presentación oral key-note invitada en el workshop REMEDIA 2019

1. International Soil Carbon
sequestration research:
H2020 CIRCASA
WORKSHOP REMEDIA Lugo, 27th March
Cristina Arias-Navarro (INRA, France)

2. 2
• 128 countries include the Agriculture,
Forestry and Land Use sector in their
pledges
• By 2030, a gap of 13 billion tons
CO2eq prevents reaching the targeted
+2℃ maximum global warming
threshold (29 GtCO2eq in the case of
the 1.5 ℃ target)
Pledges for the Paris Agreement
[UNEP, 2018]
• Limiting warming to 1.5°C will require the use
of “negative emissions technologies” – methods
that remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

3. 3
• Options from land sector could come
with considerable impacts on clean
water and sanitation, as well as on life
on land
• These options rely on BECCS and
afforestation, which, if implemented on a
large scale, are expected to take up
large amounts of land and other
resources, such as water
[Summary for Policymakers, IPCC 2018]
Mitigation options and SDGs

4. Soil carbon sequestration: a major mitigation option
• 2-3 times more carbon
in soil organic matter
than in atmospheric
CO2 [IPCC, 2013]
• 1.4 Gt C could be
stored annually in
agricultural soils, [after
IPCC, 2007, 2014]
• SOC seq is among the
cheapest methods with
the greatest potential
[UNEP,2017]
[Emission gap report UNEP, 2017]

5. With soil carbon sequestration, food security is not threatened, even for a
1.5°C global warming target
[Frank et al., Env. Res. Lett., 2017]

6. 8
Climate Change
Biodiversity Desertification
Food Security
Soil carbon as a cross-cutting theme between food security,
climate change, desertification and biodiversity

7. The « 4 per 1000 » Initiative
In 2015 at the Paris climate summit, France launched the 4p1000
initiative— to promote research and actions globally to increase soil
carbon stocks by 4 parts per 1,000 per year.

8. 10
The achievability of the Initiative’s target of an annual increase in
agricultural SOC stocks of 0.4% to a depth of 0.3–0.4 m globally
has been intensively discussed and criticised
CRITIQUES OF THE « 4 per 1000 » INITIATIVE

9. 11
[Minasny et al., 2016, Geoderma]
(over up to 50 yrs)
A 4 per 1000 SOC sequestration rate has often been
exceeded in long-term arable field trials
..but the rate declines with initial SOC stock

10. Integrated crop residue retention (2016-2040)
N-fixing cover crops (2016-2040)
« We conclude that significant CO2
mitigation can be achieved in the initial
20–30 years of any C management
scheme, but after that N inputs should be
controlled through appropriate
management »
Modeling agricultural options for LUCAS soil samples
[Lugato et al., 2018 Nature Climate Change]

11. 14
(CIRCASA Project, Soussana et al.)
Research trends
• Research on soil organic carbon sequestration in agriculture is
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).

12. 15
Research trends (cont.)
Main international research networks on agricultural soil
carbon sequestration (2016)
(CIRCASA Project, Soussana et al.)

13. 16
• Together with these initiatives and
with CCAFS-CGIAR, it has direct
outreach to a total of 82 countries
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
• CIRCASA has 22 partners including the
research secretariats of 4p1000, GRA
and FACCE-JPI

14. 17
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 of agricultural soil carbon
sequestration and its potential for climate change
mitigation and adaptation and for increasing food
production
3. Co-design a strategic research agenda with stakeholders
4. Create an International Research Consortium
Goals of CIRCASA Project

15. 18
Spatial distribution of
anthromes and global land
based challenges
(Netzel et al., 2017)
(JRC,2019)
(World Resources Institute, 2018)
(Myers et al., 2008)
(Xie and Ringler, 2017)
(FAO, 2017)
(Ellis and Ramankutty, 2008)
(Burrell et al., 2018)
Research synthesis activities

16. Wild & Inhabitated
Large + impact / co-
benefit
Small - impact /
adverse side effect
Forested (semi-natural)
Medium + impact / co-
benefit
Medium - impact /
adverse side effect
Rangelands
Small + impact /
co-benefit
Large - impact /
adverse side effect
Croplands
No / negligible
impact
Variable or context
specific impact
Villages
Dense settlements
Key for anthrome: Key for impacts on land challenges:
19
Response options:
Impacts on land challenges — co-benefits and adverse side effects
Response option
M A L F B G W
*Fire management x x x x x x 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
*Increased soil organic matter content (and reduced losses) x x x x x 3 2 3 3 3 3 3
*Ecosystem-based adaptation x x x x x 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
*Agro-forestry x x x 2 3 3 3 3 2
*Reduced deforestation and degradation x x 3 2 3 -1 3 3 3
*Sustainable forest management and forest restoration x 3 3 3 3 2 1
*Improved grazing land management x x x 2 2 3 3 2 1 1
*Improved livestock management x x x 2 2 3 3 2 1 1
*Increased food productivity x x x 3 3 3 3 -1 -3
*Avoidance of conversion of grassland to cropland x x x 2 1 -2 2 1 1
*Improved cropland management x x 2 3 3 3 2 1 1
*Restoration and avoided conversion of coastal wetlands x x 2 3 1 -1 3 3 3
*Restoration and avoided conversion of peatlands x x 2 3 2 -2 3 3 3
Reforestation x 3 3 3 -3 3 1 1
Afforestation x 3 3 3 -3 1 v v
Bioenergy and BECCS x 3 -1 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3
Biochar 3 2 1 -3 1 2 2
Anthrome Impacts on land challenges — co-benefits
and adverse side effects* *
=> An open data repository with geospatial and modelling data
Research synthesis activities

17. Stakeholder engagement
20
• Regional Stakeholders’ workshops on 5 continents
• Approx. 20 participants
The workshops included 3 blocks:
Block 1: Management options
Block 2: Barriers and solutions
Block 3: Knowledge needs

18. Online Survey: perspectives on SOC management
• Online from July 2018 until February 2019
• 7 languages (English, German, Danish, Portuguese, Spanish,
Russian)
• Disseminate through all 11 regional HUB´s and their networks
• Slightly different for farmers and other stakeholders
21
The Survey includes:
1. Management options – current
management and effectiveness
2. Barriers and solutions
3. Knowledge needs
4. Contribution to ESS and to
sustainable development

19. Preparing an International Research Consortium (IRC)
22
• Belmont forum pre-program on ‘Soils at Risk’
• European Joint Program, Agricultural Soils, with International calls
• EC Horizon Europe Mission planned on Land degradation and Soil
Health
=> CIRCASA Research Policy Committee: Explore activities,
resources and governance for an 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.

20. Communication and Outreach
Online Collaborative Platform

21. Thank you for your attention!
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
Cristina.arias-navarro@inra.fr