Niels H. Batjes ISRIC – World Soil Information

1. Research needs for monitoring, reporting and verifying soil carbon benefits in sustainable land management and GHG mitigation projects - an overview - Niels H. Batjes ISRIC – World Soil Information

2. Land use change affects GHG emissions • Human-induced increase in atmospheric GHG concentrations pose a threat to the global environment and human well-being (some 50 billion tonnes CO2/yr) • About 1/3 of total emissions come from changes in land use  large potential for mitigation

3. Land use change affects GHG emissions Mt CO2equivalent per year Global mitigation potential by 2030 (from Smith et al., 2007) • Some 89 per cent of this potential can be achieved by enhanced C sequestration through improved land and water management** UNFCCC Technical Paper: Challenges and opportunities for mitigation in the agricultural sector, 2008

4. Land use change affects GHG emissions • The GHG mitigation potential of agricultural soils is gaining acceptance • Various projects are being developed worldwide: • Canada, Portugal, Spain and Denmark already elected cropland activities to officially account for soil C sequestration under the KP • In framework of climate negotiations on REDD+ • Development of tools for forecasting changes in C-Balance (FAO, GEF…) • Under voluntary markets such as the BioCarbon fund, the CCX… • Development of analytical solutions for field C (and GHG) measurement, monitoring and verification • Need for a robust technical and scientific information base to help translate policy frameworks and financial incentives into terrestrial carbon management

5. Still many challenges to SOC sequestration and reducing GHG emissions Vegetation Source: Lal and Follet, 2009

6. Some considerations … • Soils are long-time, natural reservoirs of C in soil organic matter (SOM) • Many managed agro-ecosystems have lost 30-55% of their original SOC pool • Generally, depleted SOC stores can be improved through judicious management • Demands for fundamental understanding of mechanisms of SOM formation and stabilisation, and main regulating factors • Some 60-80% of all terrestrial carbon is contained in the soil; the rest in vegetation Ref.: Globe Carbon Cycle, 2007

7. Soil forming factors and SOM levels SOM levels in soils vary widely according to climate, parent material/texture, topographic position, natural vegetation and land use history  provides a useful basis for stratification

8. Potential for SOC sequestration varies with climate Medium Medium Wet High Moisture Low * Large uncertainties remain High C-costs may be incurred in areas where natural processes do not effectively favour C sequestration Dry Cool Hot Temperature

9. Restoring SOC levels using RMPs • Changes in land use/management break the natural C cycle Well designed field sampling will help quantifying how SOC dynamics change upon changes in climate, atmospheric CO2 concentration, and land use management Well designed field sampling will help quantifying how SOC dynamics change upon changes in climate, atmospheric CO2 concentration, and land use management Well designed field sampling will help quantifying how SOC dynamics change upon changes in climate, atmospheric CO2 concentration, and land use management After: Lal, 2004 • Recommended management practices (RMPs) can help restore SOC stocks, and reduce GHG emissions

10. Magnitude and rate of SOC sequestration For given climate/soil stratum, the possible magnitude and rate of SOC sequestration depend on: • Baseline or reference level • Antecedent SOC pool (land use history) • Soil type: • depth of soil • clay content & mineralogy • internal drainage/aeration • soil nutrient status (e.g., N, P, K) • Recommended management practices • Socio-economic conditions/incentives

11. Cost of SLM interventions needed to restore SOC A Prevention + ++++ B “Mitigation” +++ ++ Rehabilitation +++++ C Sustainable land management Degradation time Evaluate socio-economic feasibility of alternative management options; impacts on human well-being + Input needed to reduce degradation and GHG emissions After: H.P. Liniger / WOCAT

12. Many different measures to protect/improve soils and SOM, but their net GHG effects are not well documented and evaluated … Need to identify regions and land management practices with a high potential for GHG emission reduction and SOC sequestration across the full range of climate/soil/land use types

13. Feasible SOC sequestration rates - For USA (Lal et al., 1999, Post et al., 2004) - World cropland: 0.1-1.5 Mg C ha-1 yr-1 depending on climate, soil type, management practices and socio-economic conditions - Must consider overall effect on GHG emissions  lower net C gains …

14. Measuring and monitoring SOC changes • Compared with C in biomass, SOC must be monitored over longer periods because the net changes are small relative to the very large pool present in the soil and the inherent variability • Methodological efforts are needed to ensure that SOC changes can be detected consistently (known accuracy, within defined permissible error) across complex landscapes

15. Measuring and monitoring SOC changes • Relationships between environmental /management factors and SOC dynamics can be developed using: • Experimental field-trials • Chronosequence studies • Monitoring networks • Soil monitoring networks can provide: • Direct changes of SOC stocks through repeated measurements • Data to parametrise and test biophysical models at plot scale • Set of point observations that represents the variation in climate/soil/land use management at national scale, allowing for upscaling • Many SMNs are in the planning or early stages (Plant Soil 2011(338), 247-259) • Sites organised according to different sampling schemes (e.g., regular grid, stratified approach, randomized)

