Figure 8 - uploaded by K. Helming
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
This handbook is designed to support researchers in conducting state of the art assessments for evaluating impacts of agricultural soil management. Furthermore, it is addressed to a wider audience to aid understanding and interpretation of published impact assessments results. The handbook has been produced in response to a growing awareness of the...
Citations
... These effects occur when a government attempts to regulate a particular behaviour and, as a result, relevant actors shift their use of resources to countries/regions with less stringent environmental rules [30]. Consequently, while one location improves due to the shift, adverse environmental effects are caused in other locations [125], although there may also be some positive technological spillover effects [126]. In the context of carbon farming, shifting effects often occur when a carbon farming practice reduces the yield in a country or region (while at the same time increasing the rate of carbon removal). ...
This article conducts a qualitative governance analysis of the European Commission’s 2022 proposal for a certification framework for carbon removals (CRCF). It highlights potential challenges and legal implications—with a specific focus on carbon farming. While the European Union (EU) acknowledges carbon farming as an important strategy to offset residual emissions, such carbon removal activities are prone to reversals and models often overestimate their sequestration potential. The CRCF aims to account for these issues, but the analysis shows that the proposal may, in part, undermine international climate and biodiversity goals set by the Paris Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Key concerns include its failure to consider the normative hierarchy between emission reductions and removals mandated by EU and international law, the introduction of a temporary removal crediting system, the extensive delegation of powers to the Commission, the possibility that it may incentivise shifting effects, and its lack of alignment with other EU environmental policies. Additionally, the CRCF’s failure to restrict the use of carbon credits after certification increases the risk of double claiming of removal activities—and the proposal may open the door for to future integration of carbon removals into the EU’s emission trading scheme, which should be avoided for various reasons. As an alternative, member states should consider targeted subsidy schemes and regulatory instruments to navigate these challenges in carbon farming effectively.
... To assess farming system's performance, sustainability indicators are acknowledged as established tools (Paul and Helming, 2019). Many sustainability assessment (SA) studies have been conducted for sole olive cropping systems, mainly through the methodological framework of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) (Ben Abdallah et al., 2021;Fernández-Lobato et al., 2021;Guarino et al., 2019;Tsarouhas et al., 2015). ...
... The system boundary is "the thematic and spatio-temporal frame within which an assessment is conducted" (Paul and Helming, 2019). In the present work, the spatial scale covers the farm and plot level, as farmers make the strategic and operational management decisions that influence farm sustainability at this level (Chopin et al., 2021). ...
The intensification of Mediterranean farming systems has adversely affected the environment. As a result, climate change, soil and land degradation, and biodiversity loss have been exacerbated. A potential solution for addressing these challenges and enhancing farm sustainability is diversification, such as implementing agro-forestry systems. Specific indicators are commonly used to evaluate the potential of diversification practices. However, agreement on a common set of assessment indicators is rarely reached. Moreover, the different bio-physical and socioeconomic conditions between regions make it difficult to adopt practices based on standardized assessments. This study aims at developing a practical methodology to assess the sustainability of Mediterranean agroforestry systems, using a three-dimensional evaluation concept for agro-environmental, economic and social performances. The steps in this study were, (i) define a set of relevant indicators and selection criteria, (ii) validate and select indicators through a participatory approach and (iii) apply the indicators to assess the performance of olive-wild asparagus agroforestry systems in central Italy. Expert opinions and stakeholders' participation were found to play an important role in identifying relevant indicators for assessing farming systems. The results showed that intercropping wild asparagus within olive orchards provides agro-environmental benefits and economic profitability, but also causes a higher workload. With a land equivalent ratio above one, the agroforestry system is more productive and results in a 50% higher income than olive sole cropping. With similar management practices, both systems had a comparable energy use efficiency and pesticide load index value. However, the annual workload, during the full production phase, increases by 75% in the agroforestry system mainly due to manual labor required for asparagus harvest. Furthermore, the agroforestry system had better economic resilience (positive net present value) in the face of drops in crop prices and rising production costs by up to 15%, whereas olive sole cropping generated negative net present value if costs increased by 10% or prices fell by 5%.
