Posts

post

Projects

project

Videos

video

Podcasts

podcast

People

person

Events

event

Publications

publication

Solutions

solution

Services

service

Pages

page

Partners

partner

Case Studies

case-study

Designing Societal Knowledge Services to Support Carbon Neutrality

Service Design Lab

This lab tackles the challenge of enhancing soil carbon storage as a climate change mitigation strategy. It will involve farmers’ associations, food companies, and policymakers in designing good practice guidelines and verification systems for soil carbon management.

Soil Carbon 

Service Design Labs

The IRISCC Service Design Labs (SDLs) are collaborative innovation spaces where Research Infrastructures, users, and societal stakeholders come together to co-create actionable climate risk services. SDLs follow a focused, time-bound model inspired by Living Labs, with each lab centred around one clearly defined societal service.
Each SDL explores a specific challenge, bringing together diverse experts and end-users to design practical, data-driven solutions that are meaningful in everyday contexts.

What Is a Service Design Lab

This SDL addresses a key component of Europe’s climate neutrality strategy: nature-based negative emissions, specifically carbon storage in soils.
Soil organic matter has the potential to sequester large amounts of carbon, but clear guidance for farmers, verified measurement systems, and integrated policy risk assessments are currently lacking.
This Service Design Lab aims to close that gap by co-creating a climate risk knowledge service that supports sustainable land management and informs policy development.

Soil Carbon for Climate Resilience

Users &amp; Stakeholders Engaged:
<ul data-start="1650" data-end="1858">
<li data-start="1650" data-end="1764">Users: Farmers’ associations, food sector companies, agri-tech providers, carbon certification consultancies</li>
<li data-start="1765" data-end="1858">Stakeholders: European Commission, European Parliament, national environmental agencies</li>
</ul>
The service is being developed with these groups — not just for them.

Who’s Involved?

To deliver this climate risk service, the SDL integrates:
<ul data-start="2034" data-end="2382">
<li data-start="2034" data-end="2122">Field measurements and models for soil organic carbon (SOC) change detection</li>
<li data-start="2123" data-end="2177">Data compilation and processing across regions</li>
<li data-start="2178" data-end="2247">Simulation runs to identify best practices for carbon storage</li>
<li data-start="2248" data-end="2305">Verification tools for assessing impact over time</li>
<li data-start="2306" data-end="2382">Projections and sensitivity analyses to ensure long-term viability</li>
</ul>

Methods & RI Services

Website

ICOS ERIC

BSAG

Finnish Meteorological Institue

Coordinated by

We organised a pre-event on Monday, 3rd of March 2025, as a lead-up to the <a href="https://www.carbonfarmingsummit.eu/">EU Carbon Farming Summit.</a> The event brought together participants of the Summit and other colleagues for a collaborative discussion on the future of carbon farming services.



<div class="wp-block-buttons is-layout-flex wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex">
<div class="wp-block-button"><a class="wp-block-button__link wp-element-button" href="https://www.iriscc.eu/event/pre-event-to-the-eu-carbon-farming-summit">More About the Event</a></div>
</div>



Our activities combined open space group discussions, where participants explored critical questions for shaping the future of carbon farming and a panel discussion.



The invited panelists were Karl Richards, The Agriculture and Food Department, Werner Kutsch, ICOS ERIC, Pieta Jarva, BSAG, Ibrahim Khalil, Trinity College and Ken Byrne, University of Limerick. The panel was moderated by Layla Höckerstedt.&nbsp;



Below is a summary of the key insights from each discussion group.



What are the services/platforms that need to be in place to implement future legislation related to carbon farming? Which parts of these services are already developed? 



One of the key areas explored is the Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) system, which ensures that carbon sequestration practices are accurately monitored and validated. Different countries are at varying stages of MRV development, with Finland leading the implementation process with the Carbon Action Platform, while countries like Latvia are still in the early stages of adoption. Another critical aspect is the transition from Tier 1 to Tier 3 models for carbon measurement, where more sophisticated and accurate data collection methods are required to improve emissions tracking and carbon sequestration potential.



