexibility, uptake largely depends on industry interest and farmer willingness. Government support can make adoption easier by providing clear guidance, funding, and infrastructure for data collection, herd evaluation, and performance monitoring.

The SG could play a strong enabling role by facilitating adoption rather than imposing mandates. This includes investing in infrastructure such as national herd databases, providing financial incentives for low-emission practices, and supporting knowledge transfer. Clear policy signals from the SG would also help farmers understand national priorities and reduce perceived risks of implementing breeding changes.

Collaboration with industry can complement government efforts. Direct partnerships with meat processors, for example, can create market-driven incentives for farmers to adopt low-emission breeding practices. Such approaches encourage adoption through commercial motivation rather than coercion, reinforcing voluntary engagement while aligning economic and environmental objectives.

Economic

Breeding decisions have clear financial implications for farmers. Different cattle breeds deliver varying levels of efficiency, growth, and profitability. For many farms, selecting a breed with strong economic returns is a key business decision. Low uptake of low-emission breeding may reflect uncertainty over whether the benefits will be visible, reliable, or quick enough to justify the investment.

Furthermore, policies should consider the trade-off between profitability and GHG reduction, recognising that farmers act as profit maximisers. Incentive-based interventions, such as apps to calculate emissions or performance-linked subsidies, may support farmers in reducing GHGs while maintaining profitability. Cost-effective tools, clear evidence of productivity gains, and financial incentives could all help to encourage wider adoption of low-emission breeding technologies.

Social

Farmer attitudes and engagement are key factors shaping the uptake of selective breeding practices. Adoption remains low partly because many farmers seek clear, measurable, and low-risk benefits before changing breeding practices. Social acceptance improves when breeding benefits, such as higher productivity, lower costs, or reduced emissions, are clearly communicated and demonstrated in systems similar to their own. Human factors, including resistance from older staff, reliance on family-run operations, and the influence of younger farmers, significantly affect adoption. Younger farmers can act as change agents by testing new practices, demonstrating benefits, and showing how low-emission methods can integrate with existing systems. Trust and transparency are also crucial. Farmers are more likely to engage when performance metrics, such as those provided by SCOT EID or digital apps, are clear, reliable, and easy to interpret.

Technological

New technologies offer real opportunities to reduce methane in beef cattle through selective breeding. These tools can help farmers identify animals that produce less methane while maintaining productivity. For instance, MyHerd is a farm-level software platform that records and analyses herd performance. It tracks traits like growth, fertility, and feed efficiency. We can use it to monitor animals with lower methane emissions and make informed breeding decisions. Furthermore, genetic evaluations and data systems are improving. Advanced software now calculates EBVs for multiple traits, including methane. Better data increases confidence in selection decisions.

Additionally, advancements in scientific technology can also be leveraged to reduce methane levels and enhance productivity. For instance, rumen microbiome assessments look at the microbes in a cow’s stomach. Certain microbial communities produce less methane during digestion. By testing animals, we can identify those with naturally lower emissions and select them for breeding.

Finally, ongoing research and trials are vital. Farmers need practical examples showing how these technologies work in real farms. Demonstrating benefits in productivity, herd health, and emissions will encourage adoption. For instance, the dairy sector provides a clear example. Farmers already use Artificial Insemination (AI) and genomic testing guided by national breeding indices. These tools have improved productivity and fertility across herds. We can apply similar approaches to low-emission traits in beef cattle.

Legal

No insights were found related to this category.

Environmental

Breeding alone is likely to have a limited effect on reducing methane in the short term. Genetic improvements take several generations to spread through a herd. Therefore, progress may be slow if low-emission breeding is not combined with other management actions, for instance, improved grazing strategies, better feed efficiency, or changes to herd structure. These complementary measures may help to reduce emissions immediately, while genetic improvements accumulate over time. Low-emission breeding works best as part of this broader approach. This may allow farmers to make measurable environmental gains without compromising productivity.

Furthermore, focusing solely on methane could unintentionally increase other GHGs, and interventions should therefore consider all environmental impacts. Low-methane diets may need more fertiliser, which can release nitrous oxide. Changing feed or herd management can change manure, producing carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. Some feed supplements or processing methods use extra energy, which adds more carbon dioxide. Therefore, combined strategies should remain a key technique for reducing methane emissions.

Feeding, Nutrition, and Grazing Management

SWOT analysis

Strengths

Several strengths were identified in feeding and grazing practices. Optimised feeding systems can improve productivity while lowering environmental impacts, giving farmers both economic and climate benefits. For instance, using diverse forages and legumes can help to enhance animal nutrition and support more sustainable grazing systems.

Furthermore, diet strategies, such as grass-plus-concentrate diets or multi-species swards, can reduce methane emissions while maintaining animal performance. Targeted feeding or additives, such as Bovaer, can reduce methane-producing microbes in the rumen, further increasing productivity and lowering emissions. These practices build on existing farm routines and provide clear opportunities to combine efficiency with environmental benefits.

Weaknesses

Several weaknesses were identified in this policy scenario. The main concern is that changing feeding practices can be difficult and may face resistance from farmers. Many traditional feeding systems are deeply ingrained, and new diets may be expensive or hard to source. For example, high-starch diets can reduce methane but may be impractical for beef systems that rely mainly on grass. Furthermore, many soil and grassland management options, such as correcting soil pH or planting legumes, are underused due to limited advice, cost, or seed availability.

Farmers may also resist new approaches for social or cultural reasons. For instance, long-standing routines, family traditions, or the perception that new methods are risky or complicated. Limited advice, unclear evidence, or a lack of local demonstration projects can reinforce this resistance and slow adoption. Many dietary interventions need more research and testing on real farms, so we need more evidence on their long-term impacts.

Opportunities

There are several opportunities to improve herd productivity while reducing emissions through smarter feeding and grazing practices. Adjusting diets can make better use of available feed, reduce waste, and lower methane emissions. Shifting to multi-species swards, legumes, or grass-plus-concentrate diets can improve animal nutrition and soil health, creating more resilient grazing systems. Rotational or managed grazing can increase soil carbon storage and improve pasture productivity, depending on land type and resources. Farmers can also use diet additives or targeted feeding strategies to reduce methane-producing microbes in the rumen while maintaining animal performance.

Policymakers and advisory services can support adoption by offering guidance, training, and demonstration projects. Decision-support tools, such as farm software or benchmarking apps, can help farmers see the benefits in practice and make informed choices. Together, these opportunities show that feeding and grazing management can deliver both economic and climate benefits.

Threats

Several threats could limit the adoption of improved feeding and grazing practices. Primarily, farmers’ willingness and local conditions strongly influence uptake. Factors include feed prices, land availability, and weather. For example, some practices require large areas or major changes to grazing routines, making them less feasible for smaller farms.

Furthermore, public perception and social licence issues could also limit adoption. For example, consumers may react negatively to certain feed additives or genetic interventions, even if these practices reduce emissions. This could affect market demand and farmer uptake. Additionally, the lack of regulatory requirements or enforcement may slow uptake. Without clear standards or incentives, farmers may not consistently implement interventions. Progress across the sector could remain inconsistent.

There is also mixed or uncertain evidence about the benefits of different techniques, which may reduce farmer confidence. For example, results vary between rotational and continuous grazing, making it unclear which approach works best. As a result, farmers may delay or avoid adopting these practices. This may slow emission reductions and limit the overall impact.

Finally, the lack of regulatory requirements or enforcement may slow uptake. Without clear standards or incentives, farms may not consistently implement interventions. Progress across the sector could remain inconsistent.

PESTLE analysis

Political

Currently, feeding and grazing practices are industry-led in Scotland. There is no mandatory policy direction on methane reduction through diet or land management. The adoption of low-emission techniques relies on farmer choice rather than regulation. This may slow wider uptake of low-emission interventions that also enhance productivity. Clearer policy signals, even without regulation, could help farmers understand national priorities and give more confidence in making changes.

Economic

Feed prices, input costs, and availability strongly influence what farmers can realistically adopt. For instance, some grazing or soil-improvement practices require upfront investment. This may deter farmers if costs are high or benefits are uncertain. Similarly, changes to diets or feeding strategies may need new equipment or ingredients. Again, this may add financial pressure. Therefore, without clear, measurable benefits, farmers may avoid these interventions.

Financial incentives linked to measurable GHG reductions can help to encourage uptake. This can assist by offsetting costs and reducing risk for the farmers. Additionally, market pressures, such as requirements from processors or export standards, can also motivate farmers to adopt low-emission practices. Thus, balancing the potential economic gains with costs is key to ensuring farmers are willing and able to implement these strategies.

Social

Social factors may strongly influence whether farmers adopt low-emission feeding and grazing practices. Farmers may avoid actions that seem risky, costly, or difficult to implement. This may be due to farmers worrying about disrupting established routines or harming herd performance. Additionally, resistance may come from staff or family members. Those used to traditional approaches may be hesitant to change their long-standing practices. It was identified that the younger farmers could help to act as “change agents.” They could help to experiment with new methods and share results, which may help overcome resistance within the farm.

It was suggested that farmers need clear, practical advice and accessible feedback to act with confidence. Without guidance, uncertainty about the benefits or correct methods can prevent adoption. For instance, simple interventions, such as liming to improve soil pH or planting legumes, are often underused because farmers may not understand their advantages or how to apply them effectively.

Social acceptance also matters beyond the farm. Consumers and communities may influence farmers’ choices through their expectations or concerns. For example, consumers may have reservations about feed additives or intensive management practices.
Building trust, offering hands-on training, and providing clear, measurable evidence of benefits can help farmers overcome social barriers.

Technological

New tools and research offer real opportunities to improve how we manage methane emissions in beef cattle. For example, studying the microbes in a cow’s rumen can help us understand which animals produce less methane during digestion. This knowledge allows us to adjust feeding strategies to reduce emissions while maintaining or improving productivity. Targeted feeding practices can also complement selective breeding, helping genetically efficient animals make better use of feed and convert it into growth more effectively.

Furthermore, emerging software and farm-level platforms, such as MyHerd, can record and analyse herd performance, including growth rates, feed efficiency, and other key traits. By tracking these metrics, farmers can make more informed decisions about which animals to select or which diets to use. Many of these technologies are still developing, so continued research is essential. Farmers need clear, practical guidance and demonstrations of how these tools work in real farm settings.

Legal

There are no legal requirements governing low-emission feeding or grazing practices. Current frameworks leave decisions entirely to farmers, which maintains flexibility but may not help drive change for improvement. Future standards or guidance could influence how widely these practices are adopted.

Environmental

Environmental conditions may shape how feeding and grazing changes work in practice. For instance, different farm types, sizes, and systems may experience outcomes differently. For example, rotational grazing can reduce methane on one farm but have a lesser effect on another. Additionally, grass quality varies across farms and seasons. This can affect both animal performance and methane outcomes. Beyond the farm, feeding strategies may work well under certain market conditions, but fail when prices or feed availability change.

We need more evidence to understand which interventions work best and in which situations. Without this, advice may be too general or not very useful.

Lifetime Productivity

SWOT analysis

Strengths

Adjusting slaughter age is a promising strategy to improve herd efficiency and reduce methane emissions. Finishing steers at younger ages shortens the production cycle. This reduces the time animals spend producing enteric methane, the main source of beef-related emissions.

To assist with this, farmers can use herd performance and slaughter data (such as age, weight, and conformation) to help them decide the optimal slaughter age. This data-driven approach improves feed efficiency, reduces non-productive days, and maximises land use. As a result, emissions per unit of beef can be lowered, and profitability can still be maintained.

Promoting best-practice guidance, advisory programmes, and decision-support tools helps farmers adopt earlier, more efficient slaughter strategies. These programmes provide clear instructions, examples from real farms, and evidence of the benefits.

Weaknesses

Bull fertility is a critical factor for herd productivity and emissions efficiency. However, it was flagged as an issue. It is suggested that around 30% of bulls in the Scottish herd are infertile. Some even appear fertile, but fail to achieve pregnancies due to health issues, such as tick infestations. Low fertility reduces the number of calves born each year. This limits herd growth and overall production. Furthermore, fewer calves mean that the same amount of feed and land produces less meat. These risks reducing overall feed efficiency and increasing emissions per unit of beef.

In addition, farmers reported misunderstanding the calving interval indicators set out by the Scottish Government. Misinterpreting these measures can mean farmers miss out on payments they are entitled to under government schemes. It also creates confusion about herd performance and reduces confidence in productivity programmes. This highlights the need for clearer guidance, better explanations, and additional support from the Scottish Government.

Opportunities

There are clear opportunities to improve herd productivity while reducing emissions by adjusting calving and slaughter practices. For example, selecting the optimal slaughter age based on herd performance and market demand can shorten production cycles. This reduces the number of days animals spend on farm without compromising growth, lowering methane emissions per unit of beef. Similarly, managing calving intervals more effectively can reduce non-productive periods. Therefore, we can support farmers to coordinate calving timing with slaughter-age strategies. This support could help them to use feed, land, and other resources more efficiently. By producing more meat from the same inputs, emissions intensity per kilogram of beef decreases.

Threats

Slaughter age is primarily driven by market conditions. The market usually decides when it is best for farmers to finish animals. These external pressures may therefore limit what policy can change. Farmers are not likely to follow advice that risks their income or goes against demand. If farmers reduce slaughter age too quickly, animals could be lighter, and farmers may earn less. This can also disrupt supply chains. Farmers will not adopt changes if they think the change puts their business at risk.

PESTLE analysis

Political

Government support schemes play an important role in shaping herd management decisions. The Scottish Suckler Beef Support Scheme links some payments to herd performance. This includes requirements for calving intervals of 410 days or less. Only calves that meet these thresholds are eligible for support. This helps to encourage farmers to monitor reproductive performance. Furthermore, PGI standards, such as those for Scotch Beef, also set rules. This includes a minimum slaughter age of 12 months. Penalties for over-age slaughter reinforce these standards and help to influence farm-level decision-making. Together, these policy measures create incentives for improved lifetime productivity while maintaining product quality and compliance.

Economic

Market forces influence slaughter age and breed choice. Finishing cattle earlier may improve feed efficiency and reduce emissions; however, it may simultaneously affect beef type or price in premium markets. Therefore, farmers may have to balance productivity gains and emission reductions against market demand and seasonal price fluctuations.

Social

There are some social barriers to optimal calving intervals and slaughter age practices. For instance, farmers’ understanding of calving interval targets set out by the SSBSS varies. Some farmers remain unsure how the calving intervals are calculated or what the targets mean in practice. This can affect whether they adopt best breeding practices and ultimately receive the payment. Clear guidance and training on these tools improve adoption and herd productivity. Tools such as ScotEID MyHerdStats use official cattle traceability data to track herd fertility and calving performance. Such tools can help farmers identify cows that do not meet scheme requirements, such as for the SSBSS.

In addition, slaughter age and herd management decisions must also match seasonal production and slaughter schedules. Calves are born, grown, and finished at specific times of the year, and slaughter plants do not operate year-round. This limits farmers’ flexibility to adjust slaughter age to reduce emissions or improve efficiency. Policies that ignore these seasonal constraints may be impractical, forcing farmers to stick to existing schedules.

Technological

Tools and systems exist to help farmers monitor fertility, herd performance, and optimal slaughter age. However, current uptake is variable. Emerging technologies, such as herd-level data analysis and decision-support platforms, could improve efficiency and support evidence-based management. For instance, tools such as Herdwatch allow farmers to track births, breeding events, weights, and movements. These tools help farmers make informed decisions about herd performance and productivity. Wider adoption may require advisory support, training, or integration with existing farm management systems.

Legal

There are no direct legal limits on calving intervals, slaughter age, or herd efficiency in Scotland. The main existing intervention is the SSBSS subsidy scheme, which requires farms to meet certain conditions. One of these conditions is that cows must have a calving interval of at least 410 days to be eligible for the subsidy. There are no direct legal restrictions on slaughter age or herd efficiency in Scotland. Similarly, quality assurance standards, such as PGI schemes, provide guidelines for best practice. This may encourage farmers to align breeding and slaughter decisions with recognised criteria.

