Coordination of International Research Cooperation on soil CArbon - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Coordination of International Research Cooperation on soil CArbon Sequestration in Agriculture This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 774378 1 Why Soil
Coordination of International Research Cooperation on soil CArbon Sequestration in Agriculture
This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 774378
1
degraded [FAO, 2006, 2011].
The annual cost of fertilizer to replace nutrients lost to erosion is US $110 – US $ 200 billion [ITPS FAO, 2016].
erosion of agricultural land [Chappell et al., 2015, NCC].
produced in developing countries per additional ton C per hectare stored in soils organic matter
[Lal , 2006]
leading to increased soil organic matter [Pan et al. ,
2009]
[Frank et al., Env. Res. Lett., 2017]
SOC— soil organic C sequestration SOC+— including its benefits for yields Ag N2O—N2O mitigation from agriculture; Ag CH4—CH4 mitigation from agriculture; Ag SOC—CO2 sequestration from agriculture, FOLU—CO2 mitigation from forestry and other land use
(CIRCASA Project, Soussana et al.)
rapidly increasing, interdisciplinary and international. Exponential growth in annual number of scientific papers on soil carbon sequestration in agriculture over 1991-2015 (Left) and distribution by scientific discipline (Right).
Main international research networks on agricultural soil carbon sequestration (2016)
(CIRCASA Project, Soussana et al.)
Main research topics (key-words) concerning soil organic carbon sequestration in agriculture (2016)
(CIRCASA Project, Soussana et al.)
Many ongoing initiatives and research projects dealing (in part) with soils, agriculture and climate change
with CCAFS-CGIAR, it has direct
accounting for 85% of the world’s total research on soil C sequestration in agriculture
Countries partners of CIRCASA, 4p1000, GRA, FACCE-JPI and CCAFS
research secretariats of 4p1000, GRA and FACCE-JPI
CIRCASA Goals
10
Develop international synergies concerning research and knowledge transfer on agricultural soil C sequestration at European Union (EU) and global levels.
1. Strengthen the international research community 2. Improve our understanding 3. Co-design a strategic research agenda with stakeholders 4. Create an International Research Consortium
Structuring knowledge (WP1)
Spatial distribution of exposure to selected multiple land challenges. A. Un-degraded land exposed to rapid climate change; B, Degraded land exposed to rapid climate change; C, Degraded land exposed to food insecurity; D, Degraded land exposed to rapid climate change and food insecurity
=> An open data repository with geospatial and modelling data
Stakeholder Engagement (WP2)
13
Online Survey – 7 languages Workshops on 5 continents Stakeholder Advisory Board
=> Strategic Research Agenda
Create an International Research Consortium on SOC (WP3)
Health => CIRCASA Research Policy Committee: Explore activities, resources and governance for an International Research Consortium (IRC) on agricultural soil carbon and draft a work plan.
The Global Soil Partnership (GSP), the GRA, FACCE-JPI and the 4 per 1000 initiative will greatly facilitate this task, allowing the CIRCASA IRC to be embedded into a broader soil and agricultural research context.
Communication and Outreach (WP4)
16
Survey – 939 respondents globally
17
2 2 2 4 5 7 8 9 14 15 17 24 30 38 56 84 229 359
100 200 300 400 Landowners’ Association Private foundation Public funding mechanism Retail companies: marketing and… Financial industry: Insurance or… International Research Initiative… International Policy Maker (e.g.… Food Industry: food production,… Non-profit development/food… General Public Farmers’ Association Agricultural supply industry:… Non-profit environmental… Other Agricultural Extension / Farm… Public / government authority Farmer Research institute or university
Which stakeholder group describes you best?
568 244 127
200 400 600 Male Female N/A
Are You?
348 323 217 9
100 200 300 400 18-39 years 40-54 years 55-74 years Over 74 years
What is your age?
