Organised by : Climate Change and Environmental Risks Unit,
Environment Directorate, DG- Research
European Commission
1

The carbon cycle is one of the fundamental processes in the functioning of earth system and is directly connected to climate change. Rising atmospheric CO2 and to a lesser extent
CH4 concentrations over the past 200 years have driven substantially global warming, which in turn could trigger the release to the atmosphere of additional carbon from the oceans and the terrestrial ecosystems, thus accelerating climate change. The interactions and feedback mechanisms between the climate-earth system and the carbon cycle constitute one of the key scientific challenges today.
Without an accurate, as possible, quantification of greenhouse gas sources and sinks (both natural and anthropogenic) and an adequate understanding of the dynamics and nonlinearities governing the carbon-earth-climate system any serious attempt to conditionally predict future climate and its associated impacts as well as any attempt to ensure an economically feasible and socio-politically appropriate mitigation strategy will be futile.
Because of these important socio-economic and policy implications, research on carbon cycle and greenhouse gases (GHGs) has been strongly supported during the 5 th and 6 th
Framework Programs (FP). Numerous projects have been financed by the European
Commission on this topic. Information on these projects can be found in the EC publication 'European Research on Climate Change: Catalogue of FP5 and FP6 Projects on
Carbon Cycle and Green House Gases' (the publication can be downloaded from http://ec.europa.eu/research/environment/newsanddoc/other_pubs_en.htm
).
Within the 7 th FP, carbon cycle and GHGs remains a key priority under the
'Environment (including Climate Change)' theme.
On the 5 th of October 2007, the Climate Change and Environmental Risks Unit
(Environment Directorate, DG-RTD) organised a one-day expert consultation workshop in Brussels entitled 'EU-funded research on carbon cycle and GHGs: Current state of the art, policy implications and future research needs'.
Eleven leading European scientists on this topic were invited to present their views and discuss together with EC officials a) the main results of current activities and their policy implications and b) the open issues, key uncertainties and future research needs that need to be addressed in the coming years under FP7. Furthermore, discussions on how to integrate better the different scientific communities and disciplines involved (including the socio-economic dimension), and the various dissemination actions that might be employed (including an assessment report) also took place during the workshop.
The present summary outlines the key issues discussed during this one-day workshop.
I would like to thank all participants for their availability, ideas and valuable comments during this event. Special thanks go the two rapporteurs: Christoph Heinze and Annette
Freibauer for successfully converting the animated discussions into an articulated text.
Anastasios Kentarchos
Climate Change and Environmental Risks Unit
Environment Directorate, DG-Research
European Commission anastasios.kentarchos@ec.europa.eu
2

PART A: terrestrial ecosystems
1. Current state-of-the-art
2. Future research needs
PART B: ocean ecosystems
1. Current state-of-the-art
2. Future research needs
Annex I: list of invited experts pages 4-11 pages 12-20 pages 21-22
3

Rapporteur: Annette Freibauer, Max-Planck-Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena,
Germany (afreib@bgc-jena.mpg.de, phone +49-3641-576164)
► CarboEurope-IP “Assessment of the European Terrestrial Carbon Balance” is the largest running European research project on terrestrial carbon cycle.
The overarching aim of CarboEurope-IP is to understand and quantify the terrestrial carbon balance of Europe and associated uncertainties at local, regional and continental scale.
CarboEurope-IP addresses the following topics and associated questions:
1.
”The European Carbon Balance” What is the carbon balance of the European continent and its geographical pattern, and how does it change over time?
2.
”Processes and Modeling” What are the controlling mechanisms of carbon cycling in European ecosystems? How do external parameters such as climate change and variability, and changing land management affect the European carbon balance?
3.
”Detection of Kyoto” Can the effective CO
2
reduction in the atmosphere in response to fossil fuel emission reduction and enhanced carbon sequestration on land be detected in the context of the Kyoto commitments of Europe?
► NitroEurope IP “The nitrogen cycle and its influence on the European greenhouse gas balance”
is the largest running European research project about the terrestrial nitrogen cycle.
The NitroEurope IP – or NEU for short – addresses the major question: What is the effect of reactive nitrogen supply on the direction and magnitude of net greenhouse gas budgets for Europe?
Key component questions related to this include:
1.
What are the quantitative components of ecosystem N budgets and how do these respond to global change? How much does the form of reactive N (oxidized vs. reduced, wet vs. dry, agricultural application vs. atmospheric deposition) affect ecosystem response, N and C budgets and Net Greenhouse Gas Exchange
(NGE)?
4

