Brazil has an opportunity that few countries have: to increase agricultural production and concurrently sequester more carbon, thanks to the climate mitigation potential present in soils, which are important carbon sinks especially in tropical conditions. Soil carbon is a relevant “natural climate solution” (NCS), a term interchangeable with “nature-based solution” (NBS) — the difference being a matter of emphasis. The former relative to climate change and the latter related to adaptation, human well-being and biodiversity.

 

Natural climate solutions are actions for the conservation and restoration of native vegetation, as well as soil management that increase carbon storage or avoid greenhouse gas emissions (GGE). It is estimated that those solutions can provide up to 37% of the required emission reductions by 2030 (Griscom et al., 2017), with soil carbon representing 25% of that potential — 23.8 Gt CO2-eq./year (Bossio et al., 2020). Brazil alone holds 21% of the tropical potential of NCS, of which 14% comes from improvements in agricultural management through sustainable agricultural practices, which, in addition to increasing carbon sequestration, have associated benefits such as improved organic matter in the soil, increased productivity and, consequently, improved profitability for rural producers.

 

To prompt the feasible implementation of soil carbon strategies, to integrate them into the carbon market and to unlock all that potential, progress must be made in terms of measurement, reporting and verification, so as to lend credibility to that solution.

 

The Paris Agreement replaced the Kyoto Protocol as an instrument of pressure for nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It provides for the NDCs, an acronym for Nationally Determined Contributions, i.e., the formalization of the climate action commitments of each signatory. In other words, how nations intend to reduce their domestic emissions and account for strategies to do so. Such accountability involves the creation of standards, methodologies and robust metrics to measure, report and verify (MRV) actions to mitigate and remove greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere.

 

In the transition between Kyoto, where only developed countries had binding emission reduction targets, and Paris, where all signatories must present their plans, a learning gap emerged on the knowledge and experience of measuring climate actions in the countries not required to do so before. Also, in the developed countries of the Kyoto Protocol the mitigation actions were, as a rule, particularly aimed at combating emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and, as a result, more knowledge was gathered about the issue of measuring, reporting and verifying in the field of energy.

 

The practical implication of that is that countries not pressured under the Kyoto Protocol, as well as economic sectors such as agriculture, now have at their disposal consolidated knowledge largely in contexts that differ from those in which they operate. That is the case of Brazilian agriculture, whose tropical character implies soil carbon dynamics different from that which occurs in temperate regions, where, after all, emission factors and measurement metrics for the removal of greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere and their permanence in the soil are more solid. That’s why Brazil now needs to stand up to the “tropicalization” of MRV systems, obviously a non-trivial challenge which a group of relevant agents is turning their attention to.

 

In that context, Insper Agro Global attended the event called “Expert Dialogue: low-carbon agricultural commodity production”, in late June at the Center for Development Research of the University of Bonn, in Germany. Organized by the German-Brazilian Dialogue on Agriculture Policy (APD), the forum was part of an exchange trip program to share experiences, knowledge and perspectives in the carbon markets and agricultural industries of both countries. At the invitation of the APD, Insper Agro Global was represented by senior researcher Camila Dias de Sá, who was part of a delegation of researchers from three Embrapa units and from FGV’s Bioeconomy Observatory, as well as private and third sector interlocutors with “Coalizão Brasil, Clima, Florestas e Agricultura”.

 

The technical discussions at the event highlighted many differences between the outcomes of agricultural practices adopted in the two countries, as well as implications for soil carbon dynamics due to the differences in soil types, structures and microbial activity. In a very simplified way, soil carbon accumulation under German conditions occurs in the first 30 cm of the profile, and the existing scientific evidence does not prove the permanence necessary to meet climate ambitions. On the other hand, there are indications in Brazil that over half of the stored carbon settles deeper, after the initial 30 cm. Brazilian researchers from Embrapa already have evidence that carbon stability is greater in the deeper layers, though they are yet to know how much. Another concern of German scientists is the trade-off between additional fertilization requirements for sustainable carbon sequestration and the stimulation of additional nitrous oxide emissions.

 

Based on existing scientific evidence, the European Union promises to release by the end of 2022 a framework for the regulation of carbon farming (agricultural practices aimed at sequestering atmospheric carbon in soil, roots, wood and leaves). Germany, where the Ministry of Food and Agriculture is led by the Green Party, is more skeptical, while the French seem more willing to give farmers a leading role in fighting climate change. It must be noted that part of Germany’s resistance, which weighs a lot in the European Union’s decisions, is based on scientific evidence in temperate conditions, in addition, obviously, to political issues, originating from the demands of German consumers, who have their own perspective on sustainability within the scope of agricultural production.

 

By and large, the notion of sustainability differs a lot here and there. Here, sustainability in the countryside is closely associated with practices that allow for more production in less space, thus saving the use of natural resources, especially land. That means intensifying production with more technology and efficiency to improve productivity. In Europe for the most part, and quite strongly in Germany, the aim is to preserve landscaping via more extensive practices with low use of inputs and technologies, leading to lower productive efficiency and stagnation of productivity, which, therefore, need to be supported by heavy government subsidies and consumer willingness to pay more for that.

 

In the tropical regions of the planet, where greenhouse gas emissions from land-use change are more relevant, and where the potential for storing carbon in the soil is greater, actions aimed at improving agricultural management to achieve climate goals gain high relevance. Although the scale for the adoption of certain practices — such as no-till farming, which occupies around 35 million hectares — illustrates the size of Brazil’s potential for the climate agenda, there is a risk to the country’s future competitiveness if European standards are the benchmarks of the market.

 

The development of methodologies that incorporate tropical features, and at the same time speak to what is being done overseas, is urgent to ensure Brazilian agriculture access to the global carbon market. Along these lines, we need our scientists working hard in the task of developing a scientifically robust standard, recognized by the market and feasible for farmers. In addition to that, the work of our political and sectoral leaders is essential on two fronts: ensuring the allocation of enough funding for national research and acting in a coordinated and assertive way in international forums to define where Brazil stands and to propose the necessary changes in the standards.

 

Brazilian competitiveness is at stake in outlining the standards that will guide the era of global decarbonization. Brazil needs to take this opportunity and make this potential tangible. In the meanwhile, it needs to smash the debates that feed the narrative pinning agribusiness as the villain of deforestation. Only then will the potential carbon credits generated by the positive carbon balance in Brazilian soil be fungible in the world market. For Brazilian agriculture, the opportunities outweigh the threats — all it takes is to do the right thing.