Abstract
The voluntary carbon market for agricultural soil carbon sequestration is accelerating at a rapid pace with over a dozen companies and marketplaces having recently announced carbon crediting programs. These programs aim to bring verified carbon credits into the market using published measurement, reporting, and verification protocols. Given the varied approaches to measuring and accounting for changes in soil carbon represented among these different protocols, there is significant uncertainty whether a credit generated in one market has any equivalency to a credit generated in another program. We see a critical need for scientists to play an active role in helping guide protocol development and to conduct relevant research. To that end, we identify important areas where confusion about protocols and their implementation hamper progress on this front, and highlight key areas for improved communication and transparency between market stakeholders and the research community.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
No new data were collected for this manuscript, and there is no supplementary material.
References
Angers DA, Eriksen-Hamel NS (2008) Full-inversion tillage and organic carbon distribution in soil profiles: a meta-analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am J 72:1370–1374. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2007.0342
Badgley G, Freeman J, Hamman JJ et al (2022) Systematic over-crediting in California’s forest carbon offsets program. Glob Change Biol 28:1433–1445. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15943
Blankinship JC, Berhe AA, Crow SE et al (2018) Improving understanding of soil organic matter dynamics by triangulating theories, measurements, and models. Biogeochemistry 140:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-018-0478-2
Bradford MA, Carey CJ, Atwood L et al (2019) Soil carbon science for policy and practice. Nat Sustain 2:1070–1072. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0431-y
Conant RT, Paustian K (2002) Spatial variability of soil organic carbon in grasslands: implications for detecting change at different scales. Environ Pollut 116:S127–S135. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0269-7491(01)00265-2
Dechow R, Franko U, Kätterer T, Kolbe H (2019) Evaluation of the RothC model as a prognostic tool for the prediction of SOC trends in response to management practices on arable land. Geoderma 337:463–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2018.10.001
Gifford RM, Roderick ML (2003) Soil carbon stocks and bulk density: spatial or cumulative mass coordinates as a basis of expression? Glob Change Biol 9:1507–1514. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00677.x
Gurung RB, Ogle SM, Breidt FJ et al (2020) Bayesian calibration of the DayCent ecosystem model to simulate soil organic carbon dynamics and reduce model uncertainty. Geoderma 376: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114529
Jackson Hammond AA, Motew M, Brummitt CD et al (2021) Implementing the soil enrichment protocol at scale: opportunities for an agricultural carbon market. Front Clim. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.686440
Kravchenko AN, Robertson GP (2011) Whole-profile soil carbon stocks: the danger of assuming too much from analyses of too little. Soil Sci Soc Am J 75:235–240. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2010.0076
Kyker-Snowman E, Lombardozzi DL, Bonan GB et al (2022) Increasing the spatial and temporal impact of ecological research: a roadmap for integrating a novel terrestrial process into an Earth system model. Glob Change Biol 28:665–684. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15894
Lal R (2004) Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 304:1623–1627. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1097396
Oeko-Institut, EDF, WWF (2022) Methodology for assessing the quality of carbon credits (v. 3.0). https://carboncreditquality.org/download/Methodology/CCQI%20Methodology%20-%20Version%203.0.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2022
Oldfield EE, Eagle AJ, Rubin RL et al (2021) Agricultural soil carbon credits: making sense of protocols for carbon sequestration and net greenhouse gas removals. Environmental Defense Fund, New York. https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/content/agricultural-soil-carbon-credits-protocol-synthesis.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2022.
Oldfield EE, Eagle AJ, Rubin RL et al (2022) Crediting agricultural soil carbon sequestration. Science 375(6586):1222–1225. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abl7991
Tautges NE, Chiartas JL, Gaudin ACM et al (2019) Deep soil inventories reveal that impacts of cover crops and compost on soil carbon sequestration differ in surface and subsurface soils. Glob Change Biol 25:3753–3766. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14762
von Haden AC, Yang WH, DeLucia EH (2020) Soils’ dirty little secret: depth-based comparisons can be inadequate for quantifying changes in soil organic carbon and other mineral soil properties. Glob Change Biol 26:3759–3770. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15124
Wendt JW, Hauser S (2013) An equivalent soil mass procedure for monitoring soil organic carbon in multiple soil layers. Eur J Soil Sci 64:58–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12002
West TAP, Börner J, Sills EO, Kontoleon A (2020) Overstated carbon emission reductions from voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon. PNAS 117:24188–24194. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2004334117
Acknowledgements
We thank Doria Gordon and Caroline Masiello for review and feedback on this manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by gifts to EDF from the Bezos Earth Fund and Arcadia, a charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the ideas presented in the manuscript. The first draft of the manuscript was written by EEO and all authors contributed to further refinement and editing. JML made the figure.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare they have no conflicting or competing interests with respect to the viewpoints presented in this manuscript.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Kate Lajtha.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Oldfield, E.E., Lavallee, J.M., Kyker-Snowman, E. et al. The need for knowledge transfer and communication among stakeholders in the voluntary carbon market. Biogeochemistry 161, 41–46 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-022-00950-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-022-00950-8