Soil carbon sequestration through regenerative agriculture

and rewilding on degraded farmland

MOTIVATIONS

The climate change mitigation discussion has been mainly centered on decreasing exhaust emissions
from fuel combustion (transportation, heating, industry…) and more recently with interest in non-fuel
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from industrial processes like making cement and metallurgy.

With respect to agriculture, attention has focused most heavily on meat production and
deforestation as contributors to CO2 rise and climate change. That focus, however, has begun to shift to
the full carbon cycle and the role it plays in climate mitigation through carbon sequestration. The worlds’
oceans contain 77.4% of the planet’s carbon1; underground hydrocarbons2 account for 14.9%; soil retains
5%; and biomass embodies 1.2%. This leaves a mere 1.5% of the total stock as atmospheric CO2.
Consequently, small shifts in the natural carbon cycle should have as great an impact on global
atmospheric carbon as large shifts in human produced combustion patterns. Most of our efforts, however,
are focused on large shifts in human produced carbon.
In most studies, agriculture and land use change3 account for about one fourth of greenhouse gas
emissions. In particular, the IPCC4 assesses the contribution of agriculture and land use change at 12
billion tons of CO2 equivalent per year. In addition, the “natural response of land to human-induced
climate change”, in terms of carbon sequestration, is estimated to be 11.2 billion tons of CO2 equivalent
per year, almost fully offsetting the impact of agriculture and land use change. And this is while almost
nothing is done to limit agriculture GHG and land use change is accelerating! In the next Section, we shall
see that land use change can be reversed and that it is possible for agriculture to deliver the same quantity
of food with less GHG emissions. In fact, agriculture can even become carbon-negative by returning
carbon to the soil through soil carbon sequestration5.

At the same time the discussion on climate change adaptation, is gaining momentum, ie. how to
limit the impact of a climate change that is coming anyway6 even if its extent may be mitigated. We already
observe more extreme climate events. Increased droughts and fires, as well as increased and more severe
storm events, are occurring. We will see storm activity accelerate as global air temperature increases
bring a higher water-holding capacity to the atmosphere. At the same time, we have lower water
retention in soils due to massive soil degradation. These two conditions lead to floods that, unfortunately,
fail to recharge aquifers, as the water runs off the land instead of soaking into it. Proper climate change
adaptation, especially in the sphere of agriculture, in order to avoid a food supply collapse, needs urgently
to reverse soil degradation.

Soil degradation is defined by FAO (the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations)
“as a change in the soil health status resulting in a diminished capacity of the ecosystem to provide goods
and services for its beneficiaries”. The soil loses the intrinsic physical, chemical, and/or biological qualities
necessary to be productive. Physical degradation is mainly due to erosion, itself due to tillage, bare soils

1
Considering only carbon taking part in the carbon cycle, excluding rock formations, volcanic emission potentials.
2
These are fossil fuels mostly not accessible at reasonable costs (eg. lose peat).
3
ie. converting forest into pasture, pasture into arable land, drying up wetlands…
4
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/4/2020/02/SPM_Updated-Jan20.pdf, p. 17.
5
Soil carbon sequestration is a process by which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and stored into the soil,
primarily mediated by plants through photosynthesis.
6
Even if we stopped emissions today in full, we would still attain +1.5C by the end of the century. +1.5C is an
average means much more on land than in the oceans.
(due to cultivation practices), overgrazing or undergrazing7. Chemical degradation is mainly due to use of
pesticides and fertilizers. As a result of physical and chemical degradation, biological degradation occurs:
progressive elimination of soil life through tillage (turning the soil to put aerobic life into an anaerobic
environment and while putting anaerobic life into an aerobic environment causing the mechanical
destruction of mycorrhizae8); fertilizing (through short-circuiting the soil life in the fertility cycle); and
insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides. By killing soil life and accelerating mineralization, soil degradation
oxidizes the carbon in soil, releasing it as CO2. The ability to retain water in the soil is also diminished,
leading to more droughts, even with increased precipitation, thus leading to more soil degradation. Soil
degradation is the leading factor to desertification.

The end result of soil degradation, left unchecked, is bio-diversity collapse. Recently, alarming
reports have documented the collapse of 75% of the insect biomass in Germany, as well as 25% to 75%
of bird populations, depending on the species. The 6th mass extinction, or Anthropocene extinction—the
ongoing extinction of species during the present Holocene epoch as a result of human activity—is not a
phenomenon of extinction of some species less adapted to human disturbance, it is a decrease of the
total biomass! 9 Large ecological imbalances invite pest10 invasions (especially true in the soil), which add
further stress to ecosystems.

