CARBON SEQUESTRATION, SOIL CONSERVATION, AND THEKYOTO PROTOCOL: SUMMARY OF IMPLICATIONS

JULIAN DUMANSKI

16 Burbank Street, Ottawa, Canada K2G 0H4E-mail: jdumanski@rogers.com

Abstract. This paper discusses relationships between soil conservation, carbon sequestration, andthe Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is the first attempt to use the flexibility of the global marketplace to stabilize and reduce GHG emissions, mitigate climate change, and promote sustainabledevelopment. The protocol emerged first as a framework agreement, but through international ne-gotiations it is progressing into sets of legal articles. These impose obligations on all signatories,but they also identify opportunities for improved environmental land management at local, nationaland international levels. This is particularly true for soil conservation, where the sequestration ofcarbon above and below ground increases soil organic matter, enhances soil fertility, and improvesproduction, while concomitantly reducing atmospheric CO2. It is a classic ‘win-win’ situation. Boththe evolving opportunities and the obligations under the Kyoto Protocol are discussed in the paper.

1. Introduction

There are direct links among soil carbon sequestration, soil conservation, andmitigation of climate change. It is generally accepted that GHGs have increasedsignificantly since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and that to the middleof the 20th century land conversions to agriculture and poor land managementpractices have been the major contributors (WRI, 2001). Since then, burning offossil fuels (industry and transportation) and cement manufacturing have been themajor causes, but agriculture and land use change still contribute about 20% of theanthropogenic emissions. Also, agriculture contribute about 50% of anthropogenicCH4 emissions globally (livestock, paddy rice), and about 70% of anthropogenicN2O (fertilizers, animal wastes, biological nitrogen fixation) (IPCC, 2001).

Carbon sequestration can play a major role to stabilize carbon additions to theatmosphere, but it has to be part of national action plans that include emissionreduction. The advantages of promoting carbon sequestration is that there are con-siderable production and environmental co-benefits, and these can be achieved inthe short term using technologies, such as soil conservation, that are readily avail-able. In fact, above and below ground carbon sequestration is a classic ‘win-win’situation.

International action to mitigate climate change was first discussed at the EarthSummit in Rio De Janeiro in 1992. This resulted in the United Nations Frame-work Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and later the Kyoto Protocol.

Climatic Change 65: 255–261, 2004.© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

256 JULIAN DUMANSKI

Although about 160 countries have signed the UNFCCC and 84 have signed Ky-oto, the agreement will not become binding until at least 55 countries, collectivelycontributing more than 55% of 1990 global emissions, have ratified the agreement.

Managed land in agriculture and forestry are important parts of the global car-bon cycle, and the management practices used can determine whether these landsare sources or sinks of carbon (IPCC, 2000). For example, burning of crop residues,human induced soil erosion and desertification, grassland degradation, wetlandreclamation for agriculture, low water use efficiencies, organic matter and fertilityloss, excessive tillage particularly with the moldboard plow and disk harrow, etc.are practices that promote net carbon emissions. Alternatively, well-managed landunder good conservation and nutrient management, conservation or zero tillage,well managed fallows, preservation of wetlands, etc. favor enhancement of carbonsinks. This paper describes some of the implications and country responsibilitiesunder the Kyoto protocol, but also the benefits and opportunities to be gainedtherefrom.

2. Agricultural and Environmental Co-Benefits of Carbon Sequestration

Increasing the level of soil organic carbon and organic matter can provide con-siderable environmental and agricultural co-benefits (Wood et al., 2000). Increasedsoil organic matter normally improves soil aggregation, which in turn improves soilaeration, reduces soil erosion, improves infiltration, and generally improves surfaceand groundwater quality. In addition, the increased soil organic matter enhancessoil water storage capacity, and provides some degree of mitigation against cropfailure in dry years (Hudson, 1994).