In addition to MRV, the discussion highlights the need for digital tools and databases that provide real-time monitoring capabilities, enabling farmers, policymakers, and investors to make informed decisions. These digital platforms would facilitate data harmonization, ensuring consistency in reporting emissions and removals across different regions. The role of financial incentives and scalable payment systems for carbon credits is also emphasized, as successful carbon farming depends on linking farmers to buyers willing to invest in sustainable practices. Participants discuss the importance of structured markets for carbon credits, where clear regulations and reliable verification mechanisms would increase trust and participation from farmers and businesses alike.



Furthermore, the discussion touches on the need for awareness and education among farmers, as well as government involvement in setting policies that promote carbon farming adoption. In some regions, voluntary schemes already exist, but there is uncertainty about how they will integrate into future regulatory frameworks. Finally, collaboration among stakeholders, including research institutions, private sector entities, and policymakers, is identified as a crucial factor in building a sustainable and efficient carbon farming ecosystem.



Who are the stakeholders that will be part of the future services? How is the money flow within the stakeholders?



One example of a currently operational initiative addressing money flow is the&nbsp;Soil Nutrient Health Scheme (SNHS)&nbsp;in Northern Ireland, a government-funded research initiative focused on improving soil health and addressing phosphorus pollution. Through this scheme, private companies are paid to provide MRV (Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification) services, measuring soil health and carbon on around 100,000 farms, while farmers receive advisory services and data on their land but no direct financial compensation. Although the scheme supports farmers&#8217; future eligibility for subsidies and compliance, concerns remain about the long-term sustainability of government funding. Broader discussions also highlight that farmers, as the key actors implementing carbon farming, should receive fair payments for generating carbon credits, which should be sold transparently (avoiding double counting) and ideally remain within the agricultural sector rather than being bought by industries like aviation. Additionally, the scope of these credits should extend beyond carbon to include methane and nitrogen, ensuring a holistic approach to emissions reduction.



Who would be providing input data to the MRV system? (Countries/defining stakeholders in each country)



Drawing on their experiences in their own countries (Finland, Germany, Ireland, UK),&nbsp;&nbsp;the participants agreed that the data originating from e.g. a farm would most likely not be measured by the farmers themselves but rather by consultants or companies, working in collaboration with or at least connected to researchers (universities, research centers).



A key point was stressed: the openness of data. Some data is already provided in a mandatory way to the local ministries (Germany, Finland…), mainly for purposes related to the CAP, but this data is mostly restricted due to GDPR and it is not openly available. Two other points were mentioned: the question of the uncertainty of measures that should be clearly documented and reported, and the sustainability of the whole system, including for instance, the software and the APIs used. 



One interesting comment was made by a participant of Northern Ireland who insisted that, although satellite observations are often considered an easy way to produce data, they are of almost no use for them, as the local weather conditions do not allow for quality observations during most of the year. 



What is the best necessary information for modelers?



There is a strong necessity for a common data set for supporting and benchmarking models. This data set should be completely open and available for everybody who wants to work on the topic. It should be comprehensive, including different methods like repeated stock take as well as flux measurements. Important are ancillary data such as management history (including lateral carbon transfer with harvest and manure), weather data and soil characteristics.



ICOS can be an important data source for flux data in this context. There are long-term cropland sites within ICOS with a comprehensive set of ancillary data. Furthermore, ICOS is well connected to the flux community and can support other cropland sites in adding their data to a common data set. We are ready to be part of an initiative to support the common data pool supporting and benchmarking models.



Panel Discussion Recap: What key factors should we consider when designing new services to mitigate the risks you&#8217;ve identified?



Key factors for future carbon farming systems include establishing transparent eco-food labeling standards to ensure sustainable production and building consumer trust both domestically and internationally by improving models like &#8220;Origin Green&#8221;. Decisions must be grounded in robust, long-term scientific research on carbon sequestration and farming impacts. Farmers should play a central role in shaping policies and services, supported by an independent European-level oversight body to ensure fairness and transparency. Local carbon credit systems need to prioritize in-sector trading, keeping the benefits within the food system, while regional cooperation among farmers can facilitate certification and amplify positive outcomes. The challenge remains that current systems do not adequately reward good practices, and farmers must see tangible benefits. Ultimately, the goal is to create a trustworthy, transparent framework that fairly compensates farmers for their essential role in climate action—an ambitious but necessary step toward a sustainable and climate-resilient future for Ireland and Europe.