Environmental

Managing calving intervals and slaughter age reduces non-productive days. Reducing empty days and calving delays directly decreases the number of animals required to maintain output. This improves overall herd efficiency and lowers greenhouse gas emissions per unit of beef produced. By optimising productivity, farmers can produce the same amount of beef with fewer resources and less environmental impact.

Record of data and analysis used

Data sources used from the REA

Table 15: List of data sources included in the REA

Data sources used for the Value for Money assessment of selected interventions

Table 16 List of data sources used for the Value for Money assessment

How to cite this publication:

Sabri, H., Garrone, S., Barahona, M. P., Grant, V., Drummond, E. (2026) ‘Mapping genetic performance improvement in Scottish livestock’, ClimateXChange. https://doi.org/10.7488/era/7562

Prepared by Alma Economics on behalf of ClimateXChange, The University of Edinburgh. All rights reserved.

While every effort is made to ensure the information in this report is accurate as at the date of the report, no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors, omissions or misleading statements. The views expressed represent those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent those of the host institutions or funders.

This work was supported by the Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division of the Scottish Government (CoE – CXC).

ClimateXChange

Edinburgh Climate Change Institute

High School Yards

Edinburgh EH1 1LZ

+44 (0) 131 651 4783

info@climatexchange.org.uk

www.climatexchange.org.uk

If you require the report in an alternative format such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

Public bodies in Scotland have a legal duty to further biodiversity conservation when carrying out their responsibilities. This may include managing specific sites, habitats and species, increasing understanding of the natural environment, and encouraging others to consider biodiversity.

Scottish public bodies must report every three years on the actions they have taken under the Biodiversity Duty. However, the current reporting process is mis aligned with the monitoring needs of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy to 2045 (SBS) and the third Scottish National Adaptation Plan (SNAP3).

This research aimed to:

• determine what information should be collected through Biodiversity Duty reporting to better align with the monitoring needs of the SBS and SNAP3
• identify improvements to the reporting process, including opportunities to increase efficiency, value, and engagement.

Key findings

• The reporting process could better achieve its potential by improving its clarity of purpose, feedback mechanisms, and accountability.
• Compiling reports is a valuable internal exercise, helping raise awareness of the Duty, enhancing cross-departmental collaboration, and encouraging reflection on progress.
• Public bodies and policymakers are unclear whether the primary purpose is to monitor national progress against the SBS and SNAP3 or simply record actions taken.
• Limited feedback or analysis from the Scottish Government contributes to low motivation and reporting compliance (55% in the 2021–23 cycle).
• Flexible reporting guidance results in reports of inconsistent quality, format and length.
• Published reports provide strong qualitative evidence on local biodiversity action, particularly relating to species and habitats, public engagement and nature-based solutions.
• Published reports provide limited evidence for key national priorities, including nature finance and sectoral actions in farming, fishing and forestry.

Opportunities to improve reporting and increase its value for public bodies and national monitoring:

• Clarify the primary purpose of Biodiversity Duty reporting to better align reporting with national policy objectives.
• Introduce a formal feedback and analysis process to demonstrate the value of submitted reports, improve engagement
• Develop a centralised online reporting portal with clearer guidance, training materials, best practice examples, a dedicated point of contact, and a searchable database of reports.
• Introduce a core set of standardised metrics alongside narrative reporting to improve consistency and support national monitoring.
• Better communicate the flexibility within existing reporting timescales to help reduce reporting pressures.

For further information, please read the full report.

If you require the report or annex in an alternative format, such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

Photo by Scotty Turner on Unsplash

March 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7488/era/7428

Executive summary

Background

Under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, public bodies in Scotland have a duty to further the conservation of biodiversity when carrying out their responsibilities. The Biodiversity Duty is not only about protecting biodiversity through managing specific sites, habitats and species. It also aims to increase understanding and consideration of the natural environment, including through procurement and resource use, as well as encouraging others to consider biodiversity. As part of that duty, Scottish public bodies must report every three years on the actions they have taken to further the conservation of biodiversity.

However, the current reporting process and its guidance are misaligned with Scotland’s ambitious new biodiversity vision and outcomes as well as climate adaptation objectives, as set out in the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (SBS) to 2045 and the third Scottish National Adaptation Plan (SNAP3). As a result, the data collected under the Biodiversity Duty may be unsuitable for national monitoring. This disconnect may lead to inefficiencies and missed opportunities to track climate adaptation efforts.

Aims and objectives

The primary aim of this research was to determine what information should be collected through Biodiversity Duty reporting to better align with the monitoring needs of the SBS and SNAP3. A secondary aim was to identify potential improvements to the reporting process, including opportunities to increase efficiency, value, and engagement.

The study combined a desk-based review of the current biodiversity policy and legislative landscape in Scotland, a detailed analysis of 33 published Biodiversity Duty reports, and stakeholder engagement with public bodies and policy makers.

Findings

Our findings indicate that the Biodiversity Duty reporting process could achieve its potential more fully by addressing key opportunities to improve its clarity of purpose, feedback mechanisms, and accountability.

• The process acts as a valuable internal tool for public bodies, who reported that the process of compiling the report is helpful for raising internal awareness of the Biodiversity Duty, enhancing cross-departmental collaboration, and encouraging reflection on their progress
  
• There is significant confusion among public bodies and policy makers as to whether the primary goal is to monitor national progress against the SBS and SNAP3 or to simply log all actions taken. Our analysis shows the current process does not serve either purpose fully.
  
• Motivation and reporting compliance are low. Reporting compliance was only 55% in the 2021–23 reporting cycle. Stakeholders partly attribute this to a lack of feedback or analysis from the Scottish Government, which makes the process feel like a “tick-box” exercise with no clear value or consequences.
  
• Data is inconsistent and cannot be used for monitoring. The flexible guidance for Biodiversity Duty Reporting results in reports of widely varying quality, format, and length. Data provided is largely qualitative, lacks common metrics, and cannot be easily aggregated, compared, or used for national monitoring purposes.
  
• Published reports contain strong qualitative evidence on local biodiversity action, with particularly good coverage of species and habitats (SBS Objective 4), public engagement (SBS Objective 6), and nature-based solutions (SNAP3 Nature Connects).
  
• There are significant data gaps for national priorities. Reports provide limited evidence for key national priorities, including nature finance (SBS Objective 5) and sectoral actions in farming, fishing, and forestry (SBS Objective 3).

Opportunities

We identified a series of interconnected opportunities that have potential to improve the Biodiversity Duty reporting process and transform it into a more effective and valuable tool. However, consideration of any resource requirements lies outside the scope of this research:

• Clarify the core purpose of reporting. This is the foundational step. A clear definition of the primary purpose of the reporting is essential, whether for national monitoring of progress against the SBS and SNAP3, as a comprehensive log of all actions taken, or a balance of both. This decision will guide all subsequent improvements.
  
• Create a feedback and analysis loop. To address the primary driver of low levels of engagement with the Biodiversity Duty reporting process, a formal feedback loop could be established to provide brief, constructive feedback on submitted reports. There may also be value in aggregated analysis of all data to demonstrate the collective contribution to national goals and allow bodies to benchmark their progress.
  
• Streamline the process with a central portal and improved guidance. A centralised online portal for Biodiversity Duty reporting, similar to that used for the Public Bodies’ Climate Change (PBCC) reporting, could be developed for all submissions. This could provide automated deadline notifications, act as a single submission platform, and host a searchable public database of all submitted reports, guidance, and training materials.
  
• Introduce standardised, proportionate metrics. A core set of meaningful but achievable quantitative metrics could be incorporated to complement narrative reporting. This would enable data comparison and progress tracking against national objectives and outcomes without being overly resource intensive.
  
• Introduce training and strengthen support. A programme of regular training webinars, best practice examples, and a dedicated point of contact would be highly valued by public bodies.
  
• Communicate flexibility of timelines. The Scottish Government could proactively and clearly communicate the existing flexibility, which allows public bodies to report at any point within the three-year cycle that suits their internal workflows, to help alleviate end-of-year pressures which some public bodies have reported.
  

Glossary / Abbreviations table

Introduction

Under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, public bodies in Scotland have a duty to further the conservation of biodiversity when carrying out their responsibilities. The Biodiversity Duty is not only about protecting biodiversity through managing specific sites, habitats and species. It also aims to (NatureScot, 2023):

• Increase the level of understanding and connection between people and the living environment
  
• Promote consideration of all impacts on the natural world through actions and decisions, including through procurement and use of resources
  
• Encourage staff, partners and customers to engage with, understand and consider biodiversity.

As part of the Duty, Scottish public bodies must report every three years on the actions they have taken to further the conservation of biodiversity. ClimateXChange (CXC) commissioned Ipsos in September 2025 to carry out a review of the Biodiversity Duty reporting (BD reporting) process and its existing guidance, to help understand how it might inform key Scottish Government policy areas on biodiversity and climate change adaptation.

Our research assesses the current BD reporting guidance and explores how this might be improved to align with current Scottish Government Biodiversity and Climate Adaptation Plans and their associated monitoring and evaluation frameworks.

The need for this research

The need for this research is driven by the recognised misalignment between the current Biodiversity Duty (BD) reporting guidance and the wider policy landscape. The existing guidance was developed to support the previous Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (SBS) (2004) and the 2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity (Scottish Government, 2013). The guidance was partially updated in 2020, and again in 2023, specifically in relation to the newly emerging Nature Network policy^[1]. These ‘light touch’ revisions were not designed around the full objectives of the new Scottish Biodiversity Strategy to 2045 (SBS) (Scottish Government, 2024b) and the third Scottish National Adaptation Plan (SNAP3) (Scottish Government, 2024a).

Since the development of guidance on BD reporting, the policy landscape has significantly shifted. The Scottish Government has developed a new Biodiversity Strategy and Delivery Plan, with actions in that Plan also contributing to The Scottish National Adaptation Plan. This has created a disconnect between the existing BD guidance and the current policy landscape, resulting in several potential issues that this research was intended to explore and test:

• The data currently collected through BD reports may not be suitable for the monitoring and reporting of objectives in the SBS and SNAP3.
  There is a missed opportunity to use the BD reporting process efficiently to gather data on climate change adaptation actions across the Scottish public sector.
• The lack of alignment with the annual Public Bodies Climate Change Duties Reporting (PBCCD) process creates potential for inefficiency and duplication of effort.

Research aims and objectives

The primary aim of our research was to determine what information should be collected through BD reporting to align with the SBS and the SNAP3 monitoring and reporting. A secondary aim was to inform potential improvements in the reporting process itself, including identifying efficiencies.

Research objectives

• To help determine what information should be collected through BD reporting.
• To explore how the BD reporting guidance might be improved to align with current Scottish Government Biodiversity Strategy and Climate Adaptation Plans and their associated monitoring and evaluation frameworks.

To achieve the research objectives, research questions were developed to support the research objectives and can be found in the Appendix A.

Research approach and methods

We used a mixed-methods research design to provide a comprehensive review. Our approach combined desk-based research with in-depth stakeholder engagement. The research consisted of:

1. Scoping interviews: we conducted five scoping interviews with key strategic stakeholders within Scottish Government and NatureScot to inform this work. These were carried out in parallel with the desk-based review and Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA).
   
2. Desk-based review: We conducted a desk-based review of the current legislative and policy environment in Scotland. We also analysed a sample of 31 published BD reports to understand current reporting practices and their alignment with national strategies for biodiversity and climate adaptation.
   
3. Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA): We carried out a REA. This assessment looked at similar statutory reporting duties in other countries to identify potential lessons and examples of good practice for Scotland.
   
4. Stakeholder interviews: to gather detailed perspectives on the current process, we conducted 24 in-depth interviews. We spoke with 19 representatives from a diverse range of public bodies responsible for reporting, and with five policy makers who may use the reports.
   
5. Synthesis and stakeholder validation: Finally, we brought all our findings together in a synthesis stage. We used a SWOC (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Challenges) analysis to structure the evidence. We then tested and refined our initial recommendations at a stakeholder workshop to ensure they were relevant and practical.

A full, detailed description of our research methodology is available in Appendix B.

Structure of this report

The remainder of this report details the findings, conclusions and recommendations from the mixed-methods research.

Chapter 4 provides a detailed overview of the current policy and legislative landscape. It examines the alignment of BD reporting with the key strategic frameworks of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (SBS) and the third Scottish National Adaptation Plan (SNAP3), presenting an analysis of how existing reports contribute data to these national objectives.

Chapter 5 presents a comprehensive assessment of the BD reporting process. Drawing on extensive stakeholder engagement and a formal SWOC analysis, this chapter explores the practical effectiveness and efficiency of the current system, from reporting compliance to the impact on public bodies.

Finally, Chapter 6 synthesises findings to present a series of conclusions and opportunities for the future of BD reporting. This chapter outlines opportunities for enhancing the reporting process to better serve its purpose and meet the needs of both the Scottish Government and the public bodies responsible for reporting.

The Biodiversity Duty and the wider policy landscape

A central aim of this research was to explore what information should be collected through the reporting process to better align with Scotland’s key biodiversity and climate adaptation strategies. This chapter presents the findings from this review, assessing the alignment between the current BD reporting guidance and BD report contents and the strategic objectives and monitoring frameworks of the SBS and SNAP3.

Background

Under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, all public bodies must, in exercising their functions, further the conservation of biodiversity (Scottish Government, 2004). This is known as the Biodiversity Duty. The 2004 Act also requires public bodies to have regard to the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (SBS) when discharging that duty.

Alongside the Duty, the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 (WANE Act 2011) requires public bodies to publish a report every three years on actions taken to comply with the Biodiversity Duty. There have been four reporting rounds to date: 2012–2014, 2015–2017, 2018–2020 and 2021–2023. While there is no statutory list of public bodies who must report, Appendix C summarises categories commonly used by Scottish Government as defined in the public bodies directory (Scottish Government, 2025b).

Separately, under Section 44 of the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, relevant public bodies in Scotland have duties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, contribute to the delivery of the Scottish National Adaptation Plan (SNAP), and act in the most sustainable way. These duties are known as the Public Bodies Climate Change Duties (PBCCD). The Climate Change (Duties of Public Bodies: Reporting Requirements) (Scotland) Order 2015 amendments require public bodies deemed to be ‘major players’ to report annually on their compliance with climate change duties. These public bodies are expected to include climate change reporting as part of their annual corporate reporting process, covering mitigation (carbon emissions reductions), adaptation and sustainability (Scottish Government, 2015). Unlike the Biodiversity Duty, the Climate Change Duties set out which public bodies they apply to. A list of relevant public bodies is provided under Schedule 1 of the 2015 Order (Scottish Government, 2015).

Timing of Biodiversity Duty reporting

The WANE Act (2011) states that ‘a public body must prepare and publish a biodiversity report within 3 years of either the base date^[2] or the date on which a report was last published by the body under this subsection’ (Scottish Government, 2011). Therefore, since coming into force in 2011, BD reporting has been conducted on a three‑year cycle (2012–14, 2015–17, 2018–20, 2021–23). According to the BD reporting guidance, in the most recent 2023 round, reports were due for publication by the end of December 2023 (Scottish Government, 2023). To comply with the Biodiversity Duty, organisations must publish their report, preferably online (NatureScot, 2025).

In practice, BD reports are published at different times and in varying formats. There are no central submission routes and no structured dataset. This makes it difficult to consistently re‑use BD report content in SBS progress reporting or SNAP annual updates.

Review of existing biodiversity duty reports

To understand the extent to which publicly available BD reports were relevant to SBS Objectives or SNAP3 Outcomes, we reviewed a sample of 31 reports. The sample of biodiversity reports were selected to represent a mix of public bodies (local authorities, Executive Non-departmental Public Bodies, Executive Agencies, Non-Ministerial Office, Public Corporation, other significant bodies, parliamentary commissioners and ombudsmen) across different reporting levels (as defined by which reporting template they have used). For the local authority reports reviewed, a sample was selected that represented a range of regions, rural-urban characteristics and land area size.