18
SOC management options
Residue management (crop residue left in the field) Reduced/minimum tillage Zero tillage Manure and composting (applying livestock manure and/or compost on fields) Grass in rotation Use of cover crops Use of grain legumes Use of forage legumes Permanent grassland management (optimised grazing) Buffer strips and set-aside areas Crop-livestock systems Agro-forestry in cropland Agro-forestry in grazing lands Agro-forestry in mixed crop-livestock systems Biochar Rewetting of organic soils Preventing erosion (e.g., contour farming, terracing, windbreaks)
19
Whic ich managemen ent t op
tions do
ly or
lying? - Farmers
0% 50% 100% Biochar Agro-forestry in grazing lands Zero tillage Permanent grassland management (optimised grazing) Buffer strips and set-aside areas Rewetting of organic soils Agro-forestry in mixed crop-livestock systems Agro-forestry in cropland Grass in rotation Use of forage legumes Reduced/minimum tillage Use of cover crops Crop-livestock systems Preventing erosion (e.g., contour farming, terracing,… Use of grain legumes Residue management (crop residue left in the field) Manure and composting
Global
0% 50% 100% Residue management Reduced/minimum tillage Zero tillage Manure and composting Grass in rotation Use of cover crops Use of grain legumes Use of forage legumes Permanent grassland management Buffer strips and set-aside areas Crop-livestock systems Agro-forestry in cropland Agro-forestry in grazing lands Agro-forestry in mixed crop-livestock… Biochar Rewetting of organic soils Preventing erosion 20
EU Denmark
0% 50% 100% Residue management… Reduced/minimum tillage Zero tillage Manure and composting Grass in rotation Use of cover crops Use of grain legumes Use of forage legumes Permanent grassland … Buffer strips and set-aside… Agroforestry (trees… Biochar Rewetting of organic soils Hedgerows
Whic ich managemen ent t op
tions do
ly or
lying? - Farmers
Which options do you think farmers are using for SOC management in your region at present? (Global)
21
27 33 49 56 91 99 139 170 224 221 249 250 270 358 384 423 474
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Preventing erosion (e.g., contour farming, terracing,… Rewetting of organic soils Biochar Agro-forestry in grazing lands Agro-forestry in mixed crop-livestock systems Agro-forestry in cropland Buffer strips and set-aside areas Permanent grassland management (optimised grazing) Use of forage legumes Grass in rotation Use of grain legumes Crop-livestock systems Zero tillage Reduced/minimum tillage Use of cover crops Manure and composting (applying livestock manure and/or… Residue management (crop residue left in the field)
Which options do you think farmers are using for SOC management in Europe at present?
22
8 22 23 24 38 44 69 95 105 105 107 111 113 116 166 180 198 208
50 100 150 200 250 I don´t know Rewetting of organic soils Biochar Agro-forestry in grazing lands Agro-forestry in mixed crop-livestock systems Agro-forestry in cropland Buffer strips and set-aside areas Permanent grassland management Crop-livestock systems Preventing erosion Zero tillage Grass in rotation Use of grain legumes Use of forage legumes Use of cover crops Reduced/minimum tillage Manure and composting Residue management
23
Farmers’ views on effectiveness of SOC management options
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Biochar Buffer strips and set-aside areas Agro-forestry in grazing lands Reduced/minimum tillage Use of grain legumes Rewetting of organic soils Permanent grassland management (optimised grazing) Use of forage legumes Agro-forestry in cropland Zero tillage Grass in rotation Agro-forestry in mixed crop-livestock systems Preventing erosion (e.g., contour farming, terracing, windbreaks) Use of cover crops Crop-livestock systems Residue management (crop residue left in the field) Manure and composting (applying livestock manure and/or…
Global
1 2 7 3 4 5 5 9 7 7 18 18 19 22 27 8
Residue management Reduced/minimum tillage Zero tillage Manure and composting Grass in rotation Use of cover crops Use of grain legumes Use of forage legumes Permanent grassland management Buffer strips and set-aside areas Crop-livestock systems Agro-forestry in cropland Agro-forestry in grazing lands Agro-forestry in mixed crop-livestock… Biochar Rewetting of organic soils Preventing erosion 24 0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100% Residue management… Reduced/minimum tillage Zero tillage Manure and composting Grass in rotation Use of cover crops Use of grain legumes Use of forage legumes Permanent grassland … Buffer strips and set-… Agroforestry (trees… Biochar Rewetting of organic soils Hedgerows
EU Denmark
Farmers’ views on effectiveness of SOC management options
25
SOC management options
Residue management (crop residue left in the field) Reduced/minimum tillage Zero tillage Manure and composting (applying livestock manure and/or compost on fields) Grass in rotation Use of cover crops Use of grain legumes Use of forage legumes Permanent grassland management (optimised grazing) Buffer strips and set-aside areas Crop-livestock systems Agro-forestry in cropland Agro-forestry in grazing lands Agro-forestry in mixed crop-livestock systems Biochar Rewetting of organic soils Preventing erosion (e.g., contour farming, terracing, windbreaks)
26
Barriers to uptake of management options
equipment)
credits)
technical solutions
27
Views on barriers to uptake – Global
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Other Biophysical (unsuitable climate or soil) The right machinery is not available (e.g. suppliers or… Lack of funds to access inputs (e.g. fertilizer) Land is leased Additional costs are too high Technical solutions are not mature (additional research is… Lack of funds to access technology or machinery Information and knowledge support is not available Lack of incentive for medium/long-term investment due… Farm extension services do not have knowledge and… Not convinced by productivity and economic benefits… SOC management is not a political priority SOC sequestration is not rewarded financially (e.g. no… Most important Important Minor Importance Not Important Don’t know
