Conceptualizing fit-for-region carbon farming for the EU Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming (CRCF) Regulation
The document below is the second output from Credible’s Focus Group 1.5. 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
Gerry Lawson (Spain) | EURAF
07, 25
I cut the final 4 points because of the 2000 character limit.. Generally, nothing to disagree with in the conclusions of this group — could be more mention of problems of Mediterranean regions, which are hot and dry and incapable of growing much biomass. Not to mention the issues of fire.
In these circumstances a "standardised baseline" approach is vital, but is not discussed. Farmers in these areas should not be discriminated against. (Incidentally, some of the Regenerative Farming groups are proposing payments based on net primary productivity — which brings the same problems.)
Re: Encouragement of pioneers — totally agree. Good IACS data should be available since at least 2015 in all Member States and can be used for modelling. Member States must meet their obligations under the High Value Dataset Regulation for GSAA and LPIS data.
Given the distinct development of agricultural practices across various regions, it is essential to recognize specific regional characteristics and opportunities in sustainable transformations — yes, BUT there has to be a common EU typology of carbon farming practices. Regional differences in yield, species etc. can be described in relation to this.
Regulatory framework — yes, again it is vital to have comparability between countries and regions with a common typology to compare crops (in IACS etc.) and practices (in the registry).
There is a need for a dual approach, defining specific practices that qualify for carbon removal credits while considering holistic agricultural models that meet sustainability criteria — agreed, but the sustainability criteria cannot be so expensive to measure that the whole scheme becomes impractical...... cut ....
Pierre-Philippe CLAUDE (France) | Polyor
07, 25
I agree. Plot specific sustainable NPK fertilizer recommendations are often best if regionalized. Polyor SAS ( www.polyor.fr) has done so at the NUTS2 (Eurostat) level; NUTS3 regionalization is underway. Where I differ and disagree is your FG’s emphasis on current MRV schemes supposedly capable of quantifying SOC/M accrual rates. Let alone the catch-all complexity (Figure 1) of the regional carbon farming scheme you are proposing, I see little ergonomics for the farmer at this stage. Polyor SAS chose to differ and has proposed a much more user-friendly approach requiring only a minimal dataset along with the plot’s centermost GPS coordinates.