Objective E3 - Impact Assessment

Users have online access to updated and extended impact assessment tools.

Useful impact assessment tools for practices that improve SH and SOC for addressing climate change adaptation and mitigation and food security are scarce.

Limited availability and applicability of tools for assessing the impact of SH and SOC improvement practices pause challenges in quantifying, monitoring, and verification of soil carbon stocks and stock changes. The none availability has severe implications for assessing the status of soil organic carbon stocks, justifying soil carbon emission reductions (verified emissions units), and designing and managing SOC stocks.

1

Insufficient interest in soil sciences

Very few subsidies allowed for soil research (e.g., 0.3% of the investments in environmental sciences in the UK and France, vs. water ±60% and air ±40%). Very complex and multidimensional topics (geology, biology, chemistry, physics, medical, nutrition, etc.)

2

Insufficient region-specific data

Lack of region-specific soil information, activity data, and socioeconomic data to support IAT modeling at (sub)national scale; data quality/accuracy.

3

Few robust tools for measuring impact

Most available tools have not been tested sufficiently in different locations and farm environments.

4

Insufficient land-use history information

Dynamic models can form part of easy-to-use soil carbon calculators if land-use history and good soil data are available. An example is COMET Farm for the US.

5

Uncertainty about the soil health (SH) one-health nexus

Lack of knowledge on the links between soil carbon, SH, plant health, and human health

6

Non-linearity of SOC stock changes

SOC stocks change slowly. Change is non-linear with sustainable land management (SLM), and it takes many years to reach a new equilibrium. The worldwide default of 20 years is unrealistic (i.e., pragmatic, given data scarcity).

7

Promoting the wrong tools

Although an independent body did not test the tools, stakeholders promoted their use. There is currently a leap of faith to use tools developed by a chosen few.

8

Assumptions underpinning empirical IAT models

Re-consider the structure of IAT approaches and assumptions while realizing that these are embedded in the UN and other conventions.

9

Limited resources

Many tools have not been adequately tested because of limited financial resources and technical expertise to do the work.

1

Take an inventory of existing IATs

Benchmark the existing IATs and their level of readiness and accessibility for users.

3

Evaluate IATs

Evaluate IATs based on quality-assessed data to improve practical tools.

3

Develop interfaces with carbon markets

Develop interfaces that ensure compliance with carbon market requirements and a proper valuation of impacts to leverage carbon pricing. 

4

Train users

Provide training on the use of the IATs on an ad hoc basis.

5

Promote the use of IATs

Promote the use of IATs to evaluate if projects, practices, or programs are in line with the "4 per 1000" vision. Develop a user-friendly interface to facilitate access to a broad selection of IATs.

1

Access to a SOC knowledge base

Build knowledge and database on Agricultural Soil Carbon. Develop in situ soil analysis with selected measures tools and share massively.

2

Have a frame of reference

Developers and users must adhere to a scientifically sound and comprehensive frame of reference approved by the world scientific community.

3

Predictions of impact assessment tools successfully evaluated against findings of cost-effective MRV campaigns

4

Training guided by tool developers

Most tools are easy to use but generally require some training. Work with existing tool providers to provide training.

5

Use of proxy indicators to fill data gaps

Look for proxy indicators for Carbon Sequestration and Dynamics. Evaluate possible proxies (e.g., in situ carbon measures, predictive models, other indicators such as soil biodiversity, SH, …)

6

MRV is embedded in the policy agenda and connected to existing solutions

MRV for SOC embedded in (inter)national agricultural/biodiversity policy agenda, providing support for improving impact assessment tools and subsequent payment for environmental services.

7

Further development of tools

Further development of tools to provide a complete set. Support improvement of soil information in tools such as CBP. ISRIC initially provided the soil data layer currently used in the CBP tools which are based on the HWSD. The default data layer and linking the CBP tools with other data sources such as Trends needs improvement. Earth products.

8

Coherence with the requirements of carbon markets

Predictions of IAT tools accepted as evidence for net C-sequestration on the 'carbon market'.

1

Non-compliance with international standards

Differences in approaches and scientific insights lead to many tools and philosophies.

2

Limited focus on climate-mitigation aspects

The benefits of adopting region-specific SLM appear mainly related to improving SH, biodiversity, and livelihood, rather than actual climate mitigation. The role of the farmer community in improving SH and food security is undervalued.

3

Insufficient funding

Funding needs to be sought to improve impact assessment tools

4

Insufficient peer-reviewed information on impact assessment tools

There have been ensemble-type modeling exercises on GHGs, but they fail to identify the right and wrong models.

5

No soil and land directive

There is no soil and land directive at any geographical level (France, EU, worldwide).

6

Insufficient incentive to participate in impact assessment

Lack of incentives for esp. 'poor' farmers to participate in SOC/SH-improving activities; timescale of return on investment.

7

Insufficient training

Insufficient training on the use of tools.

8

Limited access to data

Sharing soil data among the scientific community and industry is key to accelerating knowledge and developing relevant solutions.