What makes an operational Farm Soil Carbon Code? Insights from a global comparison of existing soil carbon codes using a structured analytical framework

Soils have the potential to sequester and store significant amounts of carbon, contributing towards climate change mitigation. Soil carbon markets are now emerging to pay farmers for changes in land use or management that absorb carbon from the atmosphere, governed by codes that ensure additionality, permanence and non-leakage whilst protecting against unintentional reversals. This paper represents the first global comparative analysis of agricultural soil carbon codes, providing new insights into the wide range of approaches currently used to govern these emerging markets internationally. To do this, the paper first develops an analytical framework for the systematic comparison of codes, which could be applied to the analysis of codes in other land uses and habitats. This framework was then used to identify commonalities and differences in methods, projects, administration and commercialisation and associated code documents for 12 publicly available codes from the UK, France, Australia, USA and international bodies. Codes used a range of mechanisms to manage: additionality (including legal, adoption, financial viability and investment tests); uncertainty and risks around soil carbon sequestration (including minimum permanence periods, carbon buffers, contractual arrangements and/or insurance policies); leakage (including restriction of eligible practices and monitoring to subtract leakage from verified sequestration); baselines (including multi-year and variable buffers based on empirical data or models); measurement, reporting and verification methods (stipulating time intervals, methods, data sources and assessments of uncertainty); auditing; resale of carbon units; stakeholder engagement; and approaches to ensure market integrity (such as buyer checks). The paper concludes by discussing existing MRV methods and codes that could be adapted for use in the UK and evaluates the need for an over-arching standard for soil carbon codes in the UK, to which existing codes and other schemes already generating soil carbon credits could be assessed and benchmarked

Phenotypes Determined by Cluster Analysis and Their Survival in the Prospective European Scleroderma Trials and Research Cohort of Patients With Systemic Sclerosis

Objective: Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a heterogeneous connective tissue disease that is typically subdivided into limited cutaneous SSc (lcSSc) and diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc) depending on the extent of skin involvement. This subclassification may not capture the entire variability of clinical phenotypes. The European Scleroderma Trials and Research (EUSTAR) database includes data on a prospective cohort of SSc patients from 122 European referral centers. This study was undertaken to perform a cluster analysis of EUSTAR data to distinguish and characterize homogeneous phenotypes without any a priori assumptions, and to examine survival among the clusters obtained. / Methods: A total of 11,318 patients were registered in the EUSTAR database, and 6,927 were included in the study. Twenty‐four clinical and serologic variables were used for clustering. / Results: Clustering analyses provided a first delineation of 2 clusters showing moderate stability. In an exploratory attempt, we further characterized 6 homogeneous groups that differed with regard to their clinical features, autoantibody profile, and mortality. Some groups resembled usual dcSSc or lcSSc prototypes, but others exhibited unique features, such as a majority of lcSSc patients with a high rate of visceral damage and antitopoisomerase antibodies. Prognosis varied among groups and the presence of organ damage markedly impacted survival regardless of cutaneous involvement. / Conclusion: Our findings suggest that restricting subsets of SSc patients to only those based on cutaneous involvement may not capture the complete heterogeneity of the disease. Organ damage and antibody profile should be taken into consideration when individuating homogeneous groups of patients with a distinct prognosis