This workshop was a collaboration between <a href="https://www.iriscc.eu/partner/icos-eric/">Integrated Carbon Observation Systems</a> (ICOS ERIC), <a href="https://www.bsag.fi/">Baltic Sea Action Group</a> (BSAG) and the <a href="https://www.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/">Finnish Meteorological Institute</a> (FMI) as part of the <a href="https://www.iriscc.eu/how-we-work">Work Package 2</a> in IRISCC project.



This post was authored by Mariana Salgado, Maiju Tiiri, Werner Kutsch, Emmanuel Salmon, Layla Höckerstedt, and Elisa Vainio.

Future Services towards New Policies and Practices in Carbon Farming

Guided by the central question, &#8220;What future services can we envision to more effectively meet policymakers&#8217; needs using research infrastructure data?&#8221;, the workshop employed a collaborative, hands-on approach. The 25 participants— including invited experts in diverse fields ranging from farming and environmental policy to research—were divided into three groups, each facilitated by a dedicated leader. The three proposals described future utopian scenarios for Flanders, Portugal, Ireland and Central Europe. Based on their expertise each group selected in which region or country they wanted to work. 



<figure class="wp-block-image alignfull size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="1024" height="843" src="https://cdn.iriscc.eu/app/uploads/2025/03/Ireland-Utopian-Scenario-described-with-cards-1024x843.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-1668" srcset="https://cdn.iriscc.eu/app/uploads/2025/03/Ireland-Utopian-Scenario-described-with-cards-1024x843.jpeg 1024w, https://cdn.iriscc.eu/app/uploads/2025/03/Ireland-Utopian-Scenario-described-with-cards-300x247.jpeg 300w, https://cdn.iriscc.eu/app/uploads/2025/03/Ireland-Utopian-Scenario-described-with-cards-768x632.jpeg 768w, https://cdn.iriscc.eu/app/uploads/2025/03/Ireland-Utopian-Scenario-described-with-cards-1536x1264.jpeg 1536w, https://cdn.iriscc.eu/app/uploads/2025/03/Ireland-Utopian-Scenario-described-with-cards-2048x1686.jpeg 2048w, https://cdn.iriscc.eu/app/uploads/2025/03/Ireland-Utopian-Scenario-described-with-cards-1200x988.jpeg 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></figure>



Participants were given a set of cards describing stakeholders such as farmers, farmer advisors, food industry and ministry representatives. Attendees created a utopian scenario on the network of stakeholder relationships and dependencies, depicting the needed services with the cards. Key questions in this work included the identification of parts of the services, the stakeholders involved in them and how the different parts of the system would play out in the real world. 



Farmers at the Heart



A consistent theme across all scenarios is the need to place farmers at the center of the agricultural system. Currently, farmers often feel marginalized, burdened by regulations, and disconnected from the policy-making processes that directly impact their livelihoods.  The utopian vision flips this dynamic. Whether it&#8217;s Ireland’s focus on keeping farmers on the land or Portugal/Flanders highlighting farmers as key decision-makers, the message is clear: a sustainable future requires empowering farmers. Farmers in Europe are ageing, with the average age nearing 60 years. This raises an important question: how can we make farming an attractive career choice for younger generations? To ensure the future of agriculture, we need to inspire and support a new generation of enthusiastic farmers.



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" width="768" height="1024" src="https://cdn.iriscc.eu/app/uploads/2025/03/Discussion-on-the-Flanders-Utopian-Scenario-during-the-workshop-768x1024.jpeg" alt="" class="wp-image-1667" srcset="https://cdn.iriscc.eu/app/uploads/2025/03/Discussion-on-the-Flanders-Utopian-Scenario-during-the-workshop-768x1024.jpeg 768w, https://cdn.iriscc.eu/app/uploads/2025/03/Discussion-on-the-Flanders-Utopian-Scenario-during-the-workshop-225x300.jpeg 225w, https://cdn.iriscc.eu/app/uploads/2025/03/Discussion-on-the-Flanders-Utopian-Scenario-during-the-workshop-1152x1536.jpeg 1152w, https://cdn.iriscc.eu/app/uploads/2025/03/Discussion-on-the-Flanders-Utopian-Scenario-during-the-workshop-1536x2048.jpeg 1536w, https://cdn.iriscc.eu/app/uploads/2025/03/Discussion-on-the-Flanders-Utopian-Scenario-during-the-workshop-1200x1600.jpeg 1200w, https://cdn.iriscc.eu/app/uploads/2025/03/Discussion-on-the-Flanders-Utopian-Scenario-during-the-workshop-scaled.jpeg 1920w" sizes="(max-width: 768px) 100vw, 768px" /></figure>