We assessed whether each report showed evidence of plans or actions that relate to the SBS Delivery Plan priority actions under each objective and SNAP3 sub-objectives. We assessed presence of relevant content only and did not assess performance or outcomes. The methodology and assessment criteria can be found in Appendix B. A comprehensive list of the reviewed biodiversity reports can be found in Appendix D. A summary of the assessment of alignment with SBS Objectives and SNAP3 sub-objectives are found respectively in Table 1 and Table 2 below. The detailed mapping can be found in Appendix E and Appendix F.

Table 1: Extent to which BD reports provide relevant data to SBS Objectives^[3]

Taken together, the reports contain strong qualitative evidence of actions and/or plans for targeted conservation of species and habitats under Objective 4. They also show strong coverage of actions and/or plans for public engagement and behaviour change under Objective 6. There is some evidence of actions and/or plans for habitat restoration and connectivity under Objectives 1 and 2. Many bodies describe actions and/or plans related to invasive non‑native species control, habitat restoration and work on and/or plans for restoration of blue‑green spaces. Fewer describe actions and/or plans related to coastal space for habitat change or the management of herbivore pressures.

Evidence is more limited for sectoral levers under Objective 3. Woodland management appears often, but there is limited existence of actions and/or plans for embedding nature positivity within agriculture, aquaculture and fisheries unless this is a core function of the reporting public body. Reports of actions and/or plans for Objective 5, investment in nature, relates mainly to workforce skills and organisational capacity. Few reports describe funding sources, investment flows or the use of nature finance and markets. Alignment to the core intent of Objective 5 is therefore partial.

This pattern reflects the levers most public bodies hold. Many have influence over their estates, planning inputs and community engagement. Fewer have direct control over agriculture, fisheries, aquaculture or external investment.

For progress monitoring of the SBS delivery plan, BD reports can help evidence actions and/or plans for nature restoration, invasive species control, blue‑green infrastructure, public engagement and woodland work. They provide less insight on finance and markets, and on sector‑specific actions in farming, aquaculture and fisheries.

We also mapped the same 31 reports to the outcomes in SNAP3. Table 2 below summarises how often report content related to each outcome.

The strongest coverage is for the SNAP3 Objective, Nature Connects. Many reports describe actions and/or plans related to nature networks, habitat connectivity, woodland work and nature‑based solutions. Several also note actions and/or plans for contributions to natural carbon stores and sinks. Coverage of actions and/or plans relevant to the Communities objective and Public Services and Infrastructure objective is strong. Reports often describe actions and/or plans related to partnerships, governance and capacity, with variable detail on assets and services.

There was moderate coverage of reported actions and/or plans relevant to the Economy, Business and Industry objective. Many public bodies reported actions to raise awareness of climate risks and some innovation projects. Fewer reported practical support to help sectors like farming, forestry, fishing and aquaculture adapt. International Action was limited, which reflects the domestic mandates of most public bodies.

This pattern is understandable. BD reporting focuses on actions in local places and assets; this aligns well with Nature Connects and with community‑level action. Adaptation in infrastructure and the economy often sits within other duties or programmes, such as PBCCD reporting. This may explain the lighter coverage here.

Table 2: Extent to which BD Reports provide data relevant to SNAP3 Outcomes^[4]

For SNAP3 monitoring, BD reports can contribute to reporting on habitat connectivity, the extent and condition of green‑blue infrastructure, and the coverage of regional collaborations.

This analysis has limitations. The sample is purposive^[5] and drawn from published reports, so it may not reflect all bodies. We recorded the presence of plans or actions, not their quality or impact. Reports vary in format and depth, which limits aggregation and comparisons. Most entries are qualitative, and there are few common quantitative metrics or baselines.

Alignment between the Climate Change Duty and BD reporting

Currently, there is limited alignment between BD reporting guidance and the Public Bodies Climate Change Duties (PBCCD) reporting requirements (Scottish Government, 2025a). PBCCD reporting has focused strongly on mitigation to date, though public bodies are also asked to report on adaptation risks, governance, actions and monitoring. The draft 2025 statutory guidance signals a strengthening of adaptation content which offers the opportunity to make explicit links between these two policy areas and emphasising that delivery of action for biodiversity can bring benefit for climate change and vice versa.^[6]

Lessons from comparative statutory reporting processes elsewhere

Our review identified the existence of several comparable statutory processes elsewhere in the UK and internationally, however did not identify any examples of ‘best practice’ approaches. The review identified limited evaluative evidence on the effectiveness of public‑sector biodiversity or adaptation reporting.

While not explicitly presented as a best or good practice example, an evaluation of the Wales Biodiversity Duty provided useful lessons and recommendations that could be applicable to Scotland’s Biodiversity Reporting (Bryer et al., 2021). The Wales Biodiversity and Resilience of Ecosystem Duty requires public authorities to actively maintain and enhance biodiversity and promote the resilience of ecosystems when carrying out their functions in Wales. Authorities are expected to embed biodiversity considerations into their daily activities, policies, and planning, and to publish regular reports on their progress (Welsh Government, 2022, p. 6). The evaluation by Bryer et al (2021) examined what worked well, and key barriers and enablers to implementing the duty. Lessons from this evaluation (e.g., clearer scope, onboarding, exemplars, feedback loops)) informed our SWOC (Section 5) and opportunities (Section 6).

Assessing the current Biodiversity Duty Reporting process

We drew on our desk review and interviews with reporting organisations and policy makers to assess the BD reporting process. We used a SWOC framework to structure the evidence (see Appendix G for the full analysis). This section summarises the key findings which led to the identification of the opportunities for what information to collect through BD reporting and how to improve the guidance, so it aligns with the SBS and SNAP monitoring frameworks.

Reporting compliance

While the requirement for public bodies to report on their biodiversity actions creates a level of accountability to the Biodiversity Duty, available records suggest that around half (55%) of bodies published a BD report in 2021-23, with higher rates among Local Authorities (81%) and Executive NDPBs (62%). The highest compliance was recorded in the previous round (2018-2020), when 61% of public bodies published reports. The tables below show compliance rates across all reporting rounds and across different public body types.

Table 3: Compliance rates across all reporting rounds

Note: Source and denominator definition provided in Appendix B. Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number.

Table 4: Public body BD reporting compliance (2021-2023)

Public bodies, including some that did not report in the most recent round, attributed the low compliance rate to a lack of government feedback on published reports and accountability. The absence of follow-up reduced motivation to produce high quality reports – or reports at all – thereby minimising the overall effectiveness of the Biodiversity Duty.

Lack of feedback

Public bodies highlighted that this lack of feedback was a significant driver of low compliance. Struggling to see the purpose of producing BD reports and how these contributed to national biodiversity targets, most public bodies viewed the BD reporting process as a ‘tick-box’ exercise.

“From our perspective, there is absolutely no purpose to it… It’s just no one ever gets back to us to say whether they’ve read it, we don’t know what they use it for. It doesn’t seem to be presented anywhere else.” – Executive NDPB

Most public bodies saw real value in government feedback on their published reports, particularly on their progress and areas of weakness. They believed that such feedback would help make biodiversity a corporate priority, improving both compliance rates and overall report quality.

“It would be good if they come back and said, but we think you’re weak in these areas. And then you can take that back and say, well, that’s something we can work on.” – Local Authority

They further suggested that alongside feedback, the government publishes an analysis of data from across all published BD reports to show overall progress of public organisations against national targets. This would help public bodies see their contributions and boost motivation to comply and publish quality reports.

To further strengthen compliance, public bodies suggested that the government holds organisations accountable for failing to publish reports – or for submitting low-quality ones – to create a stronger incentive to comply.

“Individual organisations don’t seem to be being held accountable for the reports. For example, if government had come back to us and said, where’s your last report? It would have strengthened the internal call for more resources to do the report.” – Executive NDPB

Resource and capacity constraints

Another identified challenge contributing to low reporting compliance is a lack of resources and capacity within organisations to draft and review BD reports. Public bodies suggested exempting small organisations with no biodiversity and/or land management remit from reporting to reduce the burden on already constrained resources. This view was well-aligned with feedback from policy makers, who felt that the scope of the Biodiversity Duty was very broad, placing an unnecessary burden on smaller organisations without a biodiversity remit.

Their suggestions to improve compliance through feedback and accountability were in line with findings from the desk review. Discussions within the Scottish Government on recent reviews and changes, noted that the Scottish Government and NatureScot should review the evidence from public bodies and, if needed, further support them to comply with BD reporting. They also noted that, to further encourage compliance, the government should write to public bodies at the start of the reporting cycle – and at regular intervals – to remind them of their BD reporting duties, and how the work they undertake on a day-to-day basis can contribute to fulfilling the Biodiversity Duty (Correspondence, 2022). This recommendation aligned with findings from the evaluation of the Welsh Biodiversity Duty, which stated that more active government involvement incentivises organisations to publish higher-quality reports (Bryer et al., 2021).

Public bodies consistently asked for clear, proportionate expectations, visible use of data and brief, constructive feedback after submission.

Guidance and process

The research has identified several strengths and weaknesses of the current BD reporting process, mostly related to the reporting guidance and the timing of the reporting cycle.

Guidance content and usability

The existing reporting guidance was developed to support the previous SBS (2004), and the partial updates in 2020 and 2023 were not built around the full objectives of the new SBS and SNAP3 (see Section 4.1). The review assessed whether BD reports contained information related to SBS and SNAP3 objectives, the presence of relevant references, plans or actions, rather than whether that information was suitable for monitoring progress towards these objectives. Policy makers stated that, as currently reported, the data cannot be easily used to monitor progress of SNAP3 or SBS. For example, the information is primarily qualitative and does not track progress against clearly defined metrics over time. Many public bodies, however, felt the guidance aligns in intent because it prompts them to describe relevant activity.

Our mapping and interviews therefore indicate medium to high alignment in terms of the presence of content linked to SBS and, to a lesser extent, SNAP3. Several bodies also undertake monitoring outside BD reporting. However, there was broad agreement that more prescriptive guidance is needed on how to report. Clearer definitions, a small set of common fields and metrics, baselines and reporting periods, and proportionate requirements by body type would help. This would streamline BD reporting against the SBS framework, reduce unnecessary narrative, and enable the information to be used to monitor progress.

The guidance provides a clear structure and was the starting point for most public bodies. Many valued the flexibility to reflect local context. However, smaller bodies and those without a strong environmental remit found the breadth challenging. Flexibility on ‘how’ to report led to inconsistency and duplication (e.g., repeated content under multiple headings).

“For a [large] agency like mine […] or someone whose whole business is delivering biodiversity, we should be expected to write a much bigger and more detailed report than a lot of small public bodies that really don’t have a strong environmental locus.” – Executive NDPB

To overcome these challenges and improve the reporting process, as well as subsequent data collection through BD reporting, interviewees asked for proportionate, tiered guidance tailored to organisational roles, with clearer minimum requirements, sector‑specific examples, and a small set of common quantitative fields (as in PBCCD) to support benchmarking and re‑use.

To improve the overall reporting process, public bodies suggested implementing a streamlined mechanism for publishing reports, such as a single website where all organisations could upload their reports and receive notifications when the reporting period begins. This aligns with feedback from policy makers who further added that uploading all reports onto a single source would help the government monitor compliance. To further streamline the process and ensure better alignment with the SBS, one policy maker suggested establishing direct communication with the individual responsible for overseeing SBS monitoring so that they can request specific data from organisations to track progress against SBS targets.

“If I was a local authority or a forestry officer or something, I’m not going to sift my way through the SBS to find out what I should or shouldn’t be doing… There needs to be tailored asks.” – Policy maker

Comparing the BD reporting and PBCCD guidance, public bodies said it was useful that the PBCCD guidance required organisations to report quantitative metrics and suggested adopting the same in future BD reporting guidance. They noted this would help to: streamline data reported across organisations; allow public bodies to track their progress, and use biodiversity reports to inform other strategies and justify funding requests, which they had found quite difficult to date, and; make it easier to compare and utilise data across reports.

Reporting cycle

Public bodies expressed mixed views about the frequency of reporting, with some valuing the current three-year cycle to show measurable change, whilst others struggled to recall activities across three years. Those struggling with the three-year period suggested having a template to continuously record their activities (see section 6.3.2 for more information). Regardless, very few public bodies suggested turning biodiversity reporting into an annual reporting cycle to make it easier to track biodiversity related activities, as doing so would significantly increase workload and add burden on resources.

There were mixed views about the timing of the report submission. Many public bodies operate as if there is a fixed deadline at the end of the calendar year, and some found this timing challenging as it competed with other end-of-year priorities and coincided with staff leave. However, it is important to note that this is a common practice rather than a statutory requirement; public bodies are free to report at any point within the three-year cycle that suits their internal workflows. The fact that this flexibility is not widely understood suggests a gap in communication.

For those operating to a December deadline, some Local Authorities and Executive NDPBs mentioned that a grace period would be beneficial to allow their reports to be ratified by committees. This feedback further highlights the need for organisations to be aware that they can set their own submission timeline within the three-year cycle to align with such internal governance processes.

“There is no grace period between the three-year period, and then there’s less than six months to write the report and to take it to committee and to do all the various other sort of things that we need to do within local authority to get it formally approved by our members.” – Local authority

Some other public bodies did not find the timing of reporting to be an issue, as their biggest competing priority with the report was day-to-day work commitments, therefore the deadline was not a factor impacting capacity.

Public bodies also suggested aligning their internal annual reports^[7] with the BD report to improve the link between biodiversity and climate change activities. This was because they saw overlap between their internal annual reports – produced under internal strategies rather than national ones – on overall progress against climate change mitigation and the BD report. However, when it came to the PBCCD specifically, there was little support for producing a single, combined BD-PBCCD report. Although public bodies agreed that climate change and biodiversity were connected, they felt that combining them into one report would risk biodiversity being overshadowed by climate change mitigation. This aligned with NatureScot interviewees who had the same view.

Reporting guidance, content and alignment to SBS and SNAP3

As noted in Section 5.2, the current guidance predates the SBS to 2045 and SNAP3 (2024–2029) and is only partially aligned with their monitoring needs. Our review of 31 reports (Section 4.3; Appendix B) found medium–strong coverage of species/habitats and indirect drivers (public engagement), but less evidence for sectoral actions (agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries) and for finance/investment (SBS Objective 5). Report length, structure and metrics varied widely, which limited comparability and policy re‑use.

Due to flexible guidance, BD reports tend to be inconsistent in content, length, and quality. This has made it impossible for public bodies to benchmark their reports against those of other public bodies with similar functions. It also created challenges for policy makers who could not extract and use tangible and comparable data.

“It [the report could be] anything, from a very brief synopsis to something which you could stick on a library shelf. There’s no consistency across local authorities at all, which is a shame…you can’t even benchmark other local authorities against each other.” – Local Authority

For this reason and in addition to improving and streamlining guidance, which would help streamline report content, public bodies and policy makers suggested that the government provides additional support to organisations without internal expertise, including guidance on what actions to take in relation to contributing to and monitoring biodiversity conservation. They also recommended providing supplementary information alongside the guidance to help inexperienced organisations understand what they need to report and how. In addition to providing this information, they should also provide best practice examples to all reporting bodies. Further, some public bodies suggested holding knowledge-sharing webinars and workshops so that reporting organisations can learn best practices around taking actions, monitoring, and reporting, from one another.