0% 50% 100% Other The right machinery is not available (e.g. suppliers or… Biophysical (unsuitable climate or soil) Lack of incentive for medium/long-term investment due to… Land is leased Technical solutions are not mature (additional research is… Farm extension services do not have knowledge and capacity… Lack of funds to access inputs (e.g. fertilizer) Information and knowledge support is not available Lack of funds to access technology or machinery SOC management is not a political priority Additional costs are too high Not convinced by productivity and economic benefits (e.g.… SOC sequestration is not rewarded financially (e.g. no… 28
Farmers’ views on barriers to uptake
Global
1 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 1
Lack of funds to access technology or machinery Lack of funds to access inputs (e.g. fertilizer) Additional costs are too high The right machinery is not available Lack of incentive for medium/long-term investment Land is leased Not convinced by productivity and economic benefits SOC sequestration is not rewarded financially Technical solutions are not mature Information and knowledge support is not available Farm extension services do not have knowledge and capacity Biophysical (unsuitable climate or soil) SOC management is not a political priority Other 29 0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%
EU
Farmers’ views on barriers to uptake
Denmark
30
Solutions for increasing uptake
support to transition to SOC practices (e.g. loans or grants for investments)
improving carbon storage in soils
31
Views on solutions to increase adoption – Global
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Compulsory standards set by food companies Improve infrastructures to access inputs and technologies Carbon certification schemes (product labels) Development of carbon credit schemes Include SOC in emission trading schemes Set mandatory targets and regulatory requirements for… Other financial support to transition to SOC practices (e.g.… Payments for ecosystem services (usually public subsidies) Information to policy makers on where and how to target… Indicators and tools for farmers and policy makers to… Improved awareness among the public Strengthen farm advisory services and knowledge… Tailored guidance and advice for farmers on how to… Most important Important Minor Importance Not Important Don't know
32
Farmers’ views on solutions to increase adoption
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Improve infrastructures to access inputs and technologies Compulsory standards set by food companies Development of carbon credit schemes Include SOC in emission trading schemes Set mandatory targets and regulatory requirements for SOC… Carbon certification schemes (product labels) Other financial support to transition to SOC practices (e.g.… Payments for ecosystem services (usually public subsidies) Indicators and tools for farmers and policy makers to… Information to policy makers on where and how to target… Improved awareness among the public Strengthen farm advisory services and knowledge exchange… Tailored guidance and advice for farmers on how to increase…
Global
33
Farmers’ views on solutions to increase uptake
Tailored guidance and advice for farmers on how to increase… Strengthen farm advisory services and knowledge exchange Payments for ecosystem services (usually public subsidies) Other financial support to transition to SOC practices Carbon certification schemes (product labels) Compulsory standards set by food companies Development of carbon credit schemes Improve infrastructures to access inputs and technologies Set mandatory targets and regulatory requirements for SOC… Information to policy makers on where/how to target SOC… Indicators/tools for farmers/policy makers to measure… Improved awareness among the public
EU Denmark
0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100%
34
Effectiveness of SOC management options – Global
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Buffer strips and set-aside areas Rewetting of organic soils Biochar Reduced/minimum tillage Use of grain legumes Use of forage legumes Agro-forestry in grazing lands Agro-forestry in cropland Grass in rotation Crop-livestock systems Permanent grassland management (optimised grazing) Agro-forestry in mixed crop-livestock systems Preventing erosion (e.g., contour farming, terracing,… Zero tillage Residue management (crop residue left in the field) Use of cover crops Manure and composting (applying livestock manure and/or… Very effective Effective Less effective Not effective Don't know
35
Contribution of SOC management – Production & Ecosystem Service (Global)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Reduce crop protection needs (pest and diseases) Reduce irrigation demand Improve product quality (e.g. higher value) Reduce demand for fertiliser Prevent nutrient leakage Prevent soil erosion Improve soil workability, e.g. for seedbed preparation Enhance the yield potential Improve water infiltration and drainage Improve biodiversity Enhance the yield stability Improve soil water holding capacity Improve soil quality To a large extent To some extent To a low extent Not at all Don't know
36
Contribution of SOC management – climate and sustainable development (Global)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% SOC management compensates emissions from fossil fuels (energy and transport in society) SOC management compensates other agricultural GHG emissions (nitrous oxide and methane) Reducing GHG should be a concern for SOC management Higher SOC would protect against soil degradation under climate change SOC management affects GHG emissions from soils SOC management is relevant to food security SOC management is relevant to climate change adaptation Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don't know
Thank you for your attention!
37
Follow us on Twitter! @CIRCASAproject Visit our website www.circasa-project.eu
This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 774378
38
39