Data-Driven Transparency and Trust



Another key element is data. The Central European scenario highlights the importance of centralized data management for carbon credit systems, while the Irish scenario stresses the need for long-term monitoring and research to ensure the credibility of food labelling schemes. Across the board, transparency is paramount. Farmers need to trust that systems are fair and adequately compensated and that oversight bodies are accountable. Data, when managed effectively and transparently, can be a powerful tool for building this trust.



For different MRV (Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification) systems, these systems must comply with international standards, link carbon sequestration (&#8220;carbon farming&#8221;) to agronomic strategies, and be tailored to regional contexts. They should also be developed through international collaboration involving public research institutions, the private sector, and farmers. Additionally, it is crucial to integrate this data with national greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories and establish clear rules for managing farm-level data. These rules must address who owns the data, who can access it, and how it can be used effectively.



Addressing Fraud and Conflicts of Interest



The potential for fraud and conflicts of interest emerged as a significant concern. From the role of assessors in the Central Europe scenario, potentially enabling fraudulent reporting to the discussion of brokers in Portugal/Flanders, it&#8217;s clear that robust oversight mechanisms are essential. Independent bodies are needed to ensure that carbon credit schemes are not exploited and that the system&#8217;s integrity is maintained.



Balancing Local and Global Markets



The Irish scenario raised an interesting point about balancing local and global markets. While the emphasis is on &#8220;insetting&#8221;—reducing emissions within the farm and food industry itself—the reality is that Ireland is a major exporter. The utopian vision must, therefore, create a system that is both beneficial to local communities and credible on the international stage. This may involve a multi-layered approach where farms prioritize local sales before selling carbon credits externally.



Moving Beyond Monetary Incentives



While financial compensation is undoubtedly important, the scenarios also emphasized the need to incentivize farmers through other means. Farmer networks, knowledge sharing, and recognition within their profession can all play a crucial role in motivating sustainable practices. It&#8217;s about creating a culture of excellence and innovation in agriculture, where farmers are proud to be stewards of the land.



A Step-by-Step Approach



Achieving this utopian vision will be a gradual process. As highlighted in the discussion about Ireland, a step-by-step approach is needed, starting with individual farms and gradually expanding to localities and regions.&nbsp;These steps have been taken in some places, as we already have a service lab (Carbon Action) in Finland &#8211; but there is still much work to do.&nbsp;It requires collaboration between farmers, researchers, policymakers, and industry stakeholders.



Confronting Monopolies



Finally, the scenario in Ireland raised a critical issue about monopolies in the food industry. If the meat industry, for example, holds too much power, it can stifle innovation and prevent farmers from receiving fair compensation for sustainable practices. Addressing these power imbalances is essential for creating a truly equitable and sustainable agricultural system.



Conclusion: A Collaborative Path Forward



The path towards implementing the carbon farming framework for Europe is complex, but the discussions on Future Utopian scenarios offer a roadmap. By prioritizing farmers, fostering transparency and trust, addressing fraud, balancing local and global markets, and confronting monopolies, Europe can create a good implementation of the carbon removal and harmonized carbon farming (CRCF) framework that is both environmentally sustainable and economically viable. It’s a vision that requires collaboration, innovation, and a commitment to creating a better future for all.&nbsp;



If you are interested in designing future utopian scenarios, a digital version of this set of cards depicting stakeholders and part of the services is available. Contact us, and we will help you implement this at your own organisation or with your partners. We would like to extend this multi-stakeholder conversation and replicate it in other contexts.&nbsp;



This workshop was a collaboration between <a href="https://www.iriscc.eu/partner/icos-eric/">Integrated Carbon Observation Systems</a> (ICOS ERIC), <a href="https://www.bsag.fi">Baltic Sea Action Group</a> (BSAG) and the <a href="https://www.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/">Finnish Meteorological Institute</a> (FMI) as part of the <a href="https://www.iriscc.eu/how-we-work">Work Package 2</a> in IRISCC project.