“You could be running workshops to bring them [reporting organisations] together to help them understand the kind of activities that would be useful for them to report on” – Other significant body

Impacts on public bodies

Public bodies emphasised that the BD reporting process was helpful for raising awareness of biodiversity and enhancing collaboration within organisations. It created opportunities to bring the Biodiversity Duty to the attention of different parts of the organisation – including senior staff – to strengthen collaboration, and to connect staff across the organisation who had not previously engaged. Public bodies found that the process of developing the report by collecting insights from across the organisation and reviewing previous work / reports, also helped organisations reflect on their progress. Bryer et al. (2021) reported similar findings in the evaluation of the Welsh Biodiversity Duty, showing how frameworks such as the Biodiversity Duty help foster collaboration within organisations.

“[The BD reporting process] reintroduced people to the idea they had a Biodiversity Duty, what that meant, and how to talk about it in their own context.” – Local Authority

Conclusions and opportunities for the future of Biodiversity Duty reporting

Building on the findings detailed in Chapters 4 and 5, this chapter first summarises the core challenges and weaknesses identified in the current process. It then presents a series of opportunities for the Scottish Government to enhance and streamline the reporting system, to better align it with national strategic objectives and improve its effectiveness for the public bodies who report, and for the users of the reports.

Clarifying the core purpose of Biodiversity Duty reporting

It is evident from the research findings that there is significant confusion about the primary purpose of the BD reporting. As highlighted in Chapter 5, this uncertainty is felt strongly by the public bodies required to report. Many view the process as a ‘tick-box’ exercise, a perception driven by a lack of feedback from the government.

This research has shown that there are two different, and sometimes conflicting, views regarding the purpose of the reports:

1. To monitor national progress: the reports are intended to be a tool to track Scotland’s collective progress against the high-level goals of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (SBS) and the Scottish National Adaptation Plan (SNAP3).
   
2. To capture all biodiversity actions: the reports are intended to act as a comprehensive log of all the varied actions, big and small, that public bodies are undertaking to conserve nature, as required by the 2011 Act.
   

Currently, the reporting process attempts to serve both purposes but, as the findings show, it does not fully achieve either. For the first purpose – monitoring national progress – our analysis in Section 4.3 found that while reports contained some relevant information, there were significant gaps. For example, we found ‘Limited’ evidence for key areas such as ‘nature-positive farming, fishing and forestry’ (SBS Objective 3) and ‘investing in nature’ (SBS Objective 5). Furthermore, while we identified the existence of information relevant to each objective (e.g. existence of key words, etc.), it was beyond the scope of our review to assess to what extent this information or data was suitable for the monitoring of progress towards these goals/objectives.

Additionally, we found a disconnect in perception: while some public bodies felt their reporting did align with the SBS, some intended users of the reports felt that the data is unsuitable for monitoring. This unsuitability was linked to the data provided being largely qualitative, lacking common quantitative metrics, and being presented in inconsistent formats, making it impossible to aggregate or compare effectively at a national level.

For the second purpose – capturing all actions – the process also falls short. The low compliance rate of 55%, discussed in Section 5.1, means that a complete picture of all activities across the public sector is not being captured. Moreover, as reported by public bodies and policy makers, the flexibility in the guidance has led to reports of wildly inconsistent quality and format, making it impossible to compare or aggregate the information effectively.

Deciding whether the primary goal is national monitoring, a comprehensive activity log, or a balance of the two, is the essential first step. This is a foundational opportunity that would enable the other opportunities outlined below. This decision will then guide all other improvements to the guidance, reporting format, and feedback processes to ensure the system is effective and valued by all involved.

Opportunity for efficiently gathering climate adaptation evidence

A key theme of this research was to explore the potential for BD reporting to provide useful evidence on climate adaptation actions, even though this is not its primary purpose. While the PBCCD is the dedicated mechanism for monitoring progress against the Scottish National Adaptation Plan (SNAP3), there is a clear opportunity for better join-up and efficiency.

Our analysis confirms a strong, inherent overlap. BD reports are already a rich source of qualitative information on nature-based solutions and place-based actions, which align directly with the ‘Nature Connects’ outcome of SNAP3. This is an inherent strength of the BD reporting process, as it focuses on tangible actions on the ground.

However, the potential to efficiently use this information for national adaptation monitoring is currently unrealised. This is due to the procedural and content-related challenges identified throughout this report: inconsistent formats, a lack of common metrics, and misaligned reporting cycles make it difficult to systematically extract and analyse this adaptation-related content.

With minor, targeted improvements, BD reporting could become a much more efficient and valuable secondary source of climate adaptation evidence. By making small adjustments to the guidance and template, such as including a few common fields on nature-based solutions, the Scottish Government could harness this existing data stream to complement PBCCD reporting, reduce duplication of effort for public bodies, and gain a richer understanding of place-based adaptation action across Scotland. In practice, this could mean using the BD reports to directly inform the monitoring of the ‘Nature Connects’ outcome of SNAP3, for which this research found strong existing coverage. For example, standardised fields in the BD report could capture data on actions that are already being widely reported, such as habitat connectivity, the extent of green-blue infrastructure, and regional collaborations, allowing this information to be used as evidence for SNAP3 monitoring.

Enhancing training and support

Beyond clarifying the purpose, there is a significant opportunity to strengthen the support for public bodies undertaking their BD reporting. Our research found that organisations, particularly those with less environmental expertise, feel they lack the knowledge to report effectively.

Structured training for public bodies on how to report

A key opportunity exists for the Scottish Government, potentially in partnership with NatureScot, to provide regular training on the reporting process. As noted in Section 5.3, public bodies indicated a preference for webinars, and these sessions could be delivered alongside every new guidance release. To maximise their impact, training should cover the strategic context as well as the mechanics of reporting: why the reports are important, how the data is used to inform national strategy, and what constitutes best practice. Including knowledge-sharing segments where organisations can learn from one another would also be highly valuable. This would ensure a consistent message is delivered to all public bodies, reinforcing the value of their contributions.

Dedicated support and standardised continuous monitoring framework

To complement formal training, establishing a dedicated individual or team as a point of contact for queries would address the current communication gap and improve report consistency. Furthermore, to address the challenge of retrospectively gathering information, which was a concern identified in Section 5.2, the government could provide a standardised framework or digital tracking tool. This would allow public bodies to continuously record their biodiversity work, minimising information loss from staff turnover and reducing the administrative burden when the formal reporting period begins.

Tailoring guidance for all public bodies

A recurring theme from our interviews was the challenge faced by smaller public bodies or those with functions less directly related to land management. As noted in Section 5.2, the current perception of a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach can be challenging for some public bodies, particularly those with a smaller biodiversity remit.

While different reporting templates already exist, intended to be proportionate to an organisation’s role and remit, our research found that this is not well understood by reporting bodies.

A significant opportunity lies in improving the accessibility of current templates, better signposting the existing proportionate options and developing clear, tailored guidance to accompany each level. This supplementary guidance could be specifically designed for smaller organisations or those with a limited biodiversity remit. It could include practical, relevant examples from similar bodies and, crucially, provide clear criteria for exemption where an organisation has no biodiversity-relevant functions to report on. This would reduce the burden on organisations with limited capacity and strengthen their motivation to engage by demonstrating that the reporting requirements are achievable and relevant to their scale of operations.

Integrating standardised quantitative metrics for measurable progress

Our research highlighted a major challenge for policy makers: the difficulty of extracting and comparing data from the current open-ended, narrative-style reports. This was echoed by some reporting bodies who, as noted in Section 5.2, saw value in the quantitative metrics required for PBCCD reporting. However, the workshop with stakeholders showed that there is no clear consensus on incorporating quantitative metrics into BD reporting. While some stakeholders want them, others caution against the resource burden and the risk of them becoming inaccessible for non-experts.

There is therefore an opportunity to explore the careful integration of standardised quantitative metrics into BD reporting, but this must be done in close consultation with public bodies. This could include key biodiversity metrics (e.g., area of habitat restored, length of hedgerow planted) with data fields for year-on-year comparison to demonstrate progress. To be effective, the reporting template must provide clear definitions and calculation methods for each metric to ensure consistency. This would enable the benchmarking and trend analysis that policy makers need and also empower public bodies to track their own progress and provide concrete evidence to support their biodiversity claims, strengthening their credibility. Careful consideration would be needed to identify key metrics that are within scope of activities by public bodies. Furthermore, relevant metrics will likely be different for different types of public bodies and the level of their biodiversity remit.

However, balance is needed here, and the goal should be to make reporting easier and more comparable, not necessarily more restrictive. The guidance should encourage standardised reporting where possible, while still leaving room for the qualitative storytelling that can capture context and unique contributions. The idea of ‘proportionate’ core metrics that are meaningful but achievable (e.g., percentage of land managed for nature) was strongly advocated in the workshop.

Optimising reporting timelines and processes

The practicalities of the reporting cycle itself present several opportunities for improvement to increase compliance and reduce the burden on public bodies.

Clarifying the flexibility of the reporting cycle

As discussed in Section 5.2, many public bodies perceive the reporting deadline to be at the end of the calendar year and find this timing challenging. Our research shows this is a common misconception, as public bodies are allowed to report at any point within the three-year cycle. An opportunity exists for Scottish Government to proactively and clearly communicate this existing flexibility. This would empower organisations to align their reporting submissions with their own internal workflows, such as committee schedules for local authorities. Clarifying that there is no fixed statutory deadline would alleviate the end-of-year pressure identified by stakeholders and likely improve the quality of submissions, all without requiring any legislative change.

A centralised reporting portal

A more transformative opportunity lies in the development of a centralised online portal for all BD reporting, similar to the system already in place for the PBCCD. Such a portal could provide automated deadline notifications, act as a single submission platform, and host a searchable public database of all submitted reports. This would streamline the process for reporters, provide easy access to data for users, and give the government a simple mechanism to monitor compliance and strengthen accountability. It would also serve as a single, logical location for hosting all guidance and training materials.

Establishing formal feedback and aggregate analysis of BD reports

Perhaps the most critical opportunity identified in this research is the need to address the lack of feedback, which, as noted in Section 5.1, is a primary driver of low compliance and the perception of reporting as a “tick-box” exercise. The desire for both individualised feedback and an aggregated summary report was a top priority at the stakeholder workshop. Stakeholders were keen to understand how they are performing, see where they can improve (a “critical friend”), and understand how their work contributes to the national picture. This was seen as the primary way to create motivation.

Establishing a formal feedback loop

To make the process meaningful, there is an opportunity to establish a formal feedback system. This could range from automated acknowledgements upon submission to individualised feedback reports that highlight strengths, identify areas for improvement, and point to examples of best practice. Communicating clearly how the reports will be used and by whom is essential. This would transform the process from a one-way data submission into a valuable two-way dialogue, building stronger relationships and directly addressing the lack of motivation and accountability that currently undermines the duty.

Aggregated analysis

To complement individual feedback and demonstrate the collective value of reporting, there is a powerful opportunity for the government to publish an aggregated summary of all report data within a year of submission. This analysis could highlight key trends, showcase innovative approaches, and illustrate how the actions of public bodies are contributing to the SBS Delivery Plan. This would reassure organisations that their efforts are part of a larger picture and allow them to benchmark their performance.

Furthermore, a potential middle ground approach could be adopted. This could involve universal metrics being reported on as a form of high-level, collective reporting, providing a clear and consistent overview of progress across all public bodies. To complement this, all the individual narrative reports could be made available online as additional, detailed material.

Considerations for Scottish Government

Many of these opportunities represent a shift from a passive data collection exercise to an active engagement and analysis role for Scottish Government, which would have resource implications.

Providing formal feedback (6.6), running training webinars (6.2), performing aggregated data analysis (6.6), and managing a dedicated support team (6.2) all require a substantial and sustained investment of time and resources from Scottish Government’s side. As this report has highlighted, many of the current challenges identified by stakeholders are linked to the need for more active government involvement in the process. The successful realisation of these opportunities would therefore be contingent on the availability of appropriate resources to support this more active role.

Given potential resource constraints, the Scottish Government may wish to consider a phased implementation. This would involve prioritising the opportunities that are most foundational, such as clarifying the duty’s core purpose (6.1), which this research identifies as the most critical first step. Following this, developing a centralised online portal (6.5.2) would act as a key enabler for many other desired changes, including improved guidance, feedback mechanisms, and compliance monitoring.

References

Bryer, N. et al. (2021) ‘Evaluation of implementation of the Section 6 Biodiversity Duty’.

NatureScot (2023) Guidance Note – Biodiversity Duty Explained, Nature Scot. Available at: https://www.nature.scot/doc/guidance-note-biodiversity-duty-explained (Accessed: 23 September 2025).

NatureScot (2025) Biodiversity Duty Reports | NatureScot. Available at: https://www.nature.scot/scotlands-biodiversity/scottish-biodiversity-strategy/biodiversity-duty/biodiversity-duty-reports (Accessed: 6 October 2025).

Scottish Government (2004) Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2004/6/section/1.

Scottish Government (2011) The Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2011/6/contents.

Scottish Government (2013) 2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/2020-challenge-scotlands-biodiversity-strategy-conservation-enhancement-biodiversity-scotland/ (Accessed: 29 October 2025).

Scottish Government (2015) The Climate Change (Duties of Public Bodies: Reporting Requirements) (Scotland) Order 2015. King’s Printer for Scotland. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2015/347/contents/made (Accessed: 6 October 2025).

Scottish Government (2023) Biodiversity duty reporting: templates. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/biodiversity-duty-reporting-templates/ (Accessed: 6 October 2025).

Scottish Government (2024a) Climate change: Scottish National Adaptation Plan 2024-2029. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-national-adaptation-plan-2024-2029-2/ (Accessed: 6 October 2025).

Scottish Government (2024b) Scottish Biodiversity Strategy to 2045, Scottish Government. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-biodiversity-strategy-2045/ (Accessed: 6 October 2025).

Scottish Government (2025a) Climate change duties – draft statutory guidance for public bodies: consultation. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/climate-change-duties-draft-statutory-guidance-public-bodies-consultation/pages/1/ (Accessed: 6 October 2025).

Scottish Government (2025b) National public bodies: directory, Gov.scot. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/publications/national-public-bodies-directory/ (Accessed: 26 February 2026).

Scottish Government (no date) Public bodies, Gov.scot. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/policies/public-bodies/ (Accessed: 26 February 2026).

Welsh Government (2022) Section 6 biodiversity and resilience of ecosystems duty: summary report 2022. Available at: https://www.gov.wales/section-6-biodiversity-and-resilience-ecosystems-duty-summary-report-2022-html (Accessed: 28 October 2025).

Appendices

1. To what extent does the Biodiversity Duty Reporting and its guidance align with the monitoring and reporting objectives of the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (SBS) and the third Scottish National Adaptation Strategy (SNAP3)? Are there opportunities to improve alignment? (Strand 1)
2. To what extent is the data contained within biodiversity duty reports suitable for the monitoring and reporting of objectives in the SBS and associated Delivery Plan, and SNAP3?  (Strand 1 & 3)
3. To what extent does the current Biodiversity Duty Reporting align with the annual Public Bodies Climate Change Duties Reporting? Specifically, is there any overlap or duplication in the requirements? And what lessons might be learned from CCD reporting?  (Strand 1 & 3)
4. What good practice lessons can be learned from similar types of statutory reporting processes elsewhere in the UK/internationally? (Strand 2)
5. How effective and efficient is the current Biodiversity Duty Reporting process and how can it be improved? (Strand 3)
6. What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges of the current Biodiversity Duty Reporting process? (Strand 3 and 4)
   

Detailed research approach and methodology

This appendix outlines the research approach we used for this project. We designed the methodology to answer the research questions detailed in Appendix A. Our approach followed the Market Research Society’s Code of Conduct.

Overall research design

We used a mixed-methods research design. This meant we could combine broad findings from our desk research with detailed views from stakeholders. This approach gave us a more complete and reliable picture. The research had four strands:

1. Strand 1: Desk-Based Evidence Review: This foundational strand involved a systematic review of the current legislative and policy landscape in Scotland, alongside a detailed review of a sample of published Biodiversity Duty reports. This strand was designed primarily to address Research Questions 1 to 3.
   
