Objective
Label | Title | Description |
---|---|---|
Impact Assessment | Provide impact assessment tools (IATs) to evaluate the consistency of actions with the "4 per 1000" vision | Impact assessment tools (including the socioeconomic dimension) evaluate if projects, practices, or programs are in line with the vision of the "4 per 1000" Initiative, and are accessible and continuously improved. |
Targets
Baseline 2020 | Target 2030 | Target 2050 |
---|---|---|
Exploration of a possible collaboration with the developers of existing tools: FAO EX-ACT (Ex-Ante Carbon-balance Tool); Wocat CBP (Carbon Benefits Project) tool, etc.) | Users have online access to essential impact assessment tools. | Users have online access to updated and extended impact assessment tools. |
Activities
N° | Activity | Description |
---|---|---|
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. |
Problem
Problem Statement | Description | Consequences |
---|---|---|
Useful impact assessment tools for practices that improve SH and SOC for addressing climate change adaptation and mitigation and food security are scarce. | The availability of reliable and widely adopted tools for assessing the impact of SH and SOC improvement practices is limited. The few instruments that have been developed have not been adequately tested under various field conditions. Their widespread application in practice is therefore not possible. There is a lack of field trials and long-term data to validate the instruments. Resources to test the tools that compound this problem are limited. | 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. |
Causes
N° | Cause | Description |
---|---|---|
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. |
Critical Success Factors (CSFs)
N° | Critical Success Factor | Description |
---|---|---|
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 | Impact assessment tools successfully evaluated against MRV | 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 Dynamic. 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 the 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 soils information in tools such as CBP. ISRIC initially provided the soils 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 requirements of carbon markets | Predictions of IAT tools accepted as evidence for net C-sequestration on the 'carbon market'. |
Barriers
N° | Barrier | Description |
---|---|---|
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 under-valued. |
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. |