2.
What is the effect of changes in atmospheric N deposition and agricultural N inputs over recent decades on the net CO2 uptake and NGE of European ecosystems? Can we simulate the effects of land-management, land-use and climate change on NGE at plot, landscape, regional and European scales?
3.
How and to what extent can independent measurement and modelling be used to verify greenhouse gas (GHG) and Nr emission inventories officially submitted to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the UNECE
Convention on Long-Range Trans-boundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP)? How can the accuracy of these inventories be improved?
4.
To what extent would a more-integrated management of the N-cycle and its interactions with the C-cycle have potential to reduce greenhouse gas and Nr emissions simultaneously?
► Objectives of small and medium size projects in FP4, FP5 and FP6:
The aim of past and ongoing research was to
1.
understand and quantify the present terrestrial carbon balance and the associated uncertainty at local, regional and continental scale in Europe and other vulnerable regions: Boreal and Arctic Russia, Amazonia and Africa
2.
understand the response of selected ecosystems to artificial drought and rain and elevated CO2, and to thawing of permafrost
3.
quantify management options to sequester carbon in European ecosystems
Geographical and temporal patterns
European researchers have pioneered the integrative multiple constraint approach to understand and quantify the terrestrial carbon exchange from local to continental scale. This has been achieved by the strong integration of researchers from different disciplines, to develop a unique observational, consistent data set of ecosystem and atmospheric observations that allow the analysis of patterns and processes. Another success is the integration across the atmosphere and ecosystem boundaries, to arrive at multiple regional constraints of the C balance. This integration was a major, worldleading achievement, and associated with significant investment of capital and labour into integrated observations. This integration and long-term observational basis gave us for the first time the chance to observe consistent ecosystem response patterns to climate variability, e.g. the 2003 heat and drought wave, by multiple constraints. The
European terrestrial C balance is currently being updated with new model results.
Understanding of processes and mechanisms of biosphere-climate interactions
The complex interaction of temperature and water availability drives most of the inter-annual variability in ecosystem C balance, and subtle differences, in particular at the beginning and end of the growing season, contribute most to inter-annual variability in the European terrestrial C balance unless strong climatic anomalies like in summer 2003, 2005 (and maybe winter 2006/2007) occur in other seasons.
State-of-the-art terrestrial ecosystem models can realistically reproduce the spatial patterns in ecosystem C losses due to strong heat and drought disturbance, but disagree regarding the underlying processes – whether the C loss resulted from reduced C uptake by the vegetation or relatively more soil respiration.
5

Verification of CO
2
emission reductions
The combination of high resolution fossil fuel emission maps with measurements of
14
CO
2
concentrations allowed for the first time for two pilot regions in Germany and
France to verify that no CO
2
emission reductions have been achieved since 1990.
Changes of about 7-26% in fossil fuel emissions in respective catchments areas could be detected with confidence by high-precision atmospheric
14
CO
2
measurements when comparing 5-year averages, if inter-annual variations were taken into account.
Open issues
Significant progress has been made in the last decade regarding the diagnostics and regional understanding of the terrestrial carbon cycle. However, there are still major knowledge gaps in the geographical patterns of the terrestrial carbon cycle in critical world regions undergoing rapid change, in understanding the dynamic feedbacks with the climate system, and ecosystem response to human pressures. Soil processes are still poorly understood. Ecosystem models need to be further developed to include land use and management. Atmospheric models need to be able to make use of multiple tracers to reduce major sources of uncertainty in regional C budgets. Filling these gaps will also make our projections of the carbon cycle and the coupled climate system less uncertain.
Long-term continuous, consistent, high-quality, coordinated in situ observations of the terrestrial carbon cycle and trace gases in the atmosphere are the backbone for improving our understanding and prognostic capacity. They need to be sustained for the next years until they can move into operational mode.
2.1.1 Larger research context:
The terrestrial biosphere represents the major vulnerable global C pool and is the strongest source of uncertainty in the carbon cycle at present and in the next decades, the time frame in which the pathway of future climate will be decided. The land biosphere stores about 2,500 Pg C in vegetation and soils. Up to a quarter of the terrestrial C pools could be destabilized by climate change directly , by climaterelated factors such as fire and permafrost dynamics , and human land management within the next century – a strong positive feedback to climate change. The magnitude of the feedback between land and climate will determine over the next decades how ambitious climate change mitigation measures need to be and how much adaptation is necessary - a clear issue of social and economic costs.
Our knowledge is still far from understanding the non-linearities and magnitude of feedbacks between terrestrial ecosystems and the climate system and how and how much of them can be managed. This knowledge is the prerequisite for avoiding dangerous climate change and to develop cost-effective abatement and adaptation strategies.
6