2. Strand 2: Comparative Review and Scoping: This strand consisted of a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) to identify and learn from comparable reporting processes in other countries. This work aimed to address Research Question 4.
   
3. Strand 3: In-Depth Stakeholder Engagement: To gather detailed perspectives and practical experiences, in-depth interviews were conducted with a range of public bodies and individuals who use the reports. This strand sought to provide detailed insights for Research Questions 2, 3, 4, and 6.
   
4. Strand 4: Evidence Synthesis and Recommendation Development: The final strand involved synthesising all collected evidence through a formal Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Challenges (SWOC) analysis and a stakeholder workshop. This synthesis process aimed to address Research Question 6.

Strands 1 and 2 were also supplemented by initial scoping interviews with key strategic stakeholders in Scotland.

Strand 1: Desk-based review of existing legislation and guidance

Strand 1.1: Desk-based review of existing legislative and policy environment in Scotland

We undertook a desk-based review of the policy and legal context for biodiversity reporting in Scotland. We gathered and reviewed the following key documents, including (full list of documents reviewed as part of Strands 1 and 2 are listed in 8.3.3:

• Legislative documents: The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, and the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011.
  
• Biodiversity Duty reporting guidance: All versions of the guidance covering the periods 2015-2017, 2018-2020, and 2021-2023 were reviewed.
  
• Core Policy and Strategy Documents: This included the Scottish Biodiversity Strategy (SBS) and its Delivery Plan, and the third Scottish National Adaptation Plan (SNAP3).

As part of this review, we conducted a systematic mapping exercise to assess the alignment of the BD reporting guidance with the objectives of the SBS and SNAP3. We used a Red-Amber-Green (RAG) rating to assess how well they were aligned. This helped us identify connections, data gaps, and misalignments between reporting outputs and the respective monitoring frameworks for biodiversity and climate adaptation.

We also carried out a comparative review of the Climate Change Duty reporting and the Biodiversity Duty reporting. Key information regarding the objectives, scope, reporting frequency, format, audience, and specific reporting requirements of each duty was extracted and summarised in an Excel grid for direct comparison.

Strand 1.2: Review of Biodiversity Duty Reports

We selected a sample of 31 recent Biodiversity Duty reports to review in detail. We carefully selected reports to include a mix of public body types (local authorities, Executive Non-departmental Public Bodies, Executive Agencies, Non-Ministerial Office, Public Corporation, other significant bodies, parliamentary commissioners and ombudsmen) and reporting levels (as defined by which reporting template they have used). For the 13 local authority reports we reviewed, we also ensured a mix of regions, rural-urban characteristics, and land area size. You can find a full list of the reports we reviewed in Appendix D.

We reviewed each report against the priority actions in the SBS Delivery Plan and the sub-outcomes in SNAP3. In our analysis, we noted if a report showed ‘evidence of actions’, ‘evidence of plans’, or ‘no evidence’ for each point.

To assess the relevance of BD reports to SBS Objectives or SNAP3 outcomes, we examined the existence of plans or actions relevant to each sub-objective. For each sub-objective, we then categorised the coverage of evidence as either “strong”, “medium” or “limited” using the criteria:

• Strong: Most sample reports reviewed (20 or more) provided evidence of plans or actions relevant to this sub-objective.
  
• Medium: Some of sample reports reviewed (10-20) provided evidence of plans or actions relevant to this sub-objective.
  
• Limited: A small number of sample reports reviewed (less than 10) provided evidence of plans or actions relevant to this sub-objective.

The detailed mapping of evidence against each sub-objective under the SBS objectives and SNAP3 outcomes is presented in Appendix E and Appendix F respectively. The overall coverage rating for each SBS objective and SNAP3 outcome (as presented in the main report) was then provided based on the assessment of sub-objectives. It reflects the average coverage rating across sub-objectives in that category.

Strand 2: Comparative review and scoping

Strand 2.1: Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA)

We conducted an REA to find and analyse similar environmental reporting from other parts of the UK, Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. An REA is a quick and focused way to understand the available evidence.

We mainly used Google and Google Scholar for our search. We focused on official reporting duties for public bodies that were published after 2020. We developed a list of search terms to find these reporting processes and any associated guidance or reviews about them. Our inclusion and exclusion criteria for identifying relevant documents is presented below:

Table 5 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Search Terms

We used the following search terms in our literature search:

Identifying similar/comparative reporting processes

• “statutory reporting duty” AND biodiversity/nature/climate change
• “statutory reporting ” AND biodiversity/nature/climate change
• “statutory reporting requirements” AND biodiversity/nature/climate change
• “statutory reporting ” AND biodiversity/nature/climate change
• “public bodies”/”public sector” AND reporting AND biodiversity/nature/climate change
• Biodiversity/Nature reporting
• Climate change/climate adaptation reporting

Notes / additional considerations

• Add geographical scope: England/Wales/Northern Ireland/UK/Europe/Australia/US/Canada/New Zealand

Examples of search terms combined (non-exhaustive):

• “statutory reporting duty” AND “public bodies” AND biodiversity AND England OR Wales OR Northern Ireland
• “statutory reporting requirement” AND biodiversity AND “public bodies” OR “public sector” AND England OR Wales OR Northern Ireland
• “statutory reporting requirement” OR “statutory reporting duty” AND biodiversity AND “public sector” AND England OR Wales OR Northern Ireland
• “statutory reporting duty” AND “public bodies” AND biodiversity AND UK OR Europe OR Australia OR US OR Canada
• “statutory reporting requirement” AND “public bodies” OR “public sector” AND biodiversity AND UK OR Europe OR Australia OR US OR Canada

Identifying guidance for comparative processes (once identified)

• (name of process) AND reporting guidance
• (name of process) AND reporting template

Identifying evidence about effectiveness of comparative processes

• Review of statutory reporting on biodiversity
• Review of statutory reporting on nature
• Review of statutory reporting on climate change
• Review of statutory reporting on climate change adaptation
• Review of statutory reporting on state of the environment
• Same as above but for ‘evaluation of’ OR ‘assessment of’ OR ‘effectiveness of’
• ‘review of’ OR ‘evaluation of’ OR ‘assessment of’ OR ‘effectiveness of’ OR ‘progress report’ OR ‘progress update’ AND (named statutory process/duty e.g. biodiversity reporting duty)

Notes / additional considerations

• Add geographical scope: England/Wales/Northern Ireland/UK/Europe/Australia/US/Canada/New Zealand

Identifying best practice lessons

• Best practice/lessons learned/learning AND public sector/public body AND biodiversity reporting
• Best practice/lessons learned/learning AND public sector/public body AND climate change reporting
• Best practice/lessons learned/learning AND public sector/public body AND climate change adaptation reporting

Notes / additional considerations

• Add geographical scope: England/Wales/Northern Ireland/UK/Europe/Australia/US/Canada/New Zealand

Prioritisation approach

Our first search identified a long list of 146 documents. We narrowed this down to a prioritised list of 23 documents by applying the following relevance and robustness criteria:

• Type of evidence source e.g. Academic/peer reviewed (review, non-review) or grey literature (report, legislative doc, gov strategy/guidance, website, blog, etc)
• Geographic scope
• Does it cover biodiversity reporting, climate reporting or both?
• Does it cover a statutory/mandatory reporting process or a voluntary reporting process/framework?
• What reporting process(es) does the document cover?
• Description of the reporting process(es) covered e.g. objectives, scope (in terms of reporting orgs), mandatory/voluntary, regularity of reporting, summary of requirements.
• Does the evidence source present the reporting process as an example of good practice / best practice? Why?
• Does the evidence source define what a ‘good practice’ or ‘efficient’ reporting process looks like? How so?
• “What are the lessons learned that can be applied to Scotland Biodiversity Duty reporting? (e.g. what works well/less well, any recommendations).

Following this prioritisation, we then did another targeted search to identify relevant grey literature and added 21 more documents. The full list of 44 documents was then reviewed in detail.

Evidence Extraction

To assist with the analysis of this literature, we used Ipsos Facto. This is a proprietary, secure generative AI platform built by Ipsos for research purposes. It uses large language models to assist researchers with tasks like summarising and synthesising large volumes of text. In this project, it was used as a tool to help our researchers efficiently identify and extract the key information from the selected documents. All outputs from the tool were reviewed, validated, and interpreted by the human research team to ensure accuracy and relevance. We extracted information relevant to research question 2 (What good practice lessons can be learned from similar types of statutory reporting processes elsewhere in the UK/internationally?) into a coding grid in Excel.

Strand 2.2: Scoping Interviews

In parallel with the strand 1 and 2 desk-based research, we conducted five in-depth scoping interviews with key stakeholders. These interviews each lasted 45 minutes. The findings helped inform our evidence search and the design of our main interviews in Strand 3.

Full list of documents reviewed as part of the desk research (Strands 1 and 2)

1. Australian climate related financial disclosure (CRFD) – update, n.d. . HFW. URL https://www.hfw.com/insights/australian-climate-related-financial-disclosure-crfd-update/ (accessed 10.29.25).
2. Climate Change Committee, 2022. Understanding climate risks to UK infrastructure: Evaluation of the third round of the Adaptation Reporting Power.
3. Convention of Biological Diversity, 2024. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework [WWW Document]. URL https://www.cbd.int/gbf (accessed 10.6.25).
4. Defra, 2025. Defra’s statement on the strengthened biodiversity duty [WWW Document]. GOV.UK. URL https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defras-biodiversity-duty-statement-2025/defras-statement-on-the-strengthened-biodiversity-duty (accessed 10.28.25).
5. Henstra, D., n.d. A whole-of-government approach to climate adaptation.
6. Lorilla, R.S., Kefalas, G., Bormpoudakis, D., Drakou, E.G., 2025. An overview of biodiversity data reporting by Member States under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive for the reporting period 2013-2018. https://doi.org/10.2760/1928210
7. NatureScot, 2025a. Biodiversity Duty Reports | NatureScot [WWW Document]. URL https://www.nature.scot/scotlands-biodiversity/scottish-biodiversity-strategy/biodiversity-duty/biodiversity-duty-reports (accessed 10.6.25).
8. NatureScot, 2025b. Biodiversity Strategy reporting | NatureScot [WWW Document]. URL https://www.nature.scot/scotlands-biodiversity/scottish-biodiversity-strategy/biodiversity-strategy-reporting (accessed 10.6.25).
9. NatureScot, 2023. Guidance Note – Biodiversity Duty Explained [WWW Document]. Nat. Scot. URL https://www.nature.scot/doc/guidance-note-biodiversity-duty-explained (accessed 9.23.25).
10. New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, 2021. Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019 [WWW Document]. Minist. Environ. URL https://environment.govt.nz/acts-and-regulations/acts/climate-change-response-amendment-act-2019/ (accessed 10.28.25).
11. OECD, 2021. The United Kingdom’s pioneering Climate Change Act [WWW Document]. OECD. URL https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/ipac-policies-in-practice_22632907-en/the-united-kingdom-s-pioneering-climate-change-act_c08c3d7a-en.html (accessed 10.28.25).
12. Parliament of Australia, 2024. Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024.
13. Scottish Government, 2025a. Scottish biodiversity strategy: report to Parliament 2020 to 2024.
14. Scottish Government, 2025b. Public bodies climate change duties – draft statutory guidance: consultation analysis – final report [WWW Document]. URL https://www.gov.scot/publications/consultation-public-bodies-climate-change-duties-draft-statutory-guidance-analysis-responses-final-report/pages/2/ (accessed 1.2.26).
15. Scottish Government, 2025c. Climate change duties – draft statutory guidance for public bodies: consultation [WWW Document]. URL https://www.gov.scot/publications/climate-change-duties-draft-statutory-guidance-public-bodies-consultation/pages/1/ (accessed 10.6.25).
16. Scottish Government, 2024a. Scottish Biodiversity Strategy to 2045 [WWW Document]. Scott. Gov. URL https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-biodiversity-strategy-2045/ (accessed 10.6.25).
17. Scottish Government, 2024b. Climate change: Scottish National Adaptation Plan 2024-2029 [WWW Document]. URL https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-national-adaptation-plan-2024-2029-2/ (accessed 10.6.25).
18. Scottish Government, 2024c. Biodiversity: delivery plan 2024 to 2030.
19. Scottish Government, 2024d. Biodiversity – meeting our “30 by 30” commitment on terrestrial and freshwater sites: consultation [WWW Document]. URL https://www.gov.scot/publications/meeting-30-30-commitment-terrestrial-freshwater-sites-consultation-legislative-proposals/pages/2/ (accessed 10.16.25).
20. Scottish Government, 2024e. Climate change – Scottish National Adaptation Plan 2024-2029: monitoring and evaluation framework [WWW Document]. URL https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-national-adaptation-plan-2024-2029-monitoring-evaluation-framework/ (accessed 10.6.25).
21. Scottish Government, 2023a. Biodiversity duty reporting: templates [WWW Document]. URL https://www.gov.scot/publications/biodiversity-duty-reporting-templates/ (accessed 10.6.25).
22. Scottish Government, 2023b. Climate change duties – draft statutory guidance for public bodies: consultation [WWW Document]. URL https://www.gov.scot/publications/climate-change-duties-draft-statutory-guidance-public-bodies-consultation/pages/12/ (accessed 10.24.25).
23. Scottish Government, 2015. The Climate Change (Duties of Public Bodies: Reporting Requirements) (Scotland) Order 2015 [WWW Document]. URL https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2015/347/contents/made (accessed 10.6.25).
24. Scottish Government, 2013. 2020 Challenge for Scotland’s Biodiversity.
25. Scottish Government, 2011. The Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act.
26. Scottish Government, 2009. Climate Change Act 2009 [WWW Document]. URL https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2009/12/contents
27. Scottish Government, 2004. Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004.
28. Scottish Government, n.d. Adaptation to climate change [WWW Document]. URL https://www.gov.scot/policies/climate-change/climate-change-adaptation/ (accessed 10.6.25).
29. Stage 1 report on the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill [WWW Document], 2025. . Scott. Parliam. Rep. URL https://digitalpublications.parliament.scot/Committees/Report/RAI/2025/9/30/c0998641-29ed-441d-b64f-59e881f12710 (accessed 10.16.25).
30. The Biodiversity Duty | Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs [WWW Document], 2016. URL https://www.daera-ni.gov.uk/publications/biodiversity-duty (accessed 10.29.25).
31. Understanding climate risks to UK infrastructure: Evaluation of the third round of the Adaptation Reporting Power, n.d. . Clim. Change Comm. URL https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/understanding-climate-risks-to-uk-infrastructure-evaluation-of-the-third-round-of-the-adaptation-reporting-power/ (accessed 10.29.25).
32. Welsh Government, 2022. Section 6 biodiversity and resilience of ecosystems duty: summary report 2022 [WWW Document]. URL https://www.gov.wales/section-6-biodiversity-and-resilience-ecosystems-duty-summary-report-2022-html (accessed 10.28.25).

In-depth stakeholder engagement

Recruiting and sampling

We conducted in-depth interviews with 24 stakeholders. 19 were from public bodies that have to report, and five were from organisations that use the reports, such as staff from government departments or NatureScot.

We used a purposive sampling method. This means we worked with the project steering group to select a diverse group of people to interview. We chose organisations of different types, sizes, and locations, with different levels of reporting experience (i.e. those who had and had not reported in the most recent reporting round). We chose one-to-one interviews to create a confidential space where people could give us honest and detailed feedback.

Table 6 Interviewee sample

Data collection and analysis

We drafted a semi-structured discussion guide to help guide the interviews. It covered topics such as practical experiences with the current process, views on the alignment of the Biodiversity Duty reporting with other reporting duties, and recommendations for improvement to the reporting process.

With permission from participants, we audio-recorded and transcribed all interviews. Our researchers wrote up notes from the discussions into a thematic grid in Excel. The team held analysis sessions to discuss the emerging themes. The data was systematically coded and managed within a thematic framework in Excel, allowing for rigorous analysis and the triangulation of findings with our desk-based research.

