1 / 15

Vladimir Stolbovoy, Filippi Nicola

Verification of the carbon sequestration measures in agricultural soil. Vladimir Stolbovoy, Filippi Nicola Land Management and Natural Hazards Unit, Joint Research Center EC. August , 2006.

chas
Download Presentation

Vladimir Stolbovoy, Filippi Nicola

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Verification of the carbon sequestration measures in agricultural soil Vladimir Stolbovoy, Filippi Nicola Land Management and Natural Hazards Unit, Joint Research Center EC August, 2006

  2. According to the IPCC Good Practice Guidelines (IPCC 2003), verification refers to the activities and procedures that can be followed to establish the reliability of the data. This means checking the data against empirical data or independently compiled estimates. Definition of verification

  3. For verification of Article 3.4 activities, estimates are required for C fluxes and / or changes in C stocks that are independent of those used in a party’s national report. This means that for a given human-induced activity, there must be at least two independent methods for assessing the size of an emission by a source or removal by a sink. Definition of verification (Con’t)

  4. Level 1: Monitoring and self-reporting by parties on emissions and removals of greenhouse gases by Article 3.4 activities according to IPCC reporting guidelines and good practice guidelines; Level 2: Validation and verification at the national level, including by peer and public review; Level 3: Validation and verification at the international level by Expert Review Teams according to Article 8 of the protocol. Three-level monitoring and verification framework for Article 3.4 (as quoted in Smith 2001)

  5. Measures for increasing SOC in agricultural land and potential yearly soil carbon sequestration rates (t CO2 ha-1 y-1) Source: Working Group Sinks Related to Agricultural Soils. Final Report (httpc.e://europa.eu/environment/climate/finalreport)

  6. Effect of C management of farm profitability (cropland) Source: Working Group Sinks Related to Agricultural Soils. Final Report (httpc.e://europa.eu/environment/climate/finalreport)

  7. Development of Renewable Energy Sources (RES) on set aside land in the EU (1000ha) (after Joaris, 2002) Source: Working Group Sinks Related to Agricultural Soils. Final Report (httpc.e://europa.eu/environment/climate/finalreport)

  8. Carbon Sequestration Rate, CSR Potential Carbon Sequestration, PCS Carbon Loss Rate, CLR Potential Carbon loss, PCL (Risk assessment) Bringing soil to local policy & decisionsConcept: soil carbon status indicators tC Max tC Max & Min tC are soil specific Actual tC Min tC Years PCS=fS,LU (MaxSOC - ASOC) PCL=fS,LU (MinSOC - ASOC)

  9. IGPB-DIS approach: SOM (kg m-2) in the 0-30 cm layer: (a) mean value minus standard deviation, (b) mean value, (c) mean value plus standard deviation. a b c 0 9 18 27 36 Simplified parametrization: ASOC = b If MaxSOC = fs,LU(b+STD) than PCS = +SDV If MinSOC = fs,LU(b-std) than PCL = -SDV Source: Working Group Sinks Related to Agricultural Soils. Final Report (httpc.e://europa.eu/environment/climate/finalreport)

  10. Land Cover Actual C content Max C content Min C content CSP, tC ha-1 CSR, tC yr-1 Cropland 9.03 12.4 4.01 3.03 0.15/0.02 Forest 4.12 6.3 n.d. 2.18 n.d. Example of the soil carbon status indicatiors (CSI)(Piemonte region) n.d. – not defined; CSR = carbon sequestration per yr: first 5 yr / next 15 yr

  11. Tasks: Parameterize Max – Min –Average C contents by STU (region specific values); Define PCS for manipulations by land use (LU), e.g., the changes of major categories, e.g., cropland into pasture, forest, etc.; Define PCS for manipulations by land management, e.g., changes in tillage, crops, fertilizers, etc. Steps to parameterize CSI

  12. T1. Parameterize Max – Min –Average C contents by STU (region specific values), e.g. Excelspreadsheet

  13. Sort carbon-related data by STU; Build up a distribution diagram by STU 3 Build up scatter diagram for each STU 4 Compare C content in STU by different LU types (it is assumed that the lower C content means improper carbon balance. By replacing LU we are able to enrich C in soil). T2. Manipulations by land use (LU) Frequency Ct/ha Ct/ha LU classes

  14. LU Change (termed conversion, e.g., cropland into pasture, forest, etc.) can be approached by a selection of the highest C content (tC/ha) for given STU by LU type; LU Change (termed modification, e.g., change in tillage, crops, fertilizers, etc, within the same LU type). This can be approached having more detail information on Ct/ha by different land managements. T3. Potentials for Carbon Sequestration

  15. Verification is an essential procedure for all levels of the Kyoto communications Most of the carbon sequestration measures are region specific in terms of soil & land use Carbon sequestration measures should be regionally tested and validated against empirical observations for which the sampling protocol is a reliable tool Development of the soil carbon status indicators assist local authorities to setup region-specific appropriate carbon sequestration measure Conclusions

More Related