What makes an operational farm soil carbon code? Insights from a global comparison of existing soil carbon codes using a structured analytical framework
H. Black, M. S. Reed, H. Kendall, R. Parkhurst, N. Cannon, P. Chapman, Matthew Orman, J. Phelps, Hannah Rudman, Sarah Whalley, J. Yeluripati, G. Ziv
{"title":"What makes an operational farm soil carbon code? Insights from a global comparison of existing soil carbon codes using a structured analytical framework","authors":"H. Black, M. S. Reed, H. Kendall, R. Parkhurst, N. Cannon, P. Chapman, Matthew Orman, J. Phelps, Hannah Rudman, Sarah Whalley, J. Yeluripati, G. Ziv","doi":"10.1080/17583004.2022.2135459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Soils have the potential to sequester and store significant amounts of carbon, contributing towards climate change mitigation. Soil carbon markets are emerging to pay farmers for management changes that absorb atmospheric carbon, governed by codes that ensure eligibility, additionality and permanence whilst protecting against leakage and reversals. This paper presents the first global comparative analysis of farmland soil carbon codes, providing new insights into the range of approaches governing this global marketplace. To do this, the paper developed an analytical framework for the systematic comparison of codes which was used to identify commonalities and differences in approaches, methods, administration, commercialisation and operations for 12 publicly available codes from around the world. Codes used a range of mechanisms to manage additionality, uncertainty and risks, baselines, measurement, reporting and verification, auditing, resale of carbon units, bundling and stacking, stakeholder engagement and market integrity. The paper concludes by discussing existing approaches and codes that could be adapted for use in the UK and evaluates the need for an over-arching standard for soil carbon codes in the UK and internationally, to which existing codes and other schemes already generating soil carbon credits could be assessed and benchmarked. Graphical Abstract","PeriodicalId":48941,"journal":{"name":"Carbon Management","volume":"13 1","pages":"554 - 580"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Carbon Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2022.2135459","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
Abstract Soils have the potential to sequester and store significant amounts of carbon, contributing towards climate change mitigation. Soil carbon markets are emerging to pay farmers for management changes that absorb atmospheric carbon, governed by codes that ensure eligibility, additionality and permanence whilst protecting against leakage and reversals. This paper presents the first global comparative analysis of farmland soil carbon codes, providing new insights into the range of approaches governing this global marketplace. To do this, the paper developed an analytical framework for the systematic comparison of codes which was used to identify commonalities and differences in approaches, methods, administration, commercialisation and operations for 12 publicly available codes from around the world. Codes used a range of mechanisms to manage additionality, uncertainty and risks, baselines, measurement, reporting and verification, auditing, resale of carbon units, bundling and stacking, stakeholder engagement and market integrity. The paper concludes by discussing existing approaches and codes that could be adapted for use in the UK and evaluates the need for an over-arching standard for soil carbon codes in the UK and internationally, to which existing codes and other schemes already generating soil carbon credits could be assessed and benchmarked. Graphical Abstract
期刊介绍:
Carbon Management is a scholarly peer-reviewed forum for insights from the diverse array of disciplines that enhance our understanding of carbon dioxide and other GHG interactions – from biology, ecology, chemistry and engineering to law, policy, economics and sociology.
The core aim of Carbon Management is it to examine the options and mechanisms for mitigating the causes and impacts of climate change, which includes mechanisms for reducing emissions and enhancing the removal of GHGs from the atmosphere, as well as metrics used to measure performance of options and mechanisms resulting from international treaties, domestic policies, local regulations, environmental markets, technologies, industrial efforts and consumer choices.
One key aim of the journal is to catalyse intellectual debate in an inclusive and scientific manner on the practical work of policy implementation related to the long-term effort of managing our global GHG emissions and impacts. Decisions made in the near future will have profound impacts on the global climate and biosphere. Carbon Management delivers research findings in an accessible format to inform decisions in the fields of research, education, management and environmental policy.