Strand 4: Evidence synthesis and recommendation development

Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Challenges (SWOC) analysis

In the final strand, we brought together all the evidence from the first three strands. The goal was to develop research recommendations for improving the Biodiversity Reporting Duty.

We organised our findings into a SWOC analysis. This gave us a clear structure:

• Strengths: Positive aspects of the current Biodiversity Reporting Duty process (e.g. existing high levels of engagement from certain sectors, clear legislative underpinning).
  
• Weaknesses: Internal problems and gaps in the current process (e.g. guidance that is unclear on climate adaptation, data gaps identified in reports, misalignment with SNAP3 monitoring frameworks).
  
• Opportunities: External factors that could be leveraged to improve the process (e.g. potential to align with the Public Bodies Climate Change Duties reporting cycle, new statutory targets from the Natural Environment Bill, best practices identified in Strand 2).
  
• Challenges: External challenges that could hinder the process (e.g., resource constraints within public bodies, lack of senior buy-in, potential for reporting fatigue.

The SWOC analysis is in Appendix G. It formed the basis for our initial recommendations. We then presented these findings and ideas at a Stakeholder workshop.

Stakeholder workshop

To validate the findings of the SWOC analysis and test the draft recommendations, we convened a 2.5-hour interactive online workshop with 16 key stakeholders to ensure our identified opportunities were practical and relevant. This group of stakeholders comprised the project steering group as well as some of the interviewed public bodies and intended policy makers (i.e. policy makers) from Strand 3. A summary of the workshop outputs, as well as a breakdown of the attending participants is provided in Appendix H.

The workshop session involved presenting the synthesised findings and SWOC analysis, and asking participants to review the draft recommendations, assessing their feasibility, impact, and potential consequences. This co-creation process produced a final set of refined and prioritised opportunities for the future of the Biodiversity Duty reporting, ensuring they are robust, practical, and validated by those who will use them. These opportunities are presented in Section 6 of the main report.

Limitations of this research

It is important to acknowledge the limitations inherent in the research design, which provide context for the findings and opportunities presented in this report.

• Qualitative and indicative findings: The findings from our stakeholder engagement are qualitative and indicative, not statistically representative. While we used a purposive sampling method to ensure a diverse range of public bodies were included in our 24 in-depth interviews, the views expressed are those of the individuals who participated and cannot be generalised to the entire public sector. Similarly, the analysis of 31 reports provides a snapshot of reporting practices, not a comprehensive quantitative audit of all reports submitted.
  
• Potential for self-selection bias: The research relied on the voluntary participation of stakeholders for interviews and workshop. It is possible that the individuals and organisations who chose to participate are more actively engaged with, or have stronger opinions on, the Biodiversity Duty than those who did not. This may result in a degree of self-selection bias, and the findings should be interpreted with this in mind.
  
• Scope of the Rapid Evidence Assessment: The comparative review of similar statutory reporting processes (Strand 2) was conducted as a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA). By design, an REA is a focused and time-bound process. While it provides valuable insights and examples of good practice, it is not as exhaustive as a full systematic literature review, and it is possible that other relevant examples or evidence sources exist beyond the scope of our search.
  
• An evolving policy landscape: This research was conducted at a specific point in time (late 2025 and early 2026). The policy landscape for biodiversity and climate change in Scotland is dynamic. Forthcoming developments, such as the implementation of the Natural Environment Bill and the finalisation of statutory nature restoration targets, will create a new context for the Biodiversity Duty. While this report’s findings are foundational, the implementation of its opportunities will need to be adapted to this evolving landscape.

Categories of public bodies required to report under the BD reporting

The Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 does not list exactly which public bodies must comply under the Biodiversity Duty and instead states that all public bodies must comply. There are currently 133 devolved public bodies in Scotland . The full list of public bodies that fall under the following categories can be found in the public bodies directory (Scottish Government, 2025b).

• Executive agencies (e.g. Forestry and Land Scotland, Scottish Forestry and Transport Scotland).
• Non-ministerial offices (e.g. Food Standards Scotland and the Scottish Housing Regulator).
• Public corporations (e.g. Scottish Water).
• Executive non-departmental public bodies (Cairngorms National Park Authority, Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park Authority, NatureScot and the Water Industry Commission for Scotland).
• Advisory non-departmental public bodies (Poverty and Inequality Commission and the Scottish Law Commission).
• Health Bodies.
• Parliamentary Commissioners and Ombudsmen (Scottish Human Rights Commission, Scottish Information Commissioner and the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman).

In addition, Scottish Government and local authorities (councils) are required to submit a biodiversity report.

List of Biodiversity Duty reports reviewed

Table 7: List of biodiversity reports reviewed

Mapping of BD Reporting Data to SBS Objectives

Table 8 Mapping of BD reporting data

Mapping of BD Reporting Data to SNAP3 Outcomes

Table 9 Mapping of BD reporting data (Snap3 outcomes)

Analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges (SWOC)

This section presents on overview of our SWOC analysis, carried out using information from interviews with reporting organisations and policy makers, and from our desk review.

Strengths

Interviews with public bodies and intended users of Biodiversity Duty reports (i.e. policy makers) identified four key areas of strength: the BD Reporting process helped raise internal awareness of the Biodiversity Duty; the statutory nature of the framework pushed public bodies to consider their nature-positive impacts; the BD report was useful to share with external parties and customers, and; the flexibility of the reporting template allowed organisations to form their own narratives – however, it is important to note that the flexible nature of the template proved to me more of a weakness rather than a strength, for most organisations (see section 8.9.1).

The BD Reporting process raised awareness of the Biodiversity Duty

Several public bodies found that the BD reporting process helped them raise awareness about the Biodiversity Duty within their organisation and start conversations about activities around nature networks and other biodiversity elements. It also encouraged cross-departmental collaboration, helped staff connect, and raised awareness of the biodiversity actions and goals within organisations. Further, Biodiversity Officers and Leads tended to use previous BD reports to reflect on progress and plan ahead.

“[The BD] raises the profile of biodiversity and helps make sure people are actually addressing it through their organization in a strategic way across other functions.” – Local authority

These findings were in-line with the Welsh Biodiversity Duty (Bryer et al., 2021) that found a similar impact of the Welsh Biodiversity Duty on public bodies’ awareness and understanding of biodiversity. Similarly to the Scottish Biodiversity Duty, the Welsh Biodiversity Duty helped establish biodiversity as a priority on the agendas of local authorities.

Statutory Requirement for Biodiversity

Several local authorities mentioned having this [BD] statutory requirement helped them focus on planning and delivering nature-positive activities. The formal reporting process also allowed them to communicate with the public / community, reinforcing their sense of accountability.

“The strength is that the nature crisis does get some airtime and, and because it is a statutory requirement. It’s almost better to have it there than not have it there.” – Local Authority

External engagement

Some public bodies felt that the BD report was a valuable document to share with external stakeholders, partners, and customers, as it helped them explain how biodiversity action ties in with the body’s services, and allowed them to showcase their contribution to biodiversity conservation.

Flexible Reporting Template

A few interviewees noted that the current reporting template allowed their organisation to build a narrative that reflects their context and functions – this was very positively received because a template that fits all would not fit all of reporting bodies’ functions.

“I know they’re not strict about whether you use the form or whether you present it in another format as long as you actually do it. But I think the structure is actually really helpful in terms of ensuring that we’re actually reporting on everything that we should.” – Executive NDPB

However, despite this positive reaction, most public bodies and policy makers interviewed found the flexibility of the template to be challenging (see section 1.3).

Weaknesses

Interviews with public bodies and policy makers identified three key weakness of the reporting process: the template was not well-aligned with all organisations’ functions; the lack of feedback and communication from the Scottish Government; and the lack of quantitative metrics to report against.

The template was not well-aligned with all organisations’ functions

Most public body interviewees felt that the government’s template was too long and lacked context/guidance around requirements. This lack of context was particularly challenging for those who were not familiar with BD reporting – and who reported struggling to respond to some questions.

“It’s not an inviting document to put in front of someone who’s never seen it before and say, could you fill these questions in for me? Because it does, it doesn’t involve that extra bit of support to try and explain, talk people through the question.” – Local authority

Public body interviewees also noted that the template was not well aligned with their organisations’ structures or operations. This was mostly an issue for smaller organisations and for those outside the environmental sector or without landholdings, which felt the template requested a level of detail they could not provide given the limited relevance of their functions to biodiversity conservation. Interestingly, although this was raised mainly by smaller organisations, some larger bodies made the same remark, noting that the template would likely be challenging for these organisations.

“The template we were provided from with Nature Scot, wasn’t particularly good. We, we tended to ignore most of it and because it’s very hard to write a template that covers everybody’s business, but everyone’s business is very different.” – Executive NDPB

The challenge faced by organisations without land / direct relevance to biodiversity face, was also mentioned in a paper by Nia Bryer et al. (2025), who find that these types of organisations find it hard to find ways in which they can make a positive contribution to biodiversity conservation.

An interviewee from a smaller public body (>10 employees) felt their organisation had little to no impact on biodiversity and, therefore, suggested introducing a cut-off for reporting requirements so that bodies below a certain size, or with functions less relevant to biodiversity, would not be required to report. They added that this would ease pressure on already stretched resources, aligning with feedback from a policy maker who noted that some public bodies have limited or no capacity to influence biodiversity outcomes and therefore should not be required to produce a biodiversity report. As currently designed, the mandate places an unnecessary burden on smaller public bodies, which interviewees felt has contributed to lower compliance rates. These findings were in line with discussions within the Scottish Government on recent reviews and changes, that acknowledged that bodies whose core activities do not relate to nature or biodiversity might find it difficult to identify what action is required to comply with both duties.

For most, the reporting template’s flexibility was difficult to manage, resulting in inconsistent reports across local authorities and making it impossible to compare and benchmark against those of other organisations. Policy makers had a similar experience, noting that extracting and comparing data across reports was challenging. They further added that, because the template did not request quantitative data – leaving reports largely narrative – they found it hard to extract actual, tangible data (see section below).

“Our [report] is actually quite lengthy. And there are others which got a designer in, they’ve got loads of nice photos and it’s all very lovely. So, it’s everything from a very brief synopsis to something which you could stick on a library shelf. There’s no consistency across local authorities at all, which is again, a shame…you can’t even benchmark other local authorities against each other.” – Local authority

Two of the recommendations made in an evaluation of the Welsh Biodiversity Duty, and that could also apply to the Scottish Biodiversity Duty are a) ensuring that it is clear which public bodies are within scope of the Duty and b) monitoring compliance with the Duty (Audit Wales, 2025). These recommendations were in-line with the views and recommendations of public bodies interviewees.

Lack of quantitative metrics to report against

Some public bodies struggled to determine what information to provide because the template did not require quantitative metrics; interviewees often compared the biodiversity duty template with the Public Bodies Climate Change reporting duty, which they felt was more structured. The lack of quantitative metrics in the BD reporting template was particularly an issue for bodies that use their biodiversity reports to inform other strategies (e.g., investment), making it harder to explain the impact of their actions and justify funding requests. Policy makers raised the same concern, noting that reports should include quantifiable measurements/figures alongside the existing narrative.

“So we could say we’ve planted a thousand hectares of wildflower seeds…But if there was a Scottish Target that said every local Authority should plant 10,000 hectares…then we might actually have a lever to actually say we should be doing more. It’s very hard to say we should be doing more at the moment.” – Local authority

This challenge was not unique to the Scottish Biodiversity Duty – a frequently reported problem associated with reporting frameworks is the lack of standardised metrics and consistent ways to measure biodiversity interactions (Viktor Elliot et al., 2024).

Lack of feedback and communication from the Scottish Government

Multiple public bodies reported not receiving acknowledgement or feedback from the Scottish Government after publishing their biodiversity reports. As a result, they were unclear how their work contributed to national biodiversity targets and felt the process was a ‘tick‑box’ exercise. Some interviewees also noted a wider lack of understanding about why this report is necessary and what biodiversity conservation means for organisations outside the environmental sector.

“From our perspective, there is absolutely no purpose to it… It’s just no one ever gets back to us to say whether they’ve read it, we don’t know what they use it for… They want to tick the box to say that, yeah, all the public bodies have done that and that they shared that information” – Executive NDPB

The lack of feedback had an impact on accountability and compliance rates, resulting in low senior-buy which in turn led to low quality reports – or to organisations not producing a report altogether.

“Individual organisations don’t seem to be being held accountable for the reports. For example, if government had come back to us and said, where’s your last report? It would have strengthened the internal call for more resources to do the report.” – Executive NDPB

Interviewees provided comments on ways that feedback could be improved, discussed in section 8.10.1 below.

Opportunities

Interviews with public bodies and policy makers identified six key opportunities of the reporting process: feedback from the Scottish government and report data analysis; improving training and support on BD reporting; making guidance clear and more specific; adding baseline metrics to report against; reconsidering the timing of the report submission, and; the Scottish Government analysing BD report data.

Feedback from Scottish Government and report data analysis

Public bodies noted that feedback from the Scottish Government on the direction and progress of their biodiversity activities would help make biodiversity a corporate priority, and that clear feedback on areas of weakness would guide where to focus improvements. On the basis that the lack of feedback made organisations feel less accountable, they also felt that stronger accountability would prompt higher quality reports.

“It would be good if they come back and said, but we think you’re weak in these areas. And then you can take that back and say, well, that’s something we can work on.”- Local authority

In addition to feedback, some public bodies suggested for the government to provide short summaries of all reports published, to help reporting organisations understand how they collectively contribute towards Scotland’s national biodiversity goals. This could be similar to the report by Sustainable Network Scotland (SSN) for PBCCD. Having this information would help public bodies see the purpose of their reports and therefore motivate them to produce high-quality reports.

Training and support on the Biodiversity Duty Reporting

In addition to receiving feedback on published reports, some public body interviewees wanted the government to provide support to organisations lacking biodiversity expertise, including guidance on how and what to report. Some local authorities suggested introducing training webinars and workshops, showcasing best practice examples of how to fill out the template, and providing a space for public bodies to learn from each other. This could also include access to a Professional Development Programme (PDP). In addition to this, some local authorities proposed appointing a central person at Scottish Government or NatureScot that reporting organisations could contact should they require further support.

“I always feel like we’re just lacking that little bit of expertise. Is there anything that the Scottish government could provide us with in terms of being a bit more knowledgeable about what we should be doing?” – Other significant bodies

Smaller public bodies noted that attending webinars would be an additional motivation to develop and publish a BD report.

In addition to providing support to help inexperienced organisations understand what to report and how, public bodies suggested introducing a standardised framework for recording information year on year. Doing so would mean that data is saved in one place readily available for the reporting period.

“If there was a helpful framework for how you would record information across the three years. So that you come out the other end with essentially everyone’s got the same thing and it’s, it’s a, a process that’s engaged with more than one month a year, every three years.” – Local authority

Improvements to guidance to make it clearer and more specific

Overall, public bodies saw an opportunity to improve guidance to ensure streamlined data collection and consistency across reports.

The aim of the BD reports was to provide information to monitor progress against the SBS, but this has not been effectively achieved; public bodies and policy makers made the following suggestions:

• Public bodies suggested improving the reporting guidance to require information – ideally metrics – directly relevant to SBS goals, enabling the government to track progress. They added that targeted questions would help them complete the template more efficiently. This aligned with government feedback that the template should be updated to reduce information overload and increase focus on best practice, to improve alignment with the SBS.
  
• Public bodies suggested appointing one individual responsible for monitoring progress against SBS and its delivery Plan. This way, reporting bodies can have a direct communication with this individual, and send through relevant data, creating a better sense of contribution and streamlining of reports. In addition to this, smaller public bodies were keen to receive more guidance about which team / individual should be responsible for producing the BD report.

In addition to introducing these changes, public bodies also suggested introducing more specific or tailored guidance to smaller organisations, that is more aligned with their functions.