The levels of carbon in the soil were much higher before heavy tilling became the norm. For example
in the US Midwest11 carbon in the soil is down from 7% to 2% since the use of heavy tillage . Soil carbon
is a key requirement for soil fertility. The use of fertilizers, combined with heavy tillage, have led to the
development of aerobic bacteria mineralizing the soil, thus oxidizing soil carbon into CO2. Despite the
importance of carbon in the soil in terms of its dual roles of creating healthy soil and sequestering
atmospheric carbon, the issue of land use change (as in the case of mineralization caused by soil
cultivation) has not been the focus of main-stream climate mitigation strategies. In addition, pasture
usage can also cause soil carbon decrease and ecosystem impairment through overgrazing (leading to
bare soils) and undergrazing (where mineralization of the old vegetation or controlled burning are used
to remove overgrown vegetation). Sadly carbon accounting does not count yet change in soil carbon
without land use change (as in the case of mineralization of the soil in cultivation). Ecosystem services—
such as natural soil fertilization, nutrient recycling, water purification, flood protection, pest and disease
control, soil stabilization (vs. erosion), and carbon sequestration—have been taken for granted and are in
a state of collapse, thus seriously endangering the food supply. Soil fertility degradation has accelerated
over the last 70 years, requiring the use of more and more fertilizers and pesticides, while yielding lower
quantities of food. What occurs is a negative spiral of more chemicals and pesticides destroying fertility,
thus requiring additional chemicals, and so on. The side effects are considerable: nitrogen fertilizers
produce N2O which is a greenhouse gas 265 times more potent than CO2; the health effects of endocrine
disruptors from pesticides are notable on rural populations and human fertility; and the use of
phosphorus, a nutrient essential for plant growth and which must be added to fields because erosion
washes it away, has reached such a high peak that phosphorus mines will be depleted in 35 years at the
current rate of usage.12

7
Undergrazing describes the degradation of the vegetation due to too few animals fertilizing the land, including
for instance in natural parks.
8
Fungi in a symbiotic relationship with most plants, allowing them to access nutrients and nitrogen in exchange
from sugars from photosynthesis.
9
This is not a degradation of the total biomass but a decrease of it, meaning not some species replacing other
(leading to less bio-diversity), but a decrease in life as a whole. For instance, when speaking of 75% insect biomass
less in Germany it means that the total mass of insects present decreased by 75% and so with birds. A very basic
example is the fact that in Ukraine 10 years ago you had lots of insects crashing on the front window of the car
when going outside town. Due to the occurrence of neonicotinoid pesticides, no more zero insects. And birds
simply starve.
10
Pest development is generally due to the elimination of predators and competitors.
11
In the Old world we do not find fertile land that had not been tilled until modern times as can be found in the US
Midwest. In Europe pastures would show 5% soil carbon and arable land 1-2%.
12
Actually consumption of it keeps accelerating
CONCEPT
The problems mentioned above are the consequence of the destruction of the natural equilibria in
the soil that enable the proper function of ecosystem services. The solution is to stop the destructive
processes, restart the proper, natural cycle, and possibly accelerate the natural healing processes. This
can be achieved by rewilding large areas.
At the same time, however, we cannot return to an age before agriculture where the world could
feed 100 mln people at most. We have to reconcile sustainable food production and natural ecosystems.
This can be achieved through permaculture, which is a holistic approach to food production. In the
largest sense, permaculture describes using a set of principles and practices to create sustainable living
communities. Here, the word is applied to the design of ecosystems which produce food by working with
Nature to let the ecosystem deploy its services naturally. Permaculture farms, such as the Ferme du Bec
Hellouin (fermedubec.com) in France have shown that 1 ha can employ up to 10 people at French
minimum wages while increasing humus from 1% to 6% and the carbon soil from 0.5% to 3% over 10
years13. Within permaculture, regenerative agriculture aims at restoring soil health and bio-diversity to
levels prior to intensive agriculture. In permaculture, 20 to 25% of the land is left as wild areas insuring
both biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Therefore, we propose a combination of rewilding and regenerative agriculture. Rewilding would be
used in flood areas, slopes, around waterbodies, and in bio-diversity corridors linked among themselves
across the regenerative fields.

