measuring our impact

[Ananda Fitzsimmons]

Hello ERA members,

Most of the impact measurements related to climate change are through the lens of carbon tunnel vision. Measurements related to water and biodiversity are commonly thought of as secondary benefits. We have been thinking about how ERA can bring forward a framework of impact measurement and reporting that is more in line with our holistic view of how nature's complexity regulates climate and how restoring nature and the natural cooling mechanisms of intact ecosystems are the most effective pathways to counter catastrophic climate change.

Imagine if we could either adopt or develop a methodology for ERA members which would enable us to have a unified way to report on and consolidate our restoration efforts. When we first began, we wanted to gather a membership and report on acres regenerated for the X Prize. But clearly we need more than a claim of regeneration. We need a user-friendly methodology we can all use to validate our claims.

We would love to hear our members' thoughts about this, methods you use, methods you like. Ultimately we would love to have a working committee to propose a methodology for ERA and its members to help us consolidate data and communicate our impacts. Please share your thoughts in this thread and if anyone is interested in participating in a working committee to develop a proposal for a unified MRV system (Measurement, Reporting, Verification) please let us know.

For the steering committee,

		ANANDA FITZSIMMONS Présidente du conseil d'administration President of the Board of Directors regenerationcanada.org 438 820 1760

[Jamaica Stevens]

Hi Ananda,

It's been a long time friend. I hope that you are well! 

I just wanted to note that on the Open Impact platform we launched our impact dashboard builder and have several great use cases of organizations and networks reporting on and sharing the outcomes of their impacts. If this tool would be of service to your intentions to gather and showcase ERA network wide impacts- we'd be happy to discuss how we can support!

We also have the resource publishing tool in case a resource library function would serve ERA.

When we saw John in NY for Climate Week we mentioned coming to an ERA to call share updates and make sure the network knows what we're up to and how it might support the good work of ERA and it's members.

No pressure- just a reminder we are here in partnership.

Best to you!

Jamaica

--
View this message at https://groups.google.com/a/googlegroups.com/d/msg/ecorestoration-alliance/topic-id/message-id
 
Group emails flooding your inbox? Click here: https://groups.google.com/g/ecorestoration-alliance/settings#email
 
Our website is at http://EcorestorationAlliance.org/
Our calendar is at https://tinyurl.com/EcoResCalendar
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "EcoRestoration Alliance" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ecorestoration-al...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/CANRmXiYNCviKJQBqUP7Tc71vDNX2ddiY3dBvecWuo3AKVm%2BouQ%40mail.gmail.com.

--

Jamaica Stevens Co-Founder & CCO jam...@openfuturecoalition.org openfuturecoalition.org OFC Partner Deck Global impact through local resilience

[Fred Jennings]

Ananda:

Jim Laurie of Bio4Climate has long talked about "leaf area index" as a measure of greenery. I don't know how easily measurable this index is, but it might be a start for us. Worth some discussion and consideration, anyway...

Fred Jennings

Here's just a tiny snippet:

The Leaf Area Index (LAI) is a dimensionless measure that quantifies the total leaf area of a plant canopy relative to the ground area it covers, providing insights into plant growth, photosynthesis, and ecosystem dynamics.

Definition and Significance

The Leaf Area Index (LAI) is defined as the one-sided leaf area per unit ground area, typically expressed in square meters of leaf

area per square meter of ground area (m²/m²). It is a crucial metric in ecology and agriculture, as it helps to assess the density of foliage in a given area, which

directly influences photosynthesis, transpiration, and light interception. LAI values can range from 0 (bare ground) to over 10 (dense forests), with different

ecosystems exhibiting varying LAI values. For instance, desert ecosystems may

have an LAI of less than 1, while tropical rainforests can reach values as high as 9. 

Wikipedia+2

Measurement Methods

LAI can be measured using both direct and indirect methods:

• Direct Methods: These involve physically collecting leaves from a defined area and measuring their total leaf area using tools like leaf area meters. This method is
• often considered destructive as it requires harvesting leaves. 

