A Strategy for Taking Soil Carbon into the Policy Arena - Soil Carbon: Science, Management and Policy for Multiple Benefits - page 74

Governance

this volume). For several years, debates have
been engaged in at the EU level to mainstream
cross-compliance within agriculture policies.
The EU defines cross-compliance as 'a
mechanism that links direct payments to
compliance by farmers with basic standards
concerning the environment, food safety, ani-
mal and plant health and animal welfare, as
well as the requirement of maintaining land
in good agricultural and environmental con-
dition' ( http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/
cross-compliance/index_en.htm ) . This last
point can be an efficient entry point to advo-
cate for SOC sequestration, and for payment
of associated ecosystems services (PES). Other
international organizations, FAO for example,
are also working to mainstream PES into agri-
cultural development and poverty reduction
(FAO, 2011).
Concerning the CAP policies, Henriksen
et al . (2011) recognized that synergies be-
tween mitigation and agricultural produc-
tion were currently not exploited fully at the
EU policy level, and suggested that there
was much scope to encourage soil manage-
ment strategies in Europe that would mitigate
GHG emissions (Chapter 29, this volume).
The equivalent of NARS at the inter-
national level, for example the Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research
(CGIAR) centres and their associated pro-
grammes, such as the Research Programme
on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food
Security (CCAFS), have to be involved in
the policy-making path. Recently, 33 na-
tional initiatives from different countries
were merged into a common effort under the
Global Research Alliance (GRA) on agricul-
tural GHG. GRA members set three research
groups, namely croplands, paddy rice and
livestock, and two additional cross-cutting
groups directly in link with SOC: 'carbon
and nitrogen cycling' and 'inventories and
measurement'. Research at the international
level includes the aggregation of national
initiatives within international coalitions
(see GRA above) or initiatives. Different inter-
national research programmes are also under
way (e.g. the EU Ecofinders project, http://
ecoinders.dmu.dk/ ) on the relation between
biodiversity and C storage/mineralization
(Chapter 11, this volume).

Environmental governance may be defined
as the rules, practices and institutions for
the management of the environment and the
standards, values and behavioural mechan-
isms used by citizens, organizations and
interest groups for exercising their rights
and defending their interests in using natural
resources. Good environmental governance
takes into account the role of all actors that im-
pact on the environment - from govern-
ments, NGOs, private sector and civil society.
As UNEP (2010) notes, 'cooperation between
all actors is critical to achieving effective
governance . . . towards a more sustainable
future'. However, because of its complex
linkages, governance for SOC raises substan-
tial logistical and practical problems.
Natural resources, including SOC, and
the environment are global public goods.
Nevertheless, they are goods that also exist
in the private domain, such as on farms.
Therefore, SOC is often managed privately,
but has impacts on atmospheric C that is
unambiguously global. The global nature of
these goods stems from their relationship
between those who look after the resources - in
the case of SOC, mainly land users as the
immediate custodians and 'guardians' - and
those who benefit from the public goods -
mainly nation states, some far away (such as
Pacific islands at sea level) and the global
community. This is well recognized in the
whole climate change debate, where it is
clear to most that incremental small changes
towards climate change mitigation controlled
by individuals or small groups in the re-
lease of GHGs potentially benefits everyone.
The equivalent case for SOC has not
received the same attention, although it inter-
sects closely with GHGs and climate change.
This planetary dimension requires a collect-
ive management approach with governance
arrangements that are targeted appropriately
for different stakeholders at different levels.
The governance challenge, then, is how
to generate a conducive enabling and main-
streaming environment for SOC that will
encourage and incentivize the 'guardians'
and exact suitable controls and penalties
on those who choose to ignore the policy