... Given the general formulation of most targets related to agricultural soil governance in Germany, it is difficult to assess trade-offs between them. The exception is the BBodSchG's reference to soil functions, which are known to involve tradeoffs Paul and Helming, 2019), especially when considered in specific environmental and management contexts (Schröder et al., 2020). For instance, organic fertilization is desirable in terms of nutrient cycling, but it may be detrimental to water quality because of the mismatch between N / P ratios in organic fertilizer and the demands of most crops (Schröder et al., 2020), as exemplified by the high spatial correlation of livestock production (and thus local availability of organic fertilizer) and nitrate pollution in north-western Germany. ...
Governance of natural resources is inherently complex and requires
navigating trade-offs at multiple dimensions. In this paper, we present and
operationalize the “governance disruptions framework” (GDF) as a tool for
holistic analysis of natural resource governance systems. For each of the
four dimensions of the framework (target adequacy, object adequacy,
instrument adequacy, and behavioural adequacy), we formulate guiding
questions to be used when applying the framework to particular governance
systems. We then demonstrate the use of GDF by applying it to the core of
German agricultural soil policy. We show that for each framework dimension,
the governance system exhibits deficits, particularly with respect to object
adequacy and instrument adequacy. Furthermore, we use the GDF-based analysis
to highlight research gaps. We find that stakeholder analyses are a central
gap across GDF dimensions.
... Given the general formulation of most targets related to agricultural soil governance in Germany, it is difficult to assess tradeoffs between them. The exception is the BBodSchG's reference to soil functions, which are known to involve trade-offs Paul and Helming, 2019), especially when considered in specific environmental and management contexts (Schröder et al., 2020). For instance, organic fertilization is desirable in terms of nutrient cycling, but may be 205 detrimental to water quality because of the mismatch between N/P ratios in organic fertilizer and the demands of most crops (idib.). ...
Governance of natural resources is inherently complex and requires navigating trade-offs at multiple dimensions. In this paper, we present and operationalize the Governance Disruptions Framework (GDF) as a tool for holistic analysis of natural resource governance systems. For each of the four dimensions of the framework (target adequacy, object adequacy, instrument adequacy, and behavioural adequacy) we formulate guiding questions, to be used when applying the framework to particular governance systems. We then demonstrate the use of GDF by applying it to the core of German agricultural soil policy. We show that for each framework dimension, the governance system exhibits deficits, particularly with respect to object adequacy and instrument adequacy. Furthermore, we use the GDF-based analysis to highlight research gaps. We find that stakeholder analyses are a central gap across GDF dimensions.
... Identifying the ES affected by agricultural soil management provides a necessary tool for the sustainability assessment of agricultural management options (Helming et al., 2018). In this regard, a complete picture is indispensable because consideration of only a selection of the relevant ES may create biased assessment results (Paul & Helming, 2019). Until now, a clear categorization of the CICES classes relevant for soils and their agricultural management is lacking. ...
... For this work, we focus on the class level, which is the level typically used for ES assessments (Paul & Helming, 2019). CICES defines 83 specific classes representing 56 biotic and 27 abiotic services. ...
The concept of ecosystem services (ES) creates understanding of the value of ecosystems for human well‐being. With regard to soils, it provides a framework for assessments of soil contributions and soil management impacts. However, a lack of standardisation impedes comparisons between assessment studies and the building of synthesis information. The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) is an important step forward, though its application to soils is not without difficulty. CICES version 5.1 defines 83 ES classes, of which only some are relevant for soils.
We compiled two subsets of CICES‐classes: One set of soil‐related ES comprising 29 services defined as directly and quantifiably controlled by soils and their properties, processes and functions, and another set of 40 ES defined as being affected by agricultural soil management. Additionally, we conducted a systematic literature review, searching for published lists of soil‐related ES that claim for completeness. We identified 11 relevant lists. Of all CICES‐classes, 12 were included in more than 75% of the lists while another 36 classes were included in 25‐75% of them.
Regarding the suitability of the CICES classification for addressing ES in the context of soils and their agricultural management, we identified constraints, such as overlaps, gaps, highly specific or very broad class definitions. Close cooperation between the soil research‐ and ES communities could ensure better consideration of soils in future CICES updates.