Increasing the soil organic matter through carbon sequestration also improvesnutrient cycling by stimulating soil biology and biodiversity. This stimulates thedecomposition rate, enhances the nutrient supplying power of the soil, and im-proves soil fertility (reduces the need for chemical fertilizer). The amount andquality of soil organic matter is an important indicator of soil quality and health(Dumanski, 1994; Acton and Gregorich, 1995), and this is directly influenced byland management practices.

3. The Kyoto Protocol and Carbon Sequestration

International agreements such as the Kyoto protocol provide environmental andeconomic benefits, but they are legally binding and thus also carry responsibilities.The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), andits antecedent, the Kyoto Protocol, is the first important international agreement toidentify these new opportunities and responsibilities. These agreements recognizethat management of the environment is a global issue with global responsibilities,

CARBON SEQUESTRATION, SOIL CONSERVATION, AND THE KYOTO PROTOCOL 257

but this can only be achieved through national and local action. It requires globalpartnerships, working collectively toward goals that are beneficial to all. Impor-tantly also, these agreements are structured such that the global market place canpay for some of the accrued environmental benefits.

The Kyoto Protocol makes a distinction between countries with developedeconomies (Annex 1 countries) that have GHG reduction targets, and those that arein the process of development (Annex 2 countries) and do not have reduction tar-gets for the first reporting period. Once ratification is achieved, Annex 1 countrieswill be required to report the extent to which they have met their Kyoto reductiontargets for 2008–2012 (the first commitment period), and continue thus for all sub-sequent commitment periods. Currently, all developing countries (including Chinaand India both of which are large global GHG emitters) are listed with the Annex 2countries. Although currently these countries make only national communicationsto the UNFCCC, it is expected that many will be required to set reduction targetsfor the second reporting period.

The Kyoto Protocol is the first international agreement attempting to mitigateglobal climate change through reduction in net GHG emissions, and the first toemploy the flexibility of the global market place for global environmental man-agement. It was developed in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, at the Third Meeting of theConference of the Parties to the UNFCCC. Subsequent meetings have been heldin Buenos Aires, Argentina (1998), The Hague, The Netherlands (2000), Bonn,Germany (2001), and Marrakech, Morocco (2001).

The Objective of the Kyoto Protocol is to stabilize and reduce GHG emis-sions, mitigate climate change, and promote sustainable development. The protocolemerged first as a framework agreement, but progressed continually into sets oflegal articles that will be binding on all signatories. Key aspects of the Protocolinclude emission targets, timetables for reporting (currently Annex 1 countries),and market-based mechanisms for meeting these targets.

The Kyoto Protocol addresses climate change by focusing on sources, reservoirsand sinks of GHGs. It recognizes the overwhelming importance of controllingand reducing GHG emissions (sources), primarily from industrial and transporta-tion sources, but it also recognizes the corresponding opportunities to be gainedthrough better management of carbon reservoirs and enhancement of carbonsinks (sequestration) in forestry and agriculture. The latter aspects are achievedthrough management of land use change (conversions), soil conservation, and otherimproved land management practices (Heij et al., 2001)

4. Soil Conservation and the Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol provides opportunities for enhanced soil conservation activi-ties in the future. These opportunities can be achieved by optimizing the synergyand co-benefits of carbon sequestration and soil conservation. Although in the

258 JULIAN DUMANSKI

past this would have implied simply mobilizing the well known technologies ofsoil conservation, probably supported by public financing, the new world order asdeveloped under Kyoto, identifies carbon as a commodity that can be traded on theinternational market, and identifies that sequestering carbon in the soil constitutes aglobal environmental benefit suitable for payment. This is a major shift in emphasisand a new opportunity for promotion of soil conservation.

The Kyoto Protocol, however, is a legal document with corresponding obliga-tions and responsibilities, and capturing this new opportunity requires that activitiesbe implemented according to the agreements achieved in Bonn and Marrakech.This requires at least a rudimentary understanding of the most important articlesin the agreement for soil conservation, and what needs to be done to ensure com-pliance. For example, certain of the articles are necessary to set the scene, whereasothers specifically identify the land management practices that are eligible for ben-efits. The list below is a summary of the most important articles that relate to soilconservation (IPCC, 2000; Boehm et al., 2001):

Article 3.1: Emission Reduction: Annex 1 (developed) countries agree to reducetheir overall emissions (assigned amounts) by at least 5% during the first com-mitment period, 2008–2012. This will require monitoring and assessment of soilcarbon (Article 5) and reporting (Article 3.7).