Greatly increasing soil carbon amounts in a no-till, permaculture agricultural model is a significant
part of the solution to the above-mentioned problems by accomplishing the following:

a. stop emission of N2O from nitrogen fertilizers and of CO2 from soil carbon by stopping tilling and
chemical fertilisers, which lead to carbon oxidation
b. increase soil carbon up to 6%
c. increase water retention and transpiration, smoothing weather events
d. return soil life, replenish soils and increase their natural productivity
e. increase biodiversity and natural check and balances leading to natural pest control
f. stop erosion
g. allow for circular use of nutrients and avoid depletion of phosphorus reserves
h. decrease energy consumption from cultivation operations and the production and supply of
chemicals
i. allow for affordable and healthy food production without pesticides14
j. prepares the way for a post-oil economy and for post nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer agricultural
practices
k. good for local and stress-free employment in rural areas

Our project is based on perennial plants and trees in order to avoid tillage and uses plant
combinations to maximize the ecosystem services. For example, support plants help to fertilize food
plants and host bio-diverse auxiliaries (beneficial bacteria, fungi, worms, insects) necessary for a healthy
ecosystem. Large herbivores are also necessary for soil health and fertility. Plant materials need to be
recycled into the soil through the work of bacteria. If the climate is not moist, this can be performed only
inside the moist and warm digestive track of large herbivores, who provide bacteria with ideal, stable

13
Research reports: https://www.fermedubec.com/la-recherche/les-rapports-scientifiques/
14
Even “organic” labelled growers use pesticides, those pesticides are those listed in the label rules. Even if they
have mostly a mineral or organic origin, it does not mean they are not harmful (else they would not have effect).
Use of pesticides is dictated by monoculture (traditional or organic) and absence of biodiversity.
conditions. Without the help of support plants and herbivores, food plants oxidize the carbon which is
lost to the air instead of being recycled.
For those reasons, large herbivores are required both for the cultivated part and the rewilded part.
In the rewilded part, depending on the specific conditions they may also keep landscape open, savannah-
like, not allowing in certain place the emergence of close canopy forest, maintaining a diversity of biomes.
The combination of food-bearing trees and bushes with grazing farm animals is called silvopasture.
According to Project Drawdown (drawdown.org), silvopasture is an agroforestry practice that “integrates
trees, pasture, and forage into a single system. Incorporating trees improves land health and significantly
increases carbon sequestration.” Silvopasture improves the health and productivity of both the land and
the animals. In order, to accelerate regeneration, maximize bio-diversity and carbon sequestration, and
mitigate the impact of climate change on the project.
The main difference between wild spots and silvopasture would be in the choice of plants and trees:
indigenous for wild spots, food-bearing and timber for silvopasture. Also the choice of farm animals to be
used in silvopasture should not allow for interbreeding with wild animals (wild horse, saiga antelope,
European bison, red, fallow and roe deer, boars).

Compared to afforestation, silvopasture makes for food production, which is crucial we plan to use
degraded farmland, while purely taking out of production farmland would mean creating food shortages.
Ethically grown animal products will substitute for factory grown animals fed by chemical soil-depleting
monocultures. This also frees land used for animal feed (which covers more than half the farmland) for
other uses, including human plant consumption. It also does not use more water or produce more
methane than if left to wild animals, mostly ruminants. Also in comparing with afforestation, silvopasture
maximises the carbon sink, with more total biomass produced, especially in the soil, where it is less subject
to oxidation (ie. creating CO2 emissions), in particular it much less subject to fires, which are going to
expand to regions not subject to fires earlier (ie. Sweden, Siberia…). More soil carbon means also more
soil moisture and a green vegetation, less prone to fire and other oxidation processes. So not only it
captures more CO2 but also it is much more probable to keep it captured on the long term.

Afforestation projects often lean on forest monocultures in order to have an economic yield that can
support the projects. These are biodiversity deserts. A biodiverse forest is much better equipped against
illnesses, pests, droughts. Real life examples of forest monocultures are much more often than not, not
living up to even half of their carbon sink expectations15.
Other types of agroforestry could also yield similar results, but are not adapted to degraded land as
tillage would continue to damage soil life and humus content, and not profit from animal manure as a
way to jump-start the soil biome.
Conservation of existing forests is also very important but it is not an alternative to silvopasture as
forest conservation is not adding carbon sinks just keeping the existing ones. Additionally it s does not
deal with the other problems of soil fertility depletion, erosion,…

LOCATION and TIMING

The aim of the project is to be a full-scale demonstration for a scalable solution to a level enabling a
significant contribution in the fight against climate change and bio-diversity collapse. This requires
converting agrochemical farmland into regenerative farmland and rewilded land. As a demonstration,
subject to trial and errors, it needs to be tested where land and labour are cheap, making mistakes more
affordable.
Ukraine is about to liberalize its land market including 6.5 mln ha of degraded land16. From 1 July
2021, land owners—most of them pensioners from Soviet collective farms and their heirs—will be

15
The Economist, Climate change: the trouble with trees: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXkbdELr4EQ
16
http://www.fao.org/europe/news/detail-
news/en/c/1128337/#:~:text=FAO%20kicks%20off%20project%20aimed%20at%20tackling%20land%20degradatio
authorized to sell their land. Land is comparatively cheap, especially if it is degraded. The Agency for
Energy Efficiency and Energy Saving of Ukraine has prepared a draft law for the use of 1 mln ha of
degraded land in state or municipal ownership for energy or perennial crops.