“There are lots and lots of small public bodies that don’t even have an environmental advisor in their organisation… At the moment, the guidance is a one size fits all thing, which doesn’t really deliver for everybody.” – Executive Agency

Adding baseline metrics to report against

Drawing on the PBCCD templates, public bodies wanted the BD reporting template to require metrics so that progress against targets is quantifiable and easier to track. Local authorities, in particular, supported this, saying it would make reporting far more effective for monitoring biodiversity than current practice. They also wanted the government to set clear targets to drive and sustain effort to meet them.

“So there’s the toss up on one hand, the flexibility that you’re given to do the report is great. But on the other hand, is it maybe leading us in the wrong direction? If we were given more direction about what we should be doing, would it be a more useful process?” – Other significant bodies

Further, drawing on the BD reporting process in England, policy makers felt that including mandatory requirements as well as optional requirements to complement the mandatory ones has worked well. This was in line with feedback from the Scottish Government, noting that including a set of mandatory questions in the template would help collecting all desirable data – including data that showcases how the SBS and SNAP3 targets are considered and integrated in the BD report.

“In England, having mandatory reporting items makes a significant difference as it provides a structured framework. This framework is the appropriate place to include information on how you are integrating with the SBS or SNAP 3.” – Policy maker

In addition, public bodies suggested making future biodiversity reporting more objective and explicitly linked to long-term resilience, climate adaptation, and ecosystem services. They believe nature resilience is key, but do not see public bodies adequately capturing how nature supports their core services or the importance of nature resilience. This came with a caveat for smaller organisations, who may not have the same data as those with a stronger environmental remit.

“What I would like to see from future biodiversity reporting, is to make it much more objective and linked with the long-term resilience, climate adaptation, ecosystem services we need from nature. We need that nature to be resilient and therefore, it would be helpful if more public bodies were asked to make that link.” – Public Corporation

Improved timings

Many public bodies suggested moving the reporting deadline away from year‑end to avoid submissions during the holidays, when fewer staff are available. Some local authorities and Executive NDPBs also asked for a grace period at the end of the three‑year cycle to allow time to draft the report and have it ratified by their committees. They were, however, keen to keep the three-year cycle. Only a few favoured moving to annual BD reporting, noting the difficulty of gathering information on activities from two or three years earlier, but most felt it would increase workload and leave too little time to observe biodiversity outcomes.

Public bodies saw value in aligning annual PBCCD reports with the three‑year BD report to improve join‑up between biodiversity and climate change activities, but did not support a single, combined report, fearing climate change would overshadow biodiversity.

Improving the reporting mechanism

Most public bodies support a more streamlined mechanism, such as a single website for uploading reports, receiving notifications when new guidance is published, and other government correspondence. A Scottish Government policy maker also noted that a centralised upload point would help the government monitor compliance. However, because legislation currently allows organisations to incorporate their Biodiversity Duty report into a wider report, monitoring compliance may still be difficult.

Challenges

Interviews with public bodies and policy makers identified two main challenges of the reporting process: lack of resources and capacity constraints; and challenges with internal data collection and coordination.

Lack of resources and capacity constraints^[8]

Some public bodies faced resource constraints that affected their ability to deliver the BD report. A policy maker echoed this, noting that staff turnover between cycles made it harder to maintain contact with the right people. Capacity was further constrained by timing: the deadline coincided with the Christmas period, when organisations were understaffed, and the window between the reporting period and submission was too short to share reports with committees and incorporate feedback before publication.

“It’s fine if you’ve got a team who’ve got time on their hands, but that’s not the scenario we find ourselves in. So it is always a bit of a race to the end to try and get something produced.” – Local authority

“[Because of the 3-year cycle and timings] we never get the opportunity to take this to committee members first to say, are you happy with this before we then send it onto Scottish government?” – Local authority

While the BD report did not compete with other priorities for many, some noted that it still competed with every-day work, which needed to be prioritised. As a result of capacity constraints, not all public bodies were able give the appropriate level of attention and effort when developing their report.

Internal data collection and coordination

Some public bodies lacked centralised systems, so they struggled to gather information across their organisations. They had to follow-up with multiple colleagues, which made the process time‑consuming and complicated, and they often could not get feedback from the right people.

“The downside for us, in particular, is that it requires a lot of input from quite a wide range of people because we do so much for conservation.” – Executive NDPB

“It doesn’t really matter what questions are being asked in the duty, if the correct people aren’t feeding their information back into it.” – Local authority

To overcome this issue, public bodies suggested developing a centralised database to host all information relevant to the Biodiversity Duty. This would help faster access of data.

Outputs of the stakeholder workshop

The aim of the stakeholder workshop was to present our evidence synthesis, ensure that that it accurately reflects public bodies’ perspectives, and refine our recommendations to the Scottish Governments. The table below shows a breakdown of attendees.

Table 10 Workshop attendees

During the workshop we presented our SWOC analysis findings and draft recommendations. Participants were split into two breakout rooms, where the key points of discussion were:

1. Determining whether findings are in line with organisations’ views and experiences, identifying any key strengths, weakness, opportunities and challenges, that had not been mentioned, and deciding which would be the most critical weaknesses to resolve.
   
2. Determining whether recommendations adequately address critical weaknesses, identifying which recommendations would have the biggest positive impact and which would be a top priority, and proving any additional recommendations that were not mentioned.

The remainder of this section presents the findings from these discussions, split into two sections, respectively.

Validation of the SWOC analysis findings

Agreement with findings from the SWOC analysis

When asked about the extent to which findings from our SWOC analysis reflected their own experience, participants in both breakout rooms agreed that they resonated with their views. One of the findings that participants particularly resonated with, and expanded upon, was the lack of clear requirements in the template about what to report. Participants said they struggled to understand whether they are required to report on their activities or on biodiversity outcomes. Activities are easier to report, as processes are more straightforward to record compared to outcomes, that are more complex., and without in‑house ecologists, harder to gather evidence on. Participants were also unsure whether they are expected to deliver outcomes by engaging third‑party landowners and noted that clear guidance on this would be helpful. Again, in line with our findings, they said the template’s flexibility results in inconsistent reports and that organisations need clarity on what to report and how to report it.

Some participants reiterated that finding capacity to produce the report had been particularly challenging. In line with our findings, this was one of the reasons for which some organisations did not publish a report in the most recent round. They also emphasised that BD reporting was not considered a high priority and therefore had significantly less senior buy-in, compared to climate change reporting. Overall, climate change reporting was better resourced and managed than BD reporting.

Some participants were keen to add quantitative requirements in the report, but not everyone agreed on this. Those who did not support adding quantitative requirements, felt that metrics risk becoming static over time and may not accurately reflect delivery. They also noted that public bodies without in‑house expertise would struggle to collect and report quantitative data, making qualitative reporting more accessible for most organisations. Overall, and as quantitative data will likely vary across organisations, some participants said they would prefer focusing on training people on what and how to report using the current template rather than introducing new quantitative requirements.

This prompted further discussion around training. Participants noted that training could include knowledge‑sharing sessions for organisations to exchange experience and best practice (ideally from the most recent round), and to discuss and agree what type of data (qualitative or quantitative) would be most beneficial to include in their report. While this aligned with our SWOC analysis findings, participants in the workshop further added the need to consider the report’s audience; reports for senior management would be written differently compared to reports for the Scottish Government, for example. Participants agreed with our finding that most public bodies were unaware of how their reports were used by the government. They added that, although data from published BD reports is summarised, these summaries need to be more effectively integrated into policy development.

Finally, participants noted that public bodies should share feedback with the government on what support they need. They said this would also improve the relationship between public bodies and the government as well as help build capacity.

Weakness and opportunities identified in our research

When asked about additional strengths and weaknesses to consider, participants mostly reiterated aligning BD reporting with PBCCD to reduce the burden on resources, simplifying data collection, and avoiding duplication of information across reports were crucial factors to consider. However, they did not support combining climate change and biodiversity into a single report. They worried that doing so would result in climate change overshadowing biodiversity. Keeping reports separate validates the importance of biodiversity. However, there was no clear conclusion on the ideal reporting schedule.

Participants emphasised that resourcing remains a significant barrier to producing quality reports, as there are other competing priorities e.g., planning. They also emphasised that in some cases, the people writing biodiversity reports were not experts. This increased the time required and reduced the quality of the report. This would be where quantitative data could be an advantage, as it would be faster to analyse, but baring the caveats discussed earlier in the workshop.

Participants also reiterated the value of mainstreaming the SBS and SNAP3 frameworks with the BD reporting, so that data collected in the BD reports can feed into SBS and SNAP3.

Critical weaknesses to address

According to participants, the two most critical weaknesses to address were:

• Lack of feedback: this was an important issue to address so that public bodies understand how they contribute to national targets, what their overall progress is, and what their key areas of weaknesses are, and how to improve these. Participants noted that this feedback could be provided by either the government or NatureScot.
  
• Reporting burden on smaller organisations: as many of these organisations have low capacity and limited relevance to biodiversity, they should be exempt from publishing biodiversity reports. This would ease internal pressures and save government resources otherwise spent on monitoring compliance and chasing responses with little practical benefit. Government representatives noted that they have also suggested reconsidering which bodies would be excluded moving forward.

Critical opportunities to prioritise

According to participants, the three most critical opportunities were^[9]:

• Creating a single portal for all organisations to submit their reports: this would give government and organisations access to all reports, support compliance monitoring, and provide basic analytics across reports (e.g., who is reporting on what). Government representatives added that they could generate aggregated summaries for internal and external use. They could also potentially do so using AI to reduce resources that would be otherwise needed for this task. The only caveat was that the portal would have to be designed in a way in which organisations would not struggle to upload information. Otherwise, it could end up being very time consuming.
  
• Create a framework for organisations to record their actions: participants welcomed a year‑on‑year framework for logging biodiversity work, as it would keep a record, track progress, and reduce the time needed to draft the report.

Validation and prioritisation of the draft recommendations

As part of the workshop, participants used Mural to vote on their top three priority recommendations by placing a star on the ones they felt should be prioritised. Figures 1.2 and 1.3 show a snapshot of the prioritisation exercise on Mural.

Figure 1 Prioritisation exercise, Mural snapshot – Group 1

Figure 2 Prioritisation exercise, Mural snapshot – Group 2

Following this prioritisation exercise, participants discussed why these recommendations should be prioritised, what changes are needed in order to make them more effective in practice, and to what extent they will help overcome the weaknesses and challenges previously discussed. Due to limited time, both breakout group discussed only two of their list of priority recommendations.

Priority recommendation 1 for group 1: Provide aggregate summary of BD report data within one year of the submission deadline, making preliminary findings accessible to public bodies.

Participants prioritised this recommendation because it would help organisations understand how they contribute to national goals and track their progress over time. It would also enable benchmarking against other public bodies. They emphasised the importance of feedback and of demonstrating that their data is used – as well as having the ability to compare their contribution to other organisations to put progress in perspective. Taken together, this would directly address the weaknesses discussed earlier in the workshop and would help organisations feel accountable as well as see visible impact.

Participants identified small changes needed to make this recommendation effective. These included introducing consequences for organisations that do not publish reports, to boost response rates; providing a checklist to help public bodies drive positive action – this would be particularly useful for organisations with gaps in delivery or poor practices; and setting clear guidance on what to report, to enable synthesis of data across reports. These changes also directly address some of the weaknesses identified, mostly around the lack of accountability.

Priority recommendation 2 for group 1: Providing training to public bodies on how to report on their fulfilment of the Biodiversity Duty.

Participants prioritised this recommendation because they believed it would help upskill staff, clarify reporting requirements, and highlight opportunities for good practice through case studies from other organisations. Training could be delivered by the government and/or existing networks like the SSN. Participants suggested asking public bodies what kind of training they need or want. This would help address weaknesses discussed earlier in the workshop, particularly around ensuring that everyone is aware of and follows best practice.

For this recommendation to be effective, participants said the government must resource and support the training. Sessions could be delivered by the government and experts, highlight gaps and opportunities in how to use biodiversity data, show how to draw on best‑practice examples, and provide a checklist of priority actions. Given that multiple organisations would attend, these sessions would also help build local connections, foster partnerships, and support joint working.

Priority recommendation 1 for group 2: Develop a centralised online portal for Biodiversity Duty reporting that provides automated deadline notifications and serves as a single submission platform for all public bodies.

Participants prioritised this recommendation so that the government and organisations have instant access to reports and records. A single portal would streamline submission and retrieval for reporting bodies and enable the government to collate data across reports and monitor compliance. If the portal replaces the template – so organisations enter information directly into defined fields – it should balance qualitative and quantitative requirements. Participants were unsure whether data would be entered manually or whether full reports would be uploaded as PDFs. If it is manual entry, they worried it could create extra work if bodies must also publish the report separately. This should be an important design consideration.

Creating this portal would help overcome weaknesses identified earlier in the workshop, particularly around response rates and monitoring of compliance. It would also make requirements clearer for reporting organisations – something which some organisations struggled with when using the existing templates.

Priority recommendation 2 for group 2: Establish formal feedback processes: Include automated acknowledgement emails upon submissions, information on who will use the report and for what purposes, individualised feedback on report strengths / areas of improvement.

Implementing this recommendation would enable tracking progress against biodiversity conservation targets, encourage compliance, and strengthen senior buy‑in. Independent reviews would enhance report credibility and provide targeted feedback to individuals and teams on how to improve. It would also support substantial learning across public bodies about what is working well and what is not in biodiversity actions. Overall, it would address a key weakness of the BD reporting – the lack of feedback – and its knock‑on effect on compliance and report quality.

Participants did not have time to discuss critical changes needed to make the recommendation effective.

How to cite this publication:

Jones, R., Ngai, R., Lee, T., Fotiadis, I., Brisley, R. (2026) Climate adaptation and the Biodiversity Duty Reporting in Scotland , ClimateXChange. https://doi.org/10.7488/era/7428

© The University of Edinburgh, 2026
Prepared by Ipsos UK on behalf of ClimateXChange, The University of Edinburgh. All rights reserved.

While every effort is made to ensure the information in this report is accurate as at the date of the report, no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors, omissions or misleading statements. The views expressed represent those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent those of the host institutions or funders.

This work was supported by the Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division of the Scottish Government (CoE – CXC).

ClimateXChange

Edinburgh Climate Change Institute

High School Yards

Edinburgh EH1 1LZ

+44 (0) 131 651 4783

info@climatexchange.org.uk

www.climatexchange.org.uk

If you require the report in an alternative format such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

1. More information on the Nature Network can be found here: https://www.nature.scot/doc/nature-networks-framework ↑
   

2. The base date is defined as the date on which section 36 of the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 (asp 6) comes into force, or where the body is established after that date, the date on which the body is established (Scottish Government, 2011). ↑
   

3. Note: ‘Strong’ indicates 20 or more of 31 reports provided evidence of plans or actions; ‘Medium’ indicates 10–19; ‘Limited’ indicates fewer than 10. See Appendix B for further details of the methodology. ↑
   

4. Note: ‘Strong’ indicates 20 or more of 31 reports provided evidence of plans or actions; ‘Medium’ indicates 10–19; ‘Limited’ indicates fewer than 10. See Appendix B for further details of the methodology. ↑
   

5. Sample was developed by intentionally selecting participants based on relevant characteristics to this research (e.g. Local Authorities, rural versus urban, organisational size, etc.). ↑
   

6. Updated guidance was published in March 2026: https://www.gov.scot/publications/public-bodies-climate-change-duties-statutory-guidance/pages/1/ ↑
   

7. Referring to internal, either mandatory or voluntary, reports, and not to national statutory reporting requirements / frameworks. ↑
   

8. As interviewees explained, in most instances there was a single individual responsible for coordinating the reporting process i.e., collecting data from colleagues, pulling information from previous reports, and writing up the biodiversity report. ↑
   

9. The first point came from Group 2; Group 1 did not have time to explore critical recommendations in depth but mentioned that creating a framework for organisations to log data throughout the years, which was one of the recommendations presented to them, would be helpful. ↑
   

   
   

Scotland’s soils are a fundamental part of the country’s natural wealth and wellbeing. Healthy soils support essential ecosystem services such as carbon storage, food production, water management and biodiversity. They are also essential for enabling nature-based solutions for challenges such as climate change and flooding.

