Effects of Biochar on Soil Fertility and Crop Yields: Experience from the Southern Highlands of Tanzania

The world’s agricultural production is declining due to severe loss of soil fertility through natural processes or because of human activities. Biochar has been identified as a potential soil amendment to regain its fertility and increase crop productivity. This study aimed to assess the effects of biochar on soil nutrients and crop yields in the southern highlands of Tanzania. Data were collected through key informant and household interviews, and from sampling of soils in coffee farms where biochar of maize cobs origin was incorporated at the rate of 3 t ha-1. Purposive sampling approach was deployed to identify the villages in which farmers have been incorporating biochar in farms. A total of 172 households, 30 key informants, and 12 top and subsoil samples were involved in this study. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS version 20, and excel spreadsheet was used for descriptive results and relationships. The findings revealed that biochar significantly increased soil pH, iron (Fe), organic carbon (OC), cation exchange capacity (CEC) and exchangeable bases (potassium-K, magnesium-Mg). T - tests showed significant increase of soil nutrients in biochar treated soils. In addition, biochar increased coffee and maize yields from 1 t ha-1 to 3 t ha-1. Keywords: Biochar; Soil Nutrients; Food Security; Resilience; Adaptatio

The Future of (Negative) Emissions Trading in the European Union

Under the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), operators must surrender allowances corresponding to the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) from their installations. The supply of allowances in the EU ETS decreases linearly and, all else equal, is expected to end around 2057. An earlier cut-off date is likely to follow from the European Council’s recent decision that the EU should reach net-zero GHG emissions by 2050. Scenarios published by the European Commission even anticipate a net-negative cap in the EU ETS from 2045 onwards, generated through carbon dioxide (CO2) removals. Upholding emissions trading, in the long run, therefore entails significant use of credits resulting from atmospheric CO2 removal activities. However, in its current form, the ETS Directive does not contain any legal basis for generating CO2 removal credits. Integrating CO2 removal into the EU ETS would, thus, require fundamental amendments of the ETS Directive, waiving the currently mandatory association binding emitting activities to the adoption of emission abatement technologies. The next policy window for such amendments will open in 2021, following the decision on a more ambitious EU 2030 emission reduction target. This conceptual paper explores various design options for integrating negative emissions technologies (NETs) into the EU ETS. We discuss their potential implications for emissions trading at large and address the specificity of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS); repealing the provision that installations exclusively using biomass are not covered by the ETS Directive, BE(CCS) installations could in principle fall within the scope of the ETS Directive. Theoretically, it would be possible to consider free allocation of biogenic credits to BE(CCS) installations. Bioenergy operators could avoid having to surrender these biogenic allowances through the use of CCS and instead sell them on the EU ETS market, having implicitly received credits for the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere

Carbon dioxide removal policy in the making: Assessing developments in 9 OECD cases

Since the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015, spurred by the 2018 IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, net zero emission targets have emerged as a new organizing principle of climate policy. In this context, climate policymakers and stakeholders have been shifting their attention to carbon dioxide removal (CDR) as an inevitable component of net zero targets. The importance of CDR would increase further if countries and other entities set net-negative emissions targets. The scientific literature on CDR governance and policy is still rather scarce, with empirical case studies and comparisons largely missing. Based on an analytical framework that draws on the multi-level perspective of sociotechnical transitions as well as existing work on CDR governance, we gathered and assessed empirical material until early 2021 from 9 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) cases: the European Union and three of its Member States (Ireland, Germany, and Sweden), Norway, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. Based on a synthesis of differences and commonalities, we propose a tripartite conceptual typology of the varieties of CDR policymaking: (1) incremental modification of existing national policy mixes, (2) early integration of CDR policy that treats emission reductions and removals as fungible, and (3) proactive CDR policy entrepreneurship with support for niche development. Although these types do not necessarily cover all dimensions relevant for CDR policy and are based on a limited set of cases, the conceptual typology might spur future comparative work as well as more fine-grained case-studies on established and emerging CDR policies

Carbon Dioxide Removal Policy in the Making : Assessing Developments in 9 OECD Cases

Since the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015, spurred by the 2018 IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, net zero emission targets have emerged as a new organizing principle of climate policy. In this context, climate policymakers and stakeholders have been shifting their attention to carbon dioxide removal (CDR) as an inevitable component of net zero targets. The importance of CDR would increase further if countries and other entities set net-negative emissions targets. The scientific literature on CDR governance and policy is still rather scarce, with empirical case studies and comparisons largely missing. Based on an analytical framework that draws on the multi-level perspective of sociotechnical transitions as well as existing work on CDR governance, we gathered and assessed empirical material until early 2021 from 9 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) cases: the European Union and three of its Member States (Ireland, Germany, and Sweden), Norway, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. Based on a synthesis of differences and commonalities, we propose a tripartite conceptual typology of the varieties of CDR policymaking: (1) incremental modification of existing national policy mixes, (2) early integration of CDR policy that treats emission reductions and removals as fungible, and (3) proactive CDR policy entrepreneurship with support for niche development. Although these types do not necessarily cover all dimensions relevant for CDR policy and are based on a limited set of cases, the conceptual typology might spur future comparative work as well as more fine-grained case-studies on established and emerging CDR policies