  1
• Indirect Methods: These include techniques such as hemispherical photography,
• where wide-angle images of the canopy are taken to estimate LAI based on light penetration
• and canopy structure. These methods are non-destructive and allow for repeated measurements over time. 

  2
• 

  

  2 Sources

Applications

LAI is widely used in various fields, including:

• Agriculture: Understanding LAI helps farmers optimize irrigation, fertilization, and
• crop management practices, leading to improved crop yields and resource
• efficiency. 

  1
• Ecology: LAI is a key variable in ecological models that predict photosynthetic
• productivity, evapotranspiration, and energy balance within ecosystems. 

  2
• Climate Studies: By quantifying leaf area, LAI contributes to understanding carbon and water cycles, making it essential for climate modeling and environmental
• assessments. 

  2

  
  In summary, the Leaf Area Index is a vital ecological metric that provides insights
• into plant health, productivity, and the interactions between vegetation and the
• environment. Its measurement and application are crucial for advancing
• agricultural practices and ecological research.

--

[Ananda Fitzsimmons]

Hi Ananda,

I am happy to elaborate on how we might measure our impact.

Professor James Hansen has shifted from using CO2 equivalent to watts per square meter (W/m²) for measuring climate impact. This metric quantifies the energy flux imbalance: the difference between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared heat radiated by Earth. To achieve climate balance, these two fluxes must be equal.

I propose that the EcoRestoration Alliance adopt W/m² as our primary metric (vertical axis) and measure our impact across all three legs of the Climate Triad:

1.  Emissions Reduction: Actions like marine permaculture can reduce the carbon intensity of food production. The resulting reduction in greenhouse gases can be directly converted to W/m², providing a valuable radiative forcing perspective.
2.  Carbon Removal: Long-term carbon sequestration efforts reduce atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, positively impacting the planet’s radiative balance.
3.  Climate Repair: This provides local and regional methods to "rebrighten" the planet, empowering communities to reverse deleterious effects like local cloud disruption. For example, rebrightening low-level marine clouds offers a local intervention that can be applied across multiple biospheres, from Panama to the Philippines, and from pole to pole.

Adopting W/m² will allow us to consolidate our efforts and demonstrate the necessary actions across all three axes of the Climate Triad required to sustain civilization.

Best,
Brian

		ANANDA FITZSIMMONS Présidente du conseil d'administration President of the Board of Directors regenerationcanada.org 438 820 1760

[Michael Pilarski]

Exciting discussion! 

We should have this discussed at the Global Earth Repair Convergence.  

Another metric I would like to see (which is similar to leaf index) is the amount of bare ground which is regreened/covered with plant canopy.  It is bare ground that makes such a heat island affect compared to even a lawn.  Of course the leaf index in a good agroforestry system or natural forest is way higher than grass or short-statured plants.  So there are varying levels of green or depths of green,  But it is regreening that is so important. Degraded lands, farmland and urban areas all need greening.  I think that can be quantified through satellite these days?  Who is keeping track of those measurements?

Michael "Skeeter" Pilarski

Earth Repair - Permaculture - Agroforestry - Wildcrafting - Medicinal Herbs

Global Earth Repair Foundation

Friends of the Trees Botanicals

Friends of the Trees Society

NW Herbal Fair

Fairy Congress

PO Box 1133
Port Hadlock, WA 98339
# (360)-643-9178

I acknowledge that I live on the stolen lands of the Chemacum, S'Klallam and Klallam Peoples.

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/CANRmXiZ08gAGz%2BOQNPmNvdbADrE%2BtQNDF8dVv-10PaKjFg7FyA%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Ragu Bharadwaj]

Hi Michael,

LiDAR measurements can precisely quantify the amount of greenery above ground with various additional data too (see https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12175234/). NASA uses space borne lidar for such purposes. They have an interesting course on how to use their data at https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/trainings/spaceborne-lidar-monitoring-vegetation-structure-biomass-using-gedi/

cheers

-Ragu

  

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/1823230541.1799489.1764727475647%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Hart Hagan]

Hi, Ananda.