To guide future land use decisions towards climate-protectiveness we need to quantify the full radiative forcing of land use and land management, including the greenhouse gases CO
2
, CH
4
, N
2
O, albedo, sensible and latent heat fluxes altering the regional energy budget of the atmosphere, and the resulting feedbacks with regional climate . The ultimate goal is to develop locally and regionally adapted, climate-protective land management systems that fulfil the increasing demand for products by an increasing global population, social and economic conditions, changing life styles and dynamic international markets, that also comply with the demand for other ecosystem services and environmental constraints, in particular water, nitrogen and biodiversity, and to define adequate political frame conditions to implement them.
2.1.2 Rescue of the in situ observational backbone:
Europe has the densest, best integrated research network of in situ observations of ecosystem carbon and nitrogen fluxes and atmospheric trace gas concentrations .
This was a major investment and achievement of the past research programmes .
The observations have discovered surprises in the ecosystem response to climate related extremes, given valuable insight into processes, unraveled flaws in current model parameterizations and verified regional anthropogenic inventories of fossil fuel emissions. Observations show that the earth system is changing in a way that even the presently most complex models do not capture.
The GMES operational services have identified C-N in situ observations and model output as critical requirement. The observational networks need to be prepared to shift from research to operational mode by 2012. However, GMES has no scope for in situ observations until 2011.
The C observations on land, in the atmosphere and oceans are only secured until the end of 2008. There is an urgent need for rescuing the valuable observational basis.
Initial discussions indicate that a joint terrestrial/ocean observation network might be most promising.
According to the pressing research needs, several projects need to be pursued with high priority:
1.
An integrated terrestrial carbon and GHG assessment to separate natural and human drivers of the terrestrial C balance (large-scale)
2.
Maintaining, improving and integrating in situ observations.
3.
Platform to synthesize the results of the many past and ongoing terrestrial projects (e.g., Concerted Action)
4.
Specific research on hotspots of climate impacts and feedbacks in critical regions of the globe (Africa, Amazon, northern Russia)
5.
Specific research on understanding the coupling between carbon and water cycles, carbon and nutrient cycles, and innovative approaches and methodologies.
6.
Adaptation and mitigation: can we manage vulnerable C pools ?
7.
Land-atmosphere-ocean integration
7