INVESTMENT
Taking a conservative assumption of a 2% increase of soil carbon content (from 1% to 3%) over the
first 35cm from the surface over 10 years translates into a sequestration 33kg CO2/m2 or 330T CO2/ha.
Depending on the place, climate and culture chosen, this may include carbon stored in tree in sylvoculture
and biochar returned to the soil from pyrolysis of agrowaste or biomass crops. At the present 50EUR/T
CO217 that makes 13 200EUR/ha. Not counting N2O and CO2 avoided emissions, that would have been
emitted in case of continuing agrochemical agriculture.

Converting 100ha from agrochemical farmland into regenerative farmland and rewilded land,
including land purchase or rent, fencing, seeding, planting trees and bush, earthworks, watering for the
new trees18, some farming equipment, would cost from 4000 to 5000 EUR/ha (including the first 2 years
of operations) depending on the scope of works/specifications (whether the goal is maximizing soil carbon
over 10 years, or a longer period, or whether other goals with respect to wild life, rural employment or
organic food production are taken into account) . Operational costs would be covered by alternative
income streams from year 3.
Wild animals can be obtained from different foundations on a loan principle: you return part of the
progeny of the animals you received. Wild spots would cover 20-25% of the territory.

This provides for a base case scenario of investing 5000 EUR/ha to return the double over 10 years.

Risks consists mainly of:

- not inclusion of carbon farmed into soil and trees in the emission trading schemes pertinent to
Ukraine;
- the extent to which smaller case test case results can be achieved on a larger scale in the short run
(above we assumed 50% to be on the safe side and we did not count wood growth as carbon sequestration
as it depends on the specifications of the project);
- recognition of the methodology for soil carbon accounting (some methodologies have been
promoted ie. by the French Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the German Federal Ministry of Food
and Agriculture within its 4 per 1000 initiative19 presented at the COP 21 in Paris).

The demonstration phase of the project should cover from 50 to 500ha depending on available
financing. These are areas that are realistic to find in regions of Ukraine with poorer soils where farmers-
tenants have exhausted an already poor soil, which is an opportunity for us to regrow it healthy!

Scalability means also that you help getting full-scale a project that has the potential to make a real
change. Ukraine emits 233 mln T CO2 /year, Germany 755 mln T CO2 /year. A full offset would require
under the assumptions above 6 983 017 ha and 22 627 373 ha respectively. Ukraine’s own degraded land

n%20in%20Ukraine,-
The%20first%20National&text=The%20area%20of%20degraded%20and,are%20lost%20due%20to%20erosion.
17
https://www.ft.com/content/2b965427-4fbc-4f2a-a14f-3be6019f0a7c There are variable estimation of the price
of CO2 for the years to come, but all agrees it needs to increase (40 to 75 eur/T) seriously if we want to head
towards carbon neutrality still in this century. https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/imf-75-per-ton-
carbon-price-needed-by-2030-to-meet-climate-
challenge/#:~:text=Economists%20have%20long%20agreed%20that,%2475%20per%20ton%20by%202030.
18
Although this may seem contradictory as obviously in nature you have no irrigation, we do not have the time for
nature to let grow new trees only in best years.
19
https://www.4p1000.org/
(6.5 mln ha) would more than suffice for covering its carbon emission alone. Obviously other countries
have less land available but still it shows this be a significant factor, bringing many other benefits as seen
above.

INVESTORS’ PROFILE
This investment can be interesting to people and companies wanting to offset their carbon emission
or to have an exposure/hedge to carbon emission prices.

Obviously for ethical investors or charities committed to funding a future with less climate change
and healthier food. Contrarily to donation to "climate projects", or buying dubious carbon credits to
people who "would have otherwise polluted" or "would have otherwise cut the forest", you can have
tangible carbon pile up. This while producing organic food.

But also for people or institutions wanting to give a chance to start new approaches, to fight climate
change not with more of the technology that made the mess in the first place, but with the only proven
method of carbon sequestration (with millions of years of track-record!) and at a very affordable cost20,
without counting the fact that it brings lots of other advantages for free.

CONTACTS
Loic Lerminiaux
[email protected]
+380935099077

20
Especially compared to estimates for yet unproven carbon capture and sequestration technologies ranging from
50 to 250$/T CO2 without even provisioning for accidental releases from storage.