What I hear you saying is that you are looking for a methodology that measures outcomes of ecological restoration, other than just CO2. In that regard, I have been favorably impressed with Jonathan Lundgren's work, as set forth in this paper: Defining and validating regenerative farm systems... | F1000Research

Lundgren divided regenerative agriculture into three types: crop farming, orchards and livestock farming. In each case, he developed a list of criteria, such that the farmer or rancher can determine a score from 0 to 8, with zero being conventional and 8 being regenerative.  The criteria include whether there is tillage, chemical fertilizers, monocultures, etc. The measured outcomes include soil carbon and organic matter, soil micronutrients, water infiltration rates, soil microbial communities, plant community structure, invertebrate community structure, pest populations, yields, and profit. 

Lundgren's system only applies to farming. What about forests? Well, I think a similar methodology could be developed for forests and forestry. This is a system that is easy for the farmer to use. It generates a correlation between practices and outcomes. And it puts farmers in the role of scientist, or at least close observers of their land. And it gives farmers something to talk about with each other.

As opposed to what? As opposed to being certified organic. Nothing wrong with being certified organic, but it is not extremely easy to use, some of the criteria are arbitrary (e.g., allowing tillage, which is damaging), and there is no simple or easy correlation between practices and outcomes. 

As opposed to what else? As opposed to "regenerative" that has no real definition. Lundgren's model measures whether a farm or ranch is regenerative, on a scale of 0 to 8, and then seeks to correlate the score with outcomes. Apart from this type of approach, the word regenerative can be used for greenwashing because it has no real definition. I can say that regenerative means regenerating the soil and the surrounding ecosystems, including activating the soil sponge and regenerating the streams and the groundwater. But that is not easily quantifiable. Lundgren has developed a system where "regenerative" is quantifiable.

Again, Lundgren has not developed a system for forestry, only cropping, livestock and orchards. However, I believe it would not be hard to develop a model for forestry. Farms and forests together cover a lot of land. 

Below is an excerpt from the article that I wrote explaining Lundgren's system: 

What is Regenerative Farming, from a Scientific Standpoint, and Why Should We Care?

****

Lundgren and colleagues want a way of defining regenerative agriculture, because without a definition, it becomes just a word and anyone can claim to be regenerative.

Which farming systems did they study?

They chose to study three systems, one involving annual crops, one involving trees and one involving livestock.

Study systems included:

• cornfields of the Upper Midwest,

• almond orchards of California, and

• rangeland systems of the Northern Plains.

What questions did they ask?

They examined the following questions:

• How does the land respond?

• How does the soil respond?

• How does the water respond?

• How much water soaks into the ground?

• How does the nutritional content of the soil change?

• How do pest populations respond?

• Do yields go up?

• What happens to farm profits?

What are the outcomes that they measured?

The outcomes they are measuring include:

1. soil carbon and organic matter,

2. soil micronutrients,

3. water infiltration rates,

4. soil microbial communities,

5. plant community structure,

6. invertebrate community structure,

7. pest populations,

8. yields, and

9. profit

This means that if regenerative agriculture actually serves to regenerate the soil and the ecosystems, then farms that have higher scores (defined below) will exhibit these nine items in greater measure.

Hereafter, I will set forth quotes, with each quote followed by an explanation.

Did regenerative outcomes correlate to farm scores?

“Regenerative outcomes were strongly correlated with our approach to farm scoring.”

We will describe farm scoring below, but for now …

The following responded positively to regenerative practices:

• Soil organic matter

• total soil carbon

• total soil nitrogen

• Phosphorus

• calcium

• sulfur

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ecorestoration-alliance/06974EF5-CE5C-4914-9C98-DA145AFDD476%40nyrasta.com.