1. Attribution of regional changes in the carbon budget from 1990 to 2012 to human and natural drivers
Research should quantify, using ecosystem, atmospheric and ancillary observations and models, the annual to decadal changes in the carbon and GHG budget of Europe from 1990 to 2012 driven by climate and atmospheric composition, fossil fuel emissions, and land use. Observations should be expanded to under-sampled regions and to cover CO
2
, CH
4
, N
2
O, and lateral C fluxes from local to continental scale.
Emphasis should be laid on the European continent as a whole and on critical
European regions with rapid socio-economic and/or climate-driven changes. Data assimilation systems and advanced biosphere and earth system models need to be further developed to include more realism in land use and management. Methods need to be improved to quantify and verify patterns and changes in anthropogenic GHG emissions.
A major integrated effort is needed between research communities, observations, methodological improvement, experiments, models, scientists in the fields of atmosphere, energy and ecosystems to bridge between the natural sciences and the human dimensions and the research community for inventories from human sectors.
The project will act as a template for a global synthesis envisaged by the Global
Carbon Project and in light of future needs by IPCC and therefore needs to act as the central European platform. A significant fraction of the ongoing long-term observations needs to be sustained to study trends and decadal ecosystem response to climate stress and management until operational support may become available through ICOS after 2011. The vulnerability of land biosphere and the risk of positive feedbacks will also be addressed by heavily building the land carbon models constrained by observations. Therefore, a large project is needed.
2. Maintaining, improving and integrating in situ observations on land, atmosphere and ocean
A high-quality integrated backbone of systematic, continuous, in situ observations needs to be sustained for the coming 4-5 years before it can be moved from research into more operational mode under the ICOS infrastructure. It should be explored whether the existing systematic networks of atmosphere, land and ocean observations of C and GHGs can be united and made consistent with the needs of policy during the first Kyoto commitment period (e.g., verification, expansion to under-sampled regions,…). Methodological improvement needs to be made to bridge the gap between the existing observational scales and to improve the link between in situ and satellite based observations. Links could be established to the operational N (and partly air pollution) monitoring networks.
3. Integration and synthesis of the terrestrial carbon cycle
Past and ongoing research projects at national and European level have produced a wealth of data and knowledge to be synthesized and analyzed in synergy with parallel research programs in other world regions. In FP6, CarboEurope-IP has successfully operated as a platform to integrate research and to stimulate synthesis activities beyond the formal project boundaries.
Due to the anticipated smaller partnership and size of a European project under FP7, the critical mass and dynamics will be lost.
Therefore, a co-ordination project for terrestrial carbon is needed that acts as a platform for exchange of new views, maintains the integration of research communities and produces new synthesis. This platform should also bridge to
8

programs in other world regions. In order not to lose pace and help maintaining the integration of the research teams, a co-ordination action should start very soon after the end of CarboEurope-IP, best in 2009.
4. Carbon cycle and global climate: hotspots
Climate change will impact large terrestrial carbon pools in the Earth System directly through changes in productivity and soil respiration and indirectly through such climate-related factors as fire frequency and intensity and permafrost dynamics.
Carbon feedbacks of global significance can be expected from tropical to boreal forest regions, other fire-prone ecosystems and permafrost regions. Research should be continued and intensified to better understand the effects of ecosystem disturbance by climate-, fire- and permafrost dynamics in key regions such as the Amazon, sub-
Saharan Africa and northern Russia.
5. Specific research on understanding the coupling between carbon and water cycles and carbon and nutrient cycles (Small to medium projects)
Our predictive capacity of the terrestrial carbon cycle is limited by the unknown coupling and feedbacks between the major global matter cycles. Research should quantify and understand, using experiments, observations and models, the coupling between the carbon and water cycle and the carbon and other nutrient cycles, in particular the nitrogen cycle. Research should elucidate fundamental coupling mechanisms from the process level to the scale of regional carbon-climate feedbacks in vulnerable regions, and test innovative approaches and methodologies.
6. Adaptation and mitigation: Can we manage the vulnerable C pools?
Research should quantify climate change impacts and adaptation and mitigation options at the local to regional level. Observations, economic, biophysical and climate models need to be linked to develop region-specific solutions.
7. Land – atmosphere – ocean integration
Synthesis between land and ocean is being addressed by the COCOS Concerted
Action – bringing observations together. At present, the major uncertainties and research needs differ between the land and ocean C community so the land and ocean research should continue to move in parallel, maybe with some shared workpackages. A potential area for synergy is the Technological developments and innovation of methods and sensors.
At a later point research projects should quantify the C exchange at the interface between land and ocean. Improvement of coupled land – ocean – atmosphere models and atmospheric inversions could also be part of the Climate Part of the Environment
Theme.
► Assessment report about past research
An assessment report about past carbon and GHG research was suggested by the
Commission targeted mainly at policy makers.
Contents: big results, fundamental questions, scientific vision, implications for policy, strategic vision for the coming years.
Time frame: 8-12 months from now, as preparation for a big conference (cf. below)
9

Deadline: Autumn 2008
The writing should best be done by a professional science writer, supported by key members of the past projects.
► Big conference (mainly addressed to policy makers)
Big stand-alone conference to launch report in the end of 2008 (with Excursion for journalists).
► COP14 big side event
10