However, unlike water, air and biodiversity, Scotland has no soil-specific policy to protect, restore and enhance this vital resource. Instead, soils are addressed across a range of nature-based policies, with limited overarching governance. The makes the coordinated implementation of sustainable soil management more challenging.

An initial framework to consolidate these challenges was published by ClimateXChange in 2025. Soil Route Map for Scotland outlined introductory actions to improve soil security across Scottish landscapes while supporting the delivery of wider nature-based policies. It provided six overarching objectives – Lead, Protect, Restore, Enhance, Mobilise and Evidence – to address risks to soils and help achieve the vision in Scotland’s third National Adaptation Plan of ‘thriving soils for Scotland’s communities, economy and environment’.

The second phase of this work has resulted in:

• A technical report which builds on the core themes identified in the 2025 route map. For each theme, this report outlines the high-level options for action, an indication of how ready they are to begin, and the key policy areas they could support.
• A policy brief to summarise the report’s key points.

Expand the arrows for the ‘Options for action’ under each theme

For further information, please read the full report.

If you require the report or annex in an alternative format, such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

Research complete: June 2026

https://doi.org/10.7488/era/7528

1. Objectives of the Soil Route Map for Scotland

Soils underpin Scotland’s natural capital, providing vital ecosystem services (Figure 1), supporting nature-based solutions and are essential for societal wellbeing and Scotland’s economic profitability. However, unlike air, water and biodiversity (which all rely on soils) there is no soil-specific policy in Scotland to support the protection, restoration and enhancement of this vital resource. The consideration of soils is fragmented across various nature-based policies and so overarching governance is limited making the implementation of sustainable soil management strategies challenging to coordinate.

The ‘Soil Route Map for Scotland’ report was published in May 2025 and provides an initial framework and preliminary actions for delivering improved soil security across Scottish landscapes. It provided six initial, overarching objectives in response to risks to soils: Lead, Protect, Restore, Enhance, Mobilise and Evidence.  The objectives and the risks to soils that they address are described more fully in Appendices A1 and A2 of the technical report accompanying this briefing. The route map also made recommendations to achieve the vision of ‘thriving soils for Scotland’s communities, economy and environment’ in Scotland’s third National Adaptation Plan.

The second phase of this work is focused on objectives 2,3 and 4: protection, restoration and enhancement (PREn). It builds upon the recommendations made for these objectives in phase one and scopes the opportunities for practical cross-sectoral actions that can contribute to soil protection, restoration and enhancement. For the PREn objectives, the soil route map recommended coordinating task groups for shared best practice and conducting place-based evidence reviews to identify actions needed.

2. Options for action

In the 2025 report, five core themes (T1-T5) were suggested to target action for specific areas of risks to soils and better inform the delivery of PREn. The themes are:

• soil sealing and management of soils in construction
• soil compaction and the physical degradation of Scottish soils 
• chemical and biological soil health
• soils in the private sector 
• soil monitoring and metrics

In this second phase of work, some initial overarching options (O) are provided within each theme along with an indication of readiness for initiation and key policy areas they could deliver to.

An overview of these options for action that will support the pathway to healthy soils in Scotland is set out in Table 2.

3. Implementation of options for action

It is acknowledged that there is no ‘one rule fits all’ with respect to soil PREn. However, the soil route map suggests adopting a mitigation hierarchy approach as a common principle that can be applied across sectors. In the absence of benchmarks defining ‘good’ soil health across all Scottish soils, the application of the mitigation hierarchy provides a common approach to avoid, minimise, restore and offset negative impacts on soils to achieve thriving soils for Scotland’s communities, environment and economy.

The route map explores evolving nature-based frameworks that could support further investment, education and mobilisation of sustainable soil management in Scotland. It provides an opportunity to reflect on each management decision – firstly considering whether soil impacts can be avoided and if not, reviewing options to minimise any negative consequences.

One outcome of this second phase of work is to recommend the addition of a seventh objective in the route map to healthy soils in Scotland. That is, to ‘reduce’, targeted at minimising impacts. (Figure 2).

How to cite this publication:

Buckingham, S. and Baggaley, N. (2026) ‘Securing Scotland’s soils in a changing climate – policy brief’, ClimateXChange.

© The University of Edinburgh, 2026
Prepared by SLR Consulting and the James Hutton Institute on behalf of ClimateXChange, The University of Edinburgh. All rights reserved.

While every effort is made to ensure the information in this report is accurate as at the date of the report, no legal responsibility is accepted for any errors, omissions or misleading statements. The views expressed represent those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent those of the host institutions or funders.       

This work was supported by the Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division of the Scottish Government (CoE – CXC).

ClimateXChange

Edinburgh Climate Change Institute

High School Yards

Edinburgh EH1 1LZ

+44 (0) 131 651 4783

info@climatexchange.org.uk

www.climatexchange.org.uk

If you require the report in an alternative format such as a Word document, please contact info@climatexchange.org.uk or 0131 651 4783.

Research completed: June 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7488/era/7528

Note: For an HTML or Word version of the Appendices, please contact: saoirse.docherty@ed.ac.uk

Executive summary

Soils underpin Scotland’s natural capital, providing vital ecosystem services, supporting nature-based solutions and essential for societal wellbeing and Scotland’s economic profitability. However, unlike air, water and biodiversity (which all rely on soils) there is no soil-specific policy in Scotland to support the protection, restoration and enhancement of this vital resource. The consideration of soils is fragmented across various nature-based policies and so overarching governance is limited, making the implementation of sustainable soil management strategies challenging to coordinate.

An initial framework was published by ClimateXChange in 2025 as a ‘Soil Route Map for Scotland’ with preliminary actions for delivering improved soil security across Scottish landscapes and support the delivery of wider nature-based policies in Scotland. It provides six initial, overarching objectives of Lead, Protect, Restore, Enhance, Mobilise and Evidence as a response to address risks to soils and to achieve the vision of ‘thriving soils for Scotland’s communities, economy and environment’ in Scotland’s third National Adaptation Plan.

Key points

The second phase of research explored specific issues under the Protect – Restore – Enhance objectives, with actions that could frame a more sustainable approach to soil management in the following key areas:

• soil sealing and soils in construction
• soil compaction and physical degradation
• chemical and biological soil health
• soils in the private sector
• soil monitoring and metrics

This report presents the underlying research undertaken within this phase to support the design and implementation of a pathway to healthy soils for Scotland.

Glossary/Abbreviations

Note – sources used to develop the glossary are set out in Appendix A4.

An introduction to Scotland’s Soil Route Map

Soils underpin our natural and managed environments and provide vital ecosystem functions such as climate regulation, water storage, productivity and support national biodiversity. Recent policy developments reflect the increasing awareness of soils and the important role they play, particularly in terms of their ability to contribute to climate regulation, flood resilience, food security, support forestry and assist biodiversity.

An initial framework was published by ClimateXChange in 2025 as a ‘Soil Route Map for Scotland^[1]’ with preliminary actions for delivering improved soil security across Scottish landscapes and support the delivery of wider nature-based policies in Scotland. It provides six initial, overarching objectives of Lead, Protect, Restore, Enhance, Mobilise and Evidence (see Table 1) as a response to address risks to soils and to achieve the vision of ‘thriving soils for Scotland’s communities, economy and environment’ in Scotland’s third National Adaptation Plan^[2]. This addendum report provides results from additional research to identify actions that will support the design and implementation of a pathway for healthier and more resilient soils in Scotland.

Table 1 Initial recommendations presented in the Soil Route Map for Scotland (2025) report.

Steps to implementation

The route map suggests a collaborative, cross-sectoral approach to mobilise Scottish soil security through evidence-led leadership, soil protection, soil restoration and soil enhancement for the future (Figure 1). To achieve this collaborative approach, Objective 2 (Table 1) suggests topic-specific task groups to come together to review and share knowledge and suggest best practice relating to soil protection, restoration and enhancement opportunities for Scotland.

This second report explores this objective in more detail. It examines current policies and practice across 5 topic areas relating to identified risks to Scottish soils presented in the 2025 report and explores how soils can be considered more effectively in policy. The report also considers options to support the implementation of suggested actions within the route map (see section 7) through transferable knowledge, actions and guidance that will co-deliver to multiple policy objectives.

Figure 1. Themes identified in the Soil Route Map of Scotland

Stakeholder engagement

We reviewed policies and scientific evidence across 5 topic themes (Figure 1) to propose further actions for delivery and how these align with policy objectives.

Theme 2 (Figure 1) a workshop with stakeholders was conducted to discuss and collate opinions on the different causes and impacts of soil physical degradation across Scotland and identify potential interventions that could be applied to protect and restore soils. How these activities can support the delivery of policy objectives were also explored (further details can be found in Appendix C). We also conducted a survey to gather feedback on the route map report published in 2025, which highlighted the importance of cross-sectoral engagement and the need for soil monitoring to support and inform evidence-led recommendations for best practice (further details can be found in Appendix A3).

Sections 2 to 6 of this report provide an overview of each Theme (Figure 1) providing some preliminary suggestions for each task group to consider. Each theme is approached in turn.

Soil sealing and management of soils in construction (Theme 1)

This task group could take a broad overview of the challenges around balancing future development pressures and the impacts of soil sealing, particularly with a view to protect high value soils and scope further opportunities to reduce negative implications on soil functions and where possible reuse and recycle soil resources. In addition, the task group will share knowledge on soil ‘value’ across different land uses, land capabilities and the provision of ecosystem services and nature-based solutions.

Background

Soil sealing can be defined as the covering of soil with completely or partially impermeable material (e.g. shallow covers like tarmac, paving stones or large concrete permanent structures), with some of the most significant impacts on soil properties occurring as a result of activities associated with construction management (Defra, 2009^[3]). Soil sealing negatively impacts soil functions (e.g. its ability to store water) and associated ecosystem services (Appendix B1) and therefore is identified as being a high risk to Scottish soils (Appendix A2) and is a key Landscape Indicator^[4] for monitoring changes in Scotland’s species, habitats and landscapes.

The challenge is to balance a range of development pressures (for example, housing and energy infrastructure) while protecting soils. The soil route map (2025)¹ proposed the establishment of a task group to examine how high value soils might be better protected from sealing and urban development in the future.

Scotland’s 2024 National Planning Framework 4^[5] (NPF4) is a long-term plan looking to 2045 that guides spatial development, sets out national planning policies, designates national developments and highlights regional spatial priorities.

Local planning authorities preparing their local development plans (LDP) will be instrumental in taking forward NPF4 across Scotland, each council area responding to their unique challenges and opportunities within their areas of responsibility (Appendix B2).  The role of sustainable soils in supporting the delivery of NPF4 policies is set out in Table 2.

Table 2. How soils are related to policies in NPF4 (author’s analysis)

More detail on Policy 5 is set out in Appendix B3. Its specific intended outcomes include that (1) valued soils with specific reference to peatlands and carbon-rich are protected and restored, (2) soils are sequestering and storing carbon and (3) soils are healthy and providing essential ecosystem services for nature, people and our economy.

Key areas of consideration for Theme 1

How are the risks to soils captured in new development applications in Scotland?

Soils are a material consideration for large scale developments at plan and project level through Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), with more detail set out in Appendix B4.

Guidance, such as Historic Environment Scotland’s EIA Handbook (2018)^[6], provides direction on the types of soil impacts and mitigation measures to consider with respect to construction, operation and decommissioning. Scotland’s Soils Website^[7] states that EIA should use available soil information to assess the extent of resources, but that this should also be complemented by more detailed field observations to assess the impact of the development and work out options for restoration or mitigation.

More recently, the Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment (IEMA) Guide: A New Perspective on Land and Soil in Environmental Impact Assessment (2022)^[8] provides a framework for identifying and categorising soil-specific receptors, sensitivities and potential impacts. This guidance provides an overarching UK-wide framework to improve and standardise the approach to soils and land use within EIAs and recognises the connectivity of different soil functions. The framework identifies key receptors and soil sensitivities when assessing the potential risks to soils (see Appendix B4).

Protection of Scottish peatlands, carbon-rich soils and prime agricultural land through NPF4

Peatlands and carbon-rich soils

NPF 4 states that development on peatland and priority peatland habitats (habitats that are commonly defined by the presence of peat or peaty soil types^[9]) and carbon-rich soils will only be supported in limited circumstances, with specified restrictions (Appendix B5). Policy 5d notes that where development is proposed on priority peatland habitats, peatlands and carbon-rich soils, there is a requirement to conduct a detailed site-specific assessment.

NatureScot guidance^[10] outlines the surveys to be completed to support achievement of NPF4’s policy intentions and mitigation hierarchy and guidance from SEPA is available at Guidance and advice notes | Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)^[11].

In relation to windfarm developments as an example, the National Planning Framework 4: delivery programme V4 (January 2026) report^[12] refers to a continuation of the work of the ‘Peatland Expert Advisory Group’ (established in 2023) to provide advice on managing the development of windfarms on peatland in Scotland. It also signposts recent ClimateXChange research on the process for assessing the potential impact of windfarms on peatland^[13] and the reuse of excavated peat soil on wind farm development sites^[14]. The latter investigates the opportunities, impacts, and challenges associated with the reuse of excavated peat soil from windfarm construction sites, providing greater understanding of the current knowledge concerning wind farm development on peatland and carbon-rich soils across Scotland.

Prime agricultural land

Policy 5b provides some restriction of developments on prime agricultural land. The term ‘Prime’ agricultural land refers to land with climate and soil characteristics outlined in classes 1 to 3.1 of the Land Capability Classification for Agriculture (LCA) framework (Appendix B8) and described more fully by Bibby et al (1991)^[15].

Anecdotal evidence suggests that in some cases the LCA groupings of ‘prime’ (LCA Class 1 to 3.1) and ‘non-prime’ (LCA Class 3.2 to 7) are being misinterpreted as categories of profitability and not in terms of the flexibility of crops that can be supported. An amended phrasing might be useful in the context of planning to avoid misinterpreting or not fully appreciating land potential in a given area. E.g., LCA classes 3.2 and 4 are still suitable for arable production, just for a narrower range of crops.

Mapping Scotland’s agricultural capability was undertaken in the 1980’s with national (1:250 000 scale) and partial-cover, higher resolution (1:50 000 scale) maps available on Scotland’s Soil Website^[16]. Research is ongoing (through Scottish Government’s Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture Strategic Research Programme^[17]) to explore how digital tools can improve understanding of the impact of climate on Scotland’s soils and estimate land capability under future climatic conditions (Udugbezi et al, 2022^[18]).

Soils in the wider context of NPF4

Appendix B2 outlines the 13 policies included in NPF4’s ‘Sustainable Places’ along with requirements and considerations for LDPs. In addition to Policy 5, sustainable soil management is a core component to many other NPF4 policies shown in Table 2. This becomes more relevant with the increasing focus on integrated land use.

Sustainable management of soils during and post-development

Appendix B9 summarises technical guidance available for the management of soils in the design and construction phases of development, with the majority of Scotland-specific guidance referring to peatland protection. Some local authorities in Scotland, have developed guidance in the form of Soil Management Plans (SMP) for submission alongside planning applications. These refer to Defra’s Code of Practice for Sustainable Use of Soils in Construction3, which is not specific to Scottish regulations (in particular the movement of soils on and offsite with respect to Scottish waste regulations, see Appendix B9).

Consideration of soils in wider urban context

This report has focused on NPF4 Policy 5. However, soils underpin other aspects of the urban landscape with impacts on soil ecosystem functions, for example, climate and flood mitigation, as outlined in Table 3.

Table 3. Soils in the urban landscape