Blog written by Mariana Salgado, Maiju Tiiri, Elisa Vainio and Layla Höckerstedt.&nbsp;&nbsp;



<div class="wp-block-buttons is-layout-flex wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex">
<div class="wp-block-button"><a class="wp-block-button__link wp-element-button" href="mailto:mariana.salgado@icos-ri.eu">Contact us</a></div>
</div>

IRISCC Workshop Explored Utopian Visions for European Agriculture

<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Identifying Obstacles</h2>



Farmers identify some key obstacles to adopting carbon farming methods:



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Attitudes: Shifting to carbon farming practices requires a shift in mindset, and thus, the attitude of farmer is the most important thing. Moreover, attitude change is needed from all – from those in the food value chain, politicians determining the boundary conditions, as well as consumers. Resistance to change in general and to innovative agricultural practices can hinder progress.</li>



<li>Knowhow &amp; learning: Lack of knowledge among farmers was identified as an obstacle for wider application of carbon farming methods. Carbon farming requires some understanding of the carbon sequestration processes and gaining knowledge on the best practices. Importantly, farmers should also be ready to try and observe what works best for their farm and fields. Gaining the information and applying it may be an obstacle to some farmers, and it was estimated that sometimes carbon farming may seem harder than it is. </li>



<li>Communication Gaps: Adequate communication regarding unsuccessful carbon sequestration cases can foster understanding. Current educational approaches may not align with farmers&#8217; needs, and might not allow peer exchange, making it difficult for them to adopt new practices.</li>



<li>Lack of Financial Support: Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is not as progressive as it should be, not ensuring enough financial backing for carbon farming practices. Financial insecurity is already a major problem in many farms in Finland, hindering progress and application of new innovations, as well as impairing farmers’ wellbeing.</li>



<li>Lack of Representation: Farmers in our workshop were concerned on the absence of farmer representatives in the formulation and implementation of carbon policies limits the effectiveness of these initiatives. </li>



<li>Contextual Ignorance: The unique agricultural context of Finland is often overlooked in broader discussions about carbon farming.</li>
</ul>



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Proposed Actions to Overcome Obstacles</h2>



To tackle these challenges, we propose several actionable strategies:



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li>Promote Knowledge Exchange and Peer Support</li>



<li>Facilitate networks where farmers can share experiences and learn from one another.</li>



<li>Highlight successful carbon farming practices to inspire others within the community.</li>



<li>Encourage learning through real-life examples and positive communication, demonstrating the benefits of new methods.</li>



<li>Enhance Situational Awareness and Decision-Making</li>



<li>Educate farmers on the importance of situational awareness when making decisions about their practices.</li>



<li>Encourage flexibility in traditional farming approaches, promoting a mindset open to experimentation and adaptation.</li>



<li>Provide tools and resources that assist farmers in planning for changing conditions, fostering resilience.</li>



<li>Encourage Experimentation and Holistic Learning</li>



<li>Support farmers in gradually integrating carbon farming practices into their operations through experimentation.</li>
</ul>



Promote a holistic approach to planning that incorporates long-term observations and adjustments based on changing conditions.



<h2 class="wp-block-heading">Conclusions</h2>



Successful carbon farming extends beyond mere technical implementation; it requires cultivating a robust learning environment where farmers can gain insights, share experiences, and develop confidence in adopting new practices. Our Service Design lab needs to address these obstacles collaboratively and pave the way for more sustainable agricultural practices that contribute significantly to climate change mitigation efforts.&nbsp;



These proposed actions will enable to further develop the Service Design Lab ensuring it effectively meets the needs of farmers as we prepare for the upcoming implementation of the carbon farming directive. By considering farmers&#8217; needs and enhancing their capacity to implement effective carbon sequestration methods, we can foster a more resilient agricultural landscape.&nbsp;



The needs of other stakeholders will be explored as part of our work in future steps.&nbsp;

Cultivating Change: How Farmers Can Implement Innovative Carbon Farming Practices

Pre-Event to the EU Carbon Farming Summit

Soil Carbon

<a href="/terms-of-use">terms of use</a>  |  <a href="/privacy-notice">data protection</a>

Soil Carbon

What Is a Service Design Lab

Soil Carbon for Climate Resilience

Who’s Involved?

Methods & RI Services

Coordinated by

Read More