Appendix I : Past and running projects (terrestrial carbon cycle)
FP4: naissance of the core of the terrestrial and atmospheric observing networks, transect studies in forest ecosystems regarding C balance and C-N interactions in
Europe
Critical world regions: northern Russia
Key projects under “Environment”:
1.
Canif
2.
Euroflux
3.
Escoba
4.
Eurosiberian Carbonflux
5.
TUNDRA
6.
CONGAS
FP5: first level of integration of terrestrial C research by the CarboEurope cluster: expansion of research to managed grasslands, intensification of regional studies, feasibility study for regional airborne flux measurements
Key projects under “Environment”:
1.
Aerocarb
2.
Camels
3.
Carbo-Age
4.
Carboeuroflux
5.
Carbo-Invent
6.
CarboMont
7.
Chiotto
8.
Euroflux
9.
Forcast
10.
Greengrass
11.
LBA Carbonsink
12.
Recab
13.
Silvistrat
14.
TCOS Siberia
15.
CarboEurope Accompanying Measure
16.
CarboEurope-GHG Concerted Action
Other EU projects: Siberia II, TACOS-Infrastructure
Critical world regions: Siberia, Amazonia
FP6: Full integration of observations and modelling of the terrestrial C balance of
Europe, expansion to croplands
Key projects under “Environment”:
1.
CarboAfrica,
2.
CarboEurope-IP
3.
CarboNorth
4.
NitroEurope IP
Other EU projects: INSEA, Geomon, IMECC, Agridema, PanAmazonia
Critical world regions: northern Russia, Africa, the Amazon region.
11

Rapporteur: Christoph Heinze, Univesity of Bergen, Norway (email: christoph.heinze@gfi.uib.no, phone: + 47 55589844)
Central to European marine carbon cycle research is the ongoing FP6 Integrated
Project CARBOOCEAN “Marine carbon sources and Sinks Assessment”
(1.Jan.2004-31.Dec.2009, 50 groups from Europe, Morocco, USA and Canada, budget 14.5 million EUR).
Key objective of the project is to narrow down the uncertainties in the quantification of the oceanic sink for anthropogenic carbon on a timescale of -200 to +200 years from now. The project focuses on the North Atlantic and Southern Ocean as key regions for vertical water mass transfer.
It includes a component on European regional seas and a firm link to the worldwide carbon cycle research community (especially in North America and Asia), among others through participation of the intergovernmental IOCCP (International Ocean
Carbon Coordination Project, UNESCO/IOC/SCOR) and Princeton University (USA) as contractors. CARBOOCEAN is endorsed by the three IGBP core projects SOLAS,
IMBER, and LOICZ. CARBOOCEAN carries out observations, process studies, modelling, future scenarios, and education (through the school project CarboSchools jointly with the terrestrial CarboEurope Integrated Project).
From the CARBOOCEAN project three major results emerge:
(1) Decrease in ocean CO
2
sink strength.
Both from direct observations (surface and deep programmes) and modelling (inverse, predictive), there emerge clear signs that the oceanic sinks for anthropogenic carbon in the North Atlantic and the
Southern Ocean are decreasing in strength. These areas up to now have efficiently served as the main areas to transfer carbon saturated water from the surface to the deep ocean. A decrease in anthropogenic carbon uptake kinetics could lead to a significant retention of additional CO
2
amounts in the atmosphere. It is not yet conclusively clarified whether this is a decadal variation or a persistent issue.
(2) Ocean uptake of anthropogenic CO2 and associated ocean acidification are proceeding.
By comparison of actual surface and deep measurements with measurements form previous projects and programmes, it can clearly be confirmed, that the ocean is a major sink of anthropogenic carbon and that the concentration of anthropogenic carbon in the ocean continuously increases. The associated effect on a decrease in ocean pHvalue (hydrogen ion activity increase, “ocean acidification”) can be traced in all oceanic depth levels from surface to deep. The calcium
12