Green Climate Fund (GCF): Role, Capacity Building, and Directions as a Catalyst for Climate Finance

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is one of the several special climate change funds that have been established under Article 11 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). These funds aim to finance climate change activities in developing countries. Previously established funds did not catalyze sufficient funding nor did they balance adaptation and mitigation measures. In 2010, the parties of the UNFCCC sought to change this by establishing the GCF which is expected to be one of the biggest funds for climate finance. It should provide “additional and new” funds of up to $100 billion a year, starting from 2020, through the mobilization of public and private sources and development aid (see Cui and Huang 2018). At the Paris meeting in 2015, the negotiating parties decided that the GCF should serve the Paris Agreement, alongside other funds. The GCF is located in Incheon, South Korea

BIO-CCS I FJ\uc4RRV\uc4RMESEKTORN – SYNTES

Den svenska fj\ue4rrv\ue4rmesektorn har stor potential att bidra med negativa koldioxidutsl\ue4pp genom bio-CCS, minst 10 Mton per \ue5r. Den st\uf6rsta os\ue4kerheten betr\ue4ffande m\uf6jligheterna f\uf6r bio-CCS g\ue4ller marknads f\uf6ruts\ue4ttningarna.Uppv\ue4rmningsbranschen har en vision om att \ue5r 2045 utg\uf6ra en kols\ue4nka. Ett s\ue4tt att \ue5stadkomma detta \ue4r genom att avskilja och lagra koldioxidutsl\ue4pp med biogent ursprung. Ett antal fj\ue4rrv\ue4rmef\uf6retag har redan olika l\ue5ngt g\ue5ngna planer p\ue5 att satsa p\ue5 bio-CCS. De har sett ett v\ue4rde i att samarbeta kring hur detta kan \ue5stadkommas. Ett led i detta \ue4r projektet Bio-CCS i fj\ue4rrv\ue4rmesektorn som best\ue5r av ett gediget underlag baserat p\ue5 forskning kring olika aspekter av fr\ue5gan samt en strategi baserad p\ue5 det underlaget. I denna rapport redovisas en syntes av detta forskningsarbete.Projektet visar att fj\ue4rrv\ue4rmesektorn har stor teoretisk potential att bidra med negativa koldioxidutsl\ue4pp, minst 10 Mton per \ue5r. I huvudsak \ue4r avskiljning, transport och lagring av koldioxid bepr\uf6vad teknik \ue4ven om till\ue4mpningen i detta fall \ue4r ny. \uc4ven om bio-CCS \ue4r f\uf6rknippad med energianv\ue4ndning s\ue5 bidrar tekniken sett ur ett systemperspektiv med stor nytta f\uf6r att minska koldioxid[1]utsl\ue4ppen. Bio-CCS \ue4r en relativt dyr teknik och det \ue4r angel\ue4get att utnyttja samverkan och kluster f\uf6r att exempelvis skapa \uf6kad kostnadseffektivitet i transport och mellanlagring. Tillg\ue5ng till lagringsplatser \ue4r en f\uf6ruts\ue4ttning f\uf6r framg\ue5ng och flera alternativ bed\uf6ms bli tillg\ue4ngliga. Det kan dock uppst\ue5 konkurrens om tillg\ue5ngen till lagringsplatserna. De regelm\ue4ssiga f\uf6ruts\ue4ttningarna f\uf6r bio-CCS i Sverige har f\uf6rb\ue4ttrats avsev\ue4rt de senaste dryga decenniet. Flera regelm\ue4ssiga hinder kvarst\ue5r dock. En del utg\uf6r mindre barri\ue4rer, andra \ue4r av mer betydande karakt\ue4r.Den st\uf6rsta os\ue4kerheten betr\ue4ffande m\uf6jligheterna f\uf6r bio-CCS g\ue4ller ekonomin. Flera potentiella finansieringsmetoder har studerats, b\ue5de st\uf6d, regleringar och frivilligmarknader. Det finns fortfarande oklarheter kring syftet med planerade st\uf6d och det framtida \ue4gandet av de negativa utsl\ue4ppen. Det genomf\uf6rda projektet har skapat ett forum f\uf6r kunskapsuppbyggnad, erfarenhetsutbyte och n\ue4tverkande, vilket de deltagande f\uf6retagen bed\uf6mt vara mycket v\ue4rdefullt

A Comparison of Design and Support Priorities of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions

In context of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, developing countries are asked to contribute to greenhouse gas control objectives by proposing so-called Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs). Although the concept provides developing countries with complete flexibility to design NAMAs, a majority of proposals seek international support. This article improves our understanding of the matching of NAMA design and international support by exploring (mis-) alignment between support providers and NAMA developers prioritization for NAMAs. The article assesses survey responses from support providers in light of records of NAMAs. We conclude that there is a mismatch between support providers primary emphasis on systems for measuring emissions reductions and the lack of such provisions in existing NAMA proposals. Furthermore, sector preferences may create structural biases in NAMA support