A shortlist of 25 service classes affected by agricultural soil management facilitates a standardized approach and may function as checklists in impact assessments.
Increasing soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks in agricultural soils removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and contributes towards achieving carbon neutrality. For farmers, higher SOC levels have multiple benefits, including increased soil fertility and resilience against drought-related yield losses. However, increasing SOC levels requires agricultural management changes that are associated with costs. Private soil carbon certificates could compensate for these costs. In these schemes, farmers register their fields with commercial certificate providers who certify SOC increases. Certificates are then sold as voluntary emission offsets on the carbon market.
In this paper, we assess the suitability of these certificates as an instrument for climate change mitigation. From a soils' perspective, we address processes of SOC enrichment, their potentials and limits, and options for cost-effective measurement and monitoring. From a farmers’ perspective, we assess management options likely to increase SOC, and discuss their synergies and trade-offs with economic, environmental and social targets. From a governance perspective, we address requirements to guarantee additionality and permanence while preventing leakage effects. Furthermore, we address questions of legitimacy and accountability.
While increasing SOC is a cornerstone for more sustainable cropping systems, private carbon certificates fall short of expectations for climate change mitigation as permanence of SOC sequestration cannot be guaranteed. Governance challenges include lack of long-term monitoring, problems to ensure additionality, problems to safeguard against leakage effects, and lack of long-term accountability if stored SOC is re-emitted. We conclude that soil-based private carbon certificates are unlikely to deliver the emission offset attributed to them and that their benefit for climate change mitigation is uncertain. Additional research is needed to develop standards for SOC change metrics and monitoring, and to better understand the impact of short term, non-permanent carbon removals on peaks in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and on the probability of exceeding climatic tipping points.
Comprehensive mapping of Ecosystem Services (ES) is necessary to understand the impact of global change on crucial ES and to find strategies to sustain human wellbeing. Economic valuation of ES further translates their biophysical values into monetary values, which are then comparable across different ES and easily understandable to decision makers. However, a comprehensive synthesis of methods to measure ES indicators in grasslands, a central element of many landscapes around the globe, is still lacking, hampering the implementation of grassland ES-multifunctionality surveys. To identify suitable and recommendable methods, we reviewed the literature and evaluated labor intensiveness, equipment costs and predictive power of all methods. To facilitate the translation of biophysical ES into monetary terms, we further provide an overview of available methods for the economic valuation of ES.
This review resulted in a toolbox comprising 85 plot-scale methods for assessing 29 different ES indicators for 21 provisioning, regulating, supporting or cultural ES. The available methods to measure ES indicators vary widely in labor intensiveness, costs, and predictive power. Based on this synthesis, we recommend 1) to choose direct over indirect methods and ES indicators, 2) to use the most accurate methods to estimate ES indicators, 3) to take into account that one ES indicator can have implications for more than one final ES, and 4) to utilize the wealth of available methods and indicators to assess as many ES for ES-multifunctionality studies as possible, especially including cultural ES. Moreover, the overview of approaches that can be used for the economic valuation of different grassland ES shall facilitate economic ES-multifunctionality assessments. Thus, this methodological guidance will considerably support researchers and stakeholders in setting up ES comprehensive assessments and monitoring schemes in grasslands and shall ultimately help overcome incomplete or superficial surveys based on single or few ES only.
Goal of modern research data management is to provide user-friendly infra-structures to upload, manage and provide research data in findable, accessible , interoperable and reusable formats for continued use (= "FAIR data principles"). To meet these requirements, the application of accepted and widely used standards, regulations, conventions and guidelines for the different stages of research data life is necessary. With regard to agricultural science, such standards concern a wide field, e.g. the classification and description of soils, field and laboratory methods, agricultural technology, plant varieties, fertilizer products and application, agricultural business data, and agrisemantics. Additionally, more general standards are necessary, e.g. for metadata schemes, data transformation tools, data quality, data storage and archiving, data exchange, and for spatial data provision within an online geoportal.
This document is the third, updated version of the "Overview of Standards" and presents and discusses a variety of data standards for all life stages from data acquisition to provision. It is a reference work for owners, providers and users of soil-and agricultural research data and aims to facilitate data integration and knowledge spread via data repositories.