carbonate saturation horizon is swallowing and is starting to dissolve sediment from the ocean bottom.
(3) The carbon cycle climate feedback reinforces climate change.
Future scenarios with prognostic models show that the net oceanic sink for anthropogenic carbon will always be positive globally averaged (i.e., from the atmosphere into the ocean), but that this sink will get less efficient with time. This is due to the combination of changes in ocean circulation during climate change (change in inorganic carbon transport, change in nutrient cycling and biological activity), rising temperatures, and rising CO2 concentrations (in atmosphere and ocean) which lead to the net effect of less efficient oceanic uptake (though single partial feedbacks can also be negative). These overall feedbacks (and their uncertainties) are in the order of magnitude of mitigation actions presently under discussion.
Next to these major scientific issues, CARBOOCEAN is carrying out data synthesis within a worldwide communicative research network on carbon data sets (surface
CO2 partial pressure, deep section data in the Atlantic) and has a strong outreach/educational component through CarboSchools (together with
CarboEurope IP) and other activities.
2.1.1 Larger research context:
Carbon dioxide (CO2) will continue to be the most important
– and in principle manageable
– driver of human induced climate change.
We need to: (a) quantify the fate of fossil fuel CO2 in the Earth system through an interdisciplinary research approach (observations, process studies, modelling; past – present – future; regional – global; physics – chemistry – biology- earth sciences), (b) quantify the consequences of carbon cycle changes for natural systems (short term, long term, impact through feedbacks, impact on ecosystems), and (c) evaluate this quantification in terms of potential mitigation options
(which ones may work, which ones will not work). Research on these issues is a
‘ conditio sine qua non
‘ for any knowledge based decision to secure sustainable development. The research is needed especially in view of the Kyoto time table : what will happen after year 2012? How can we accurately quantify the fossil fuel component in CO2 fluxes?
The ocean is a highly complex system
– it is continuously changing with respect to time and space. Physical, chemical, as well as biological processes are ongoing in all three dimensions over a broad spectrum of time scales. In order to quantify carbon fluxes in this system it is necessary to continuously observe the system. For any predictions (or projections) it is vital to deduce from the observations process knowledge and to incorporate this in realistic prognostic models.
Specific key questions of policy importance , which are addressed by marine carbon cycle research are:
(1) How is/was/will be the redistribution of man-made CO2 in the Earth system?
- How does the carbon sink change (space/time)?
- What are the couplings between circulation, temperature, and CO2 uptake?
13

- How much will the ocean take up under different emission scenarios – how to achieve climate stabilisation for a given target?
- Man-made CO2 as pollutant – how fast will the oceanic pH value change and where?
- How large are regional emissions on land (ocean does help to constrain quantifications)?
(2) What will be the carbon associated short and long term vulnerability of the environment?
- Are their surprises waiting: e.g., ocean circulation changes, methane hydrates?
- How do anthropogenic CO2 emissions impact on the Earth system in deep time in future (compare human action with paleoclimatology - no analogs, natural feedbacks)?
(3) What mitigation options are realistic?
- How to evaluate attempts to include oceans in Kyoto protocol type agreements?
- How to avoid useless or even dangerous mitigation attempts?
- How to evaluate geo-engineering attempts on deliberate CO2 storage?
2.1.2 What future research strategy is needed in terms of science?
For any future carbon cycle research strategy, therefore, the following two main issues are essential ( dual approach strategy ):
(1) Sustained observing systems for essential carbon variables are necessary as a backbone for any research – these observing systems include diagnostic models to interpolate between measurements and to upscale them. ( Bottom up approach )
(2) Optimised prognostic models (for predictions under future conditions) whose sensitivity and system dynamics is based on process studies and calibration to measurements. These calibrated models can then be used for situations where no data from measurements are available, especially for future scenarios. ( Top down approach )
With respect to these issues, we can specify concretely the following knowledge gaps and research needs :
(1) Ocean carbon observations need to be continued and further improved/developed . Highest priority has the sustainment of the surface ocean pCO2 observing system using VOS lines (Voluntary Observing Ships). Further needs include continuation of repeat hydrography (deep sections), time series stations, floats/buoys (carbon and oxygen), technical development of sensors and automated measurement systems, remote sensing of ground-thruthed key variables.
It was discussed that inclusion of a defined subset of ocean observations should potentially join the ICOS project (Integrated Carbon Observing System) as submitted and negotiated from the terrestrial community as a European research infrastructure project in order to sustain essential carbon cycle measurements. It has to be clarified in detail how such a “rucksack approach” for ocean observations under
ICOS could be realized. The oceanographers have to propose some infrastructure to
ICOS (potentially as a “sub-centre” under ICOS?). In case that ICOS indeed goes into operation, earliest start-up date will be 2012. We therefore must find a solution for: How to sustain observations after the end of CARBOOCEAN until ICOS starts 2012?
14

