Assessing the economic impact of the co-benefits of increasing Soil Organic Matter with carbon farming
The document below is the initial output from Credible’s Focus Group 1.2. It is a live document that will be improved thanks to everyone’s participation in this public consultation and the subsequent activities of the Focus Group. By sending your opinion on the matter, you can contribute to bringing valuable knowledge to the attention of the broader expert community and policymakers. This public consultation is monitored closely by the Expert Group on Carbon Removals that supports the Commission in its efforts to develop the Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming (CRCF) Regulation. We therefore invite all stakeholders and simple citizens to make your voice heard. It is the time to contribute to fair and transparent European policies, ones that can help the agricultural and forest sectors to stand out as an important solution to our current climate crisis.
We noticed that certain browser’s configurations preclude correctly displaying the PDF viewer above. In case you can not see the content of the document above, please download the PDF.
Your opinion matters
Received comments will be reviewed for compliance to our privacy policy and moderation standards. Once approved, they will be accessible through this webpage. With your consent, the sender's name, country of residency and professional affiliation will be displayed for each published feedback. You can either send a short comment (text) or a more formal view on the addressed issue (uploading a pdf file)
Feedback received so far
Alexander Polussa (United States (US)) | Yale Applied Science Synthesis Program
07, 25
Gerry Lawson (Spain) | EURAF
07, 25
The evaluation of the economic benefit of SOM is too negative. Better not to refer to the "Soil Health Directive" - it is actually the Directive on Soil Monitoring and Resilience. It is difficult to talk about a "cobenefit" for SOM ..actually there are 6 potential cobenefits in the EU Sustainable Finance initiative .. SOM is not one of them - but is directly costed in the price carbon certificates. It is not a co-benefit. Please spell "ton" as "tonne" - we are in the EU. N2O reductions are not "cobenefits" - they are mainstream GHG benefits and can be quantified. The recommendations are fine but I would have expected more background, for examples see the attachment
Attached fileBrigitta Kovacs (Hungary)
07, 25
Bridging Soil Organic Matter Co-Benefits with Practical, Farm-Level ROI Strategies To support carbon farming adoption, it is essential that the CRCF framework and related advisory structures recognize on-farm soil health solutions that are both biologically regenerative and financially accessible. Among these are biodegradable, circular soil amendments derived from bio-based waste streams, mycelial or organic matrices, and biochar. These inputs are not only low-cost and scalable but also: - Actively increase Soil Organic Matter (SOM) and microbial activity - Improve water retention, nutrient cycling, and erosion resistance - Lead to measurable fuel and fertilizer savings, especially in low-input or degraded systems To unlock their full value: - Soil health co-benefits must be linked to economic indicators such as reduced tillage costs, nutrient retention value, or productivity stability under drought - CRCF should support simple, context-specific ROI models that quantify how such regenerative tools enhance farm economics - Public or programmatic support is needed for the monitoring and data collection to convert these agronomic gains into trusted co-benefit valuations In parallel, we recommend that the CRCF integrate with the upcoming EU Soil Health Law and build cross-compatible approaches to SOM-based value creation, helping farmers see beyond carbon certificates toward resilient, soil-centered business models.
Claude Pierre-Philippe (France) | Polyor
07, 25
Hello. The following presentation was made to the FG1.2. It is quite disruptive and Andrea chose to not integrate its content in the FG1.2 report which is understandable. This said, I believe that this refundable nitrogen (RNC) concept could solve a lot of the problems regarding the economic and agronomic valuation of carbon-farming co-benefits. Yours to see. I'm all ears.
Attached file