16. Numerous procedures and protocols … IPCC Guidelines SOC stock changes based on fixed depth or equivalent soil mass …

17. Measurement methods • Standard methods of soil analysis are often too expensive to provide the bulk of data for continuous monitoring • New promising techniques that permit rapid and cost-effective measurements: • Vis-NIR reflectance spectrometry • Inelastic neutron scattering (INS), up to 30 cm depth • Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) • Gamma-spectroscopy for bulk density • Remote sensing provides direct observations of land surface features/ processes, thereby increasing the accuracy of SOC change predictionsNew RS techniques may permit routine monitoring of changes in selected chemical and physical properties of soil (to a limited depth?) • Operational RS assessment of SOC stocks is not yet possible (TCG, 2010) • The accuracy and precision of such methods is improving as more experience is gained

18. Projects can have different MRV needs Two type of projects: • Climate change mitigation; strict C and GHG reporting needs (e.g., CDM, REDD+ ...) • SLM projects: food security, resilience and biodiversity.Increasingly, alsoneed to assess broad impact of interventions on SOC and GHG fluxes

19. Green Water Credits Regular compensation by water users to water providers for specified water management services • Improved: • Soil water retention • Soil nutrient status • Soil organic matter Increasing need for consistent SOC and GHG reporting tools

20. GEF-Carbon Benefits Project (CBP) • GEF has no standardized, cost-effective methodology to assess net C benefits in its SLM projects • CBP is developing a standardized, cost-effective methodology that is comprehensible, standardized, robust and applicable to all GEF-SLM projects to: • permit the GEF (and others) to monitor the net C impacts of its investments in AFOLU projects • provide an enhanced capacity of SLM-projects to engage with the emerging carbon-offset markets • Executing Agency:UNEP-DEWA • Implementing Agencies: • Component A: Colorado State University (CSU), USA • Component B: World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) • Partners: • University of LeicesterISRIC – World Soil InformationBrazil: Centro de Energia Nuclear na Agricultura, Sao Paulo and EMBRAPA field projectsChina: GEF/OP12 Gansu Capacity Building Project & GEF Ningxia IEM Agricultural Development ProjectGEF field projects in Kenya (KARI) and along Niger/Nigeria borderOverseas Dev. Group – University of East Anglia (ODG-UEA)IRD – Institut de recherche pour le dévelopment B) World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Michigan State University (MSU)Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Western-Kenya field project

21. CBP: modelling, measurement, monitoring • Component A (CSU and partners) • protocol and model development, building on existing project and national-scale carbon and GHG inventory tools • provide data for model calibration under alternative management; IPCC Tier I to III inventory methods • focus on estimation and forecasting of carbon stocks and change and GHG emissions, with greater emphasis on cropland and grazing land 2) Component B (WWF and partners) • focus on field measurements and monitoring of carbon changes across landscapes, linking above-ground and below ground-carbon measurements • draw on recent advances in geo-spatial, earth-observation and field-based techniques • develop numerical and probabilistic methods to support carbon accounting; special attention to agro-forestry and forestry

22. The CBP Component A System The Project Information Module The Project Information Module The Project Information Module The Project Information Module The Project Information Module The Project Information Module The Project Information Module The Project Information Module The Project Information Module The Project Information Module The Project Information Module The Project Information Module The Project Information Module The Project Information Module The Project Information Module The Project Information Module The Project Information Module The Project Information Module Hosted at UNEP The Component Choice Tool The Component Choice Tool The Component Choice Tool The Component Choice Tool The Component Choice Tool The Component Choice Tool The Component Choice Tool Toolkit Advisor The Component Choice Tool The Component Choice Tool The Component Choice Tool The Component Choice Tool The Component Choice Tool The Component Choice Tool Comp B Comp B Comp B Project Description Guidance (Tool Selection, M&M) Simple Assessment Detailed Assessment Dynamic Modelling Cost-Benefit Analysis DPSIR ‘Human dimensions’ CBP: 2009-2012 Reporting http://carbonbenefitsproject-compa.colostate.edu/

23. Differences in methodological complexity Source: http://www.gofc-gold.uni-jena.de/redd/, p.73

24. Soil carbon modelling Simulation models Output database Input database Survey data Plant Growth Residues CO2 CO2 Spatial data CO2 CO2 Active SOM Slow SOM Passive SOM CO2 Need for tiered information system & webservices: GlobalContinentalNationalRegionalWatershedPlot-level CO2 Long-term experiments http://www.nrel.colostate.edu/projects/gefsoc-uk/

25. Some challenges ... • Increase process-level understanding of carbon dynamics subject to changes in land use management and climate • Development of cost-effective techniques to measure and monitor all C pools (and GHGs) to reduce need for “traditional” laboratory analyses; QA/QC procedures • Creation of, and long-term support, for national scale MRV systems; capacity building • Development of scaling procedures (accounting & modelling) at field, landscape and broader scales, ultimately for all terrestrial C pools and GHG fluxes • Tier-based, global information system with main socio-economic and biophysical driving variables at relevant scales to support modelling; ideally open-access • Streamlined processes for harmonizing definitions, standards and methodologies ...