Presentation on theme: "1 Vladimir Stolbovoy, Filippi Nicola Land Management and Natural Hazards Unit, Joint Research Center EC Verification of the carbon sequestration measures."— Presentation transcript:
1 Vladimir Stolbovoy, Filippi Nicola Land Management and Natural Hazards Unit, Joint Research Center EC Verification of the carbon sequestration measures in agricultural soil August, 2006
2 Definition of verification 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.
3 Definition of verification (Cont) 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 partys 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.
4 Three-level monitoring and verification framework for Article 3.4 ( as quoted in Smith 2001 ) 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.
5 Measures for increasing SOC in agricultural land and potential yearly soil carbon sequestration rates (t CO2 ha-1 y-1) Measure Potential soil carbon sequestration rate (t CO2 ha-1 y-1) Estimated uncertainty (%) Effect on farm profitability Zero-tillage 1.42 but see reference> 50% + or - unclear, regionally specific Set-aside< 1.42>>50%+ or - Perennial grasses and permanent crops 2.27>50%+ or - Crop residues2.54> 50%+ 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) Measure Potential positive effects on farm profitability Potential negative effects on farm profitability Overall effect on farm profitability Zero-tillageIn dry areas may improve productivity via improved moisture retention. Work time and fuel consumption decreases, less powerful tractors needed. In wetter areas more risk of fungal attack, reduced emergence and crop failure. High initial equipment investment cost. + or - unclear, regionally specific Set-asidePossible better long term soil fertility Unless subsidised, reduced area available for production + or - Perennial grasses and permanent crops Possible better long term soil fertility Less flexibility to respond to market changes + or - Crop residuesPossible better long term soil fertility Time spent on incorporation + 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 (1000 ha) (after Joaris, 2002) Total non- food set aside Of which crops for liquid bio- fuels Of which crops for direct combustion Source: Working Group Sinks Related to Agricultural Soils. Final Report (httpc.e://europa.eu/environment/climate/finalreport)
8 Bringing soil to local policy & decisions Concept: soil carbon status indicators Max tC Min tC Actual tC Max & Min tC are soil specific Years tC Potential Carbon Sequestration, PCS Carbon Sequestration Rate, CSR Potential Carbon loss, PCL (Risk assessment) Carbon Loss Rate, CLR PCS=f S,LU (MaxSOC - ASOC) PCL=f S,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 ab c Source: Working Group Sinks Related to Agricultural Soils. Final Report (httpc.e://europa.eu/environment/climate/finalreport) Simplified parametrization: ASOC = b If MaxSOC = f s,LU (b+STD) than PCS = +SDV If MinSOC = f s,LU (b-std) than PCL = -SDV
10 Example of the soil carbon status indicatiors (CSI)(Piemonte region) Land Cover Actual C content Max C content Min C content CSP, tC ha -1 CSR, tC yr -1 Cropland /0.02 Forest n.d.2.18n.d. n.d. – not defined; CSR = carbon sequestration per yr: first 5 yr / next 15 yr
11 Steps to parameterize CSI Tasks: 1.Parameterize Max – Min –Average C contents by STU (region specific values); 2.Define PCS for manipulations by land use (LU), e.g., the changes of major categories, e.g., cropland into pasture, forest, etc.; 3.Define PCS for manipulations by land management, e.g., changes in tillage, crops, fertilizers, etc.
12 T1. Parameterize Max – Min –Average C contents by STU (region specific values), e.g. Excel spreadsheet STU LU class STU1STU2STU3….. LU1Ct/ha LU2 ….. Ct/ha
13 T2. Manipulations by land use (LU) 1.Sort carbon-related data by STU; 2. 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). Ct/ha Frequency Ct/ha LU classes
14 T3. Potentials for Carbon Sequestration a)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; b)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.
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