@article{PaulBartkowskiDoenmezetal.2023, author = {Paul, Carsten and Bartkowski, Bartosz and D{\"o}nmez, Cenk and Don, Axel and Mayer, Stefanie and Steffens, Markus and Weigl, Sebastian and Wiesmeier, Martin and Wolf, Andr{\´e} and Helming, Katharina}, title = {Carbon farming: Are soil carbon certificates a suitable tool for climate change mitigation?}, series = {Journal of Environmental Management}, journal = {Journal of Environmental Management}, number = {330}, publisher = {Elsevier}, issn = {0301-4797}, doi = {10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117142}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:eb1-opus-8140}, pages = {11}, year = {2023}, abstract = {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.}, language = {en} } @article{BartkowskiBartkeHelmingetal.2020, author = {Bartkowski, Bartosz and Bartke, Stephan and Helming, Katharina and Paul, Carsten and Techen, Anja-Kristina and Hansj{\"u}rgens, Bernd}, title = {Potential of the economic valuation of soil-based ecosystem services to inform sustainable soil management and policy}, series = {PeerJ}, journal = {PeerJ}, doi = {10.7717/peerj.8749}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:eb1-opus-6319}, pages = {31}, year = {2020}, abstract = {The concept of ecosystem services, especially in combination with economic valuation, can illuminate trade-offs involved in soil management, policy and governance, and thus support decision making. In this paper, we investigate and highlight the potential and limitations of the economic valuation of soil-based ecosystem services to inform sustainable soil management and policy. We formulate a definition of soil-based ecosystem services as basis for conducting a review of existing soil valuation studies with a focus on the inclusion of ecosystem services and the choice of valuation methods. We find that, so far, the economic valuation of soil-based ecosystem services has covered only a small number of such services and most studies have employed cost-based methods rather than state-of-the-art preference-based valuation methods, even though the latter would better acknowledge the public good character of soil related services. Therefore, the relevance of existing valuation studies for political processes is low. Broadening the spectrum of analyzed ecosystem services as well as using preference-based methods would likely increase the informational quality and policy relevance of valuation results. We point out options for improvement based on recent advances in economic valuation theory and practice. We conclude by investigating the specific roles economic valuation results can play in different phases of the policy-making process, and the specific requirements for its usefulness in this context.}, language = {en} }