Article 3.3: Forestry Sinks: The net changes (difference between emissions atsource and sequestration in sinks) in GHGs resulting from direct human inducedland use change and forestry are limited to afforestation, reforestation, and defor-estation since 1990, measured as changes in carbon stocks. Forestry accounting ison a ‘gross–net accounting’ basis, i.e., the net change in carbon stocks over thecommitment period for activities begun after 1990.

Article 3.4: Agriculture and Forestry Sinks: The net changes (difference betweenemissions at source and sequestration in sinks) in GHGs resulting from directhuman induced land use change and forestry, including cropland management,grazing land management, re-vegetation, and forest management. Reporting onagricultural activities is based on ‘net-net accounting’, i.e., additions from sourcesand removals by sinks from all management practices on all areas registered forreporting. Most soil conservation activities would be reported under Articles 3.3(forestry) and 3.4 (agriculture).

Article 3.7: Reporting: The countries shall report the change in carbon stocks(carbon dioxide equivalents) over the first reporting period (2008–2012) comparedto the base year 1990. Based on these GHG inventories, it will be determinedwhether emissions have been reduced according to the amounts assigned to eachcountry.

CARBON SEQUESTRATION, SOIL CONSERVATION, AND THE KYOTO PROTOCOL 259

Article 5: Assessment Methods: Methodologies for monitoring and reportingmust be in accord with those recommended or approved by the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Article 6: Joint Implementation (Carbon Trading): Any Annex 1 party may ac-quire or transfer to another party ‘Emission Reduction Units (ERU)’ resulting fromprojects aimed at reducing anthropogenic emissions in any sector of the economy,providing that these are additional to any that would occur otherwise. This impliestrading of carbon credits between and within developed countries.

Article 12: Clean Development Mechanism: A Clean Development Mechanismshall be developed to assist Annex 1 countries to achieve compliance with theirquantified reduction commitments, and to assist Annex 2 countries in contribut-ing to the objectives of the Convention. This requires development of ‘CertifiedEmission Credits (CER)’, which are measurable and verified by an independentenvironmental audit team, and which are long term (relatively permanent) andadditional to any that would have occurred in the absence of the certified project.Sinks in the CDM are limited to afforestation and reforestation projects for the firstcommitment period. This implies trading of carbon credits between developed anddeveloping countries.

5. Other Implications

Other developments that have emerged from the Bonn and Marrakech meetings andhave implications for soil conservation and carbon sequestration are the following:

• The original Kyoto Protocol recognized afforestaion, reforestation, and defor-estation sources and sinks, but it was uncertain on agricultural sinks. However,this is now clarified, and sinks resulting from cropland management, grazingland management, re-vegetation, and forest land management are now alsorecognized. At the same time, sinks are complex and contentious issues, andmuch still remains to be resolved. Sinks are still somewhat opposed by certainof the EU countries and by the G77 countries.

• The negotiators on Kyoto have agreed to two primary units of measurement,‘Emission Reduction Units (ERU)’ and ‘Removal Units (RMU)’ both ex-pressed as CO2 equivalents. The first pertain to mitigation due to reductionof emissions at source, mostly industry and transportation, while the latterrelate to sinks, primarily in agriculture and forestry.

• Both ERUs and RMUs are fully exchangeable and will be tradable on theinternational carbon exchange once this is in place. However, this requires thatthey be verified by a credible international agency, and registered as ‘Certified

260 JULIAN DUMANSKI

Emission Credits’. Banking of ERUs but not RMUs will be allowed in the firstcommitment period, but RMUs can be traded for ERUs and banked as such.

