Carbon farming for climate change mitigation and ecosystem services - Potentials and influencing factors

Carbon Farming (CF) decreases atmospheric CO2 concentrations by increasing carbon stocks in soils and biomass. In addition to mitigating climate change, CF measures provide co-benefits through the supply of additional ecosystem services (ES). Integrating such benefits into a comprehensive assessment may increase the attractiveness of CF measures, increase adoption rates, and ultimately benefit climate and ecosystems. However, site-specific and measure-specific characteristics influence the impacts of CF measures. A comprehensive overview over CF impacts is lacking. We therefore analyzed six CF measures on cropland in the European temperate zone: (1) cover cropping, (2) introducing legumes or semi-perennial crops into crop rotations, (3) conversion to short rotation coppice, (4) agroforestry, (5) afforestation of marginal cropland, and (6) partial rewetting of drained organic soils. Through a structured literature review, we derived on-site climate change mitigation potentials, impacts on the supply of ES, and economic trade-offs, as well as influencing factors causing spatial heterogeneities. Our results show that the climate change mitigation potential varies strongly between and within CF measures. All measures can boost the supply of regulating ecosystem services, while tradeoffs exist mainly with provisioning services and economic returns. Spatially heterogeneous effects in ES supply depend on local ES demand. As proof of concept, we mapped expected beneficial ES effects from 4 selected ES positively impacted by the measure (4) agroforestry in a GIS environment for Germany, as well as opportunity costs as an economic trade-off. The results suggest that strong co-benefits can be expected in areas where opportunity costs are high. Moreover, the CF measures with the highest climate change mitigation potential also imply the highest systemic change of the farm system. This constitutes a strong economic hurdle to implementation. We argue that payments for ES are needed to incentivize CF adoption and harness the beneficial effects on climate and ecosystems. Our findings provide a comprehensive view on the effect of CF measures and may support effective European climate change mitigation policy.