• Agriculture can be both a source and a sink of GHGs, and will require ‘net-netaccounting’, i.e., accounting for all GHGs, particularly CO2, CH4, and N2O.Reduction credits will be gained only when sequestration exceeds any con-temporaneous GHG emissions, expressed as CO2 equivalents. For example,CH4 and N2O are 21× and 312× more radiatively forcing than CO2. There-fore, a management practice that provides some carbon sequestration butresults in proportionately more CH4 or N2O emissions, will not be recognizedfor benefits under the Protocol.

• Recent agreements provide for establishment of a Special Carbon Fund (forexample, the BioCarbon Fund being developed by the World Bank), as wellas a Special Fund for Developing Countries. The funding mechanism for theKyoto Protocol is the Global Environment Facility (GEF).

• The IPCC is in the process of revising their guidelines for monitoring, mea-surement and reporting. Their report on Good Practice Guidance for LandUse, Land Use Change, and Forestry will be submitted to COP 9 in 2003.

This is a cursory overview of the legal structures embedded in the Kyoto Protocol.This knowledge is required to design and implement soil conservation activitiesthat will benefit from the Kyoto opportunities.

6. Conclusions

It is recognized that full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol will require con-siderable research and development in both the processes of sequestration andprocedures for gaining, registering and trading credits. However, the signals arepositive. The Kyoto Protocol and subsequent agreements are politically drivencompromises; they are far from perfect, but they are the best we have at the momentand they will be improved over time. At a minimum, they represent an emergingcommitment from the global community to work together on this serious globalenvironmental problem.

The Kyoto Protocol is an important international instrument to increase aware-ness of climate change and to promote soil conservation and carbon sequestration.It is the only global agreement to use the flexibility of the international marketplace to pay for environmental benefits achieved at local and national levels. How-ever, in promoting these opportunities, it also carries responsibilities for signatorycountries. In agreeing to the Protocol, countries have to agree to reduce theiremissions to specified amounts, and to monitor and report on carbon stocks andflows. In return they can benefit from participation in the emerging internationalcarbon market, and take advantage of the Special Carbon Fund and the SpecialFund for Developing Countries. Further, countries that are early adopters have theadvantage of being direct participants in the continual evolution of the rules of

CARBON SEQUESTRATION, SOIL CONSERVATION, AND THE KYOTO PROTOCOL 261

implementation, i.e., they are at the negotiating table; later adopters will need toconsider their participation within the context of procedures already in place.

References

Acton, D. F. and Gregorich, L. J.: 1995, The Health of Our Soils – Towards Sustainable Agriculture inCanada, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, Agriculture and AgriFood Canada,Ottawa.

Boehm, M. M., Lindwall, W., and Huebener, A.: 2001, ‘GHG Mitigation in Agriculture: Implicationsof the Bonn Agreement’, Proceedings of the International Conference on Agricultural Scienceand Technology, Session 6: Resources and the Environment, Beijing, China, November 7–9.

Dumanski, J.: 1994, ‘Workshop Summary’, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Sustain-able Land Management for the 21st Century, Agricultural Institute of Canada, Ottawa.

Heij, B., Zhou, F., and Schneider, T.: 2001, Policy Options for CO2 Emission Mitigation in China,National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection (RIVM), Bilthoven, TheNetherlands.

Hudson, B. F.: 1994, ‘Soil Organic Matter and Available Water Capacity’, J. Soil Water 49, 189–194.IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): 2000, Land Use, Land Use Change, and

Forestry, Cambridge University Press, New York, N.Y.IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change): 2001, Climate Change 2001: Scientific Basis,

Cambridge Univ. Press, U.K.Wood, S., Sebastian, K., and Scherr, S. J.: 2000, Pilot Analyses of Global Ecosystems. Agroecosys-

tems, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C.WRI (World Resources Institute): 2001, People and Ecosystems. The Fraying Web of Life, World

Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.

(Received 10 September 2002; in revised form 28 August 2003)