The time frame for the ocean community is equally pressing as for the terrestrial
CarboEurope community. Most EU funded marine carbon observing system are supported only until the end of 2008 (one year before CARBOOCEAN will end; 2009 is dedicated to data evaluation, modelling, and synthesis). They end at the same time as CarboEurope will finish.
(2) Predictive models of the ocean carbon cycle must be improved with respect to process parameterisations and the models’ sensitivity must be calibrated through use of observed data.
This means that true process representations must be fitted to true observations, so that not only one status in time is represented well, but rather – and most importantly - also changes (1 st derivative with respect to time) and rates of changes (2 nd derivative with respect to time). Such a model calibration is utterly necessary in order to step by step identify which model sensitivity is correct.
The challenge is to optimize coupled Earth system models appropriately. At present, it is even difficult to calibrate component models of the ocean alone through systematic data assimilation. Coupled models, however, produce their own weather and climate and hence cannot be so easily calibrated through real events (e.g., an El
Nino event will in most cases not appear at the same time in an Earth system model as in the real world). The marine data bases often are still insufficient to reveal proper statistics to which Earth system models could be calibrated. The research challenge therefore is, to confront ocean carbon cycle models with observations in a systematic way , so that the models predictive skill is improved. This methodological problem has to be solved urgently in order to narrow down uncertainties in future projections of the carbon cycle. It will be feasible to cal ibrate a part of the models’ sensitivity through consideration of the seasonal cycle and the glacial/interglacial changes in the carbon cycle and to introduce improved process parameterisations .
Further research challenges include the following issues:
(a) The biological pump in the ocean is strongly coupled to nutrient cycling (elemental cycles nitrogen, phosphorus, silicon, micronutrients such as Fe, Zn, etc.) and changes in oceanic circulation. How do the marine nutrient cycles change as a consequence of human activities and climate change? This includes the change in, e.g., methane and nitrous oxide, due to changes in stratification and biological production.
(b) How to couple the terrestrial and marine carbon cycles correctly together?
One option are clearly atmospheric inverse studies in order to diagnose the landatmosphere and sea-atmosphere fluxes simultaneously. These computations are diagnostic however, and are not suited to be used in future predictions. Evolving advanced earth system models offer further development options for inclusions of river transports, estuaries, and shelf sea systems.
(c) How to link oceanic carbon cycle models to economy ? Marine carbon cycle models rarely include an economic evaluation component. Here design work is necessary, essential impact areas have to be defined (e.g. consequences of ocean acidification), and economically relevant variables have to be identified.
According to the pressing research needs, two projects need to be pursued with high priority:
15

(1) “Backbone observations”.
A research project in order to “rescue” essential carbon observational programmes until the start of ICOS during the years 2009-
2012 (bridge gap until new observing system framework is in place). The term
“rescuing” is somehow inappropriate here – we need more than an emergency solution for marine, terrestrial, and atmospheric greenhouse gas observations
– we need a really strong programme supported by the EU, its member states, and associated nations. This project should first of all focus on the surface ocean/atmosphere CO2 fluxes starting from the North Atlantic observing system which has been build up. Further, however, a strengthening of time series stations, and essential deep sections from repeat hydrography should be included, as well as instrument development (sensors, automated equipment). Diagnostic inverse modelling must accompany the observing system in order to interpolate the measurements and upscale them to continuous basin wide integrated net fluxes of
CO2.
(2) “Calibration of Earth system models against observations”.
Component models of the ocean carbon cycle (physics, chemistry, biology) and coupled Earth system models have to be systematically calibrated, so that their sensitivity is as close as possible to the real world . Such a calibration must include the steps process parameterisation, development of optimization procedures (methodology), hindcasts, model optimisation with respect to observations ( data assimilation ), and future scenarios (including climate stabilisation experiments ).
Both projects could potentially be summarized in a “CARBOOCEAN-2” - type project which seamlessly follows CARBOOCEAN with a suitably adjusted consortium.
Alternatively, the projects could be coupled directly with corresponding terrestrial carbon cycle projects. The procedures and communities in the marine and terrestrial carbon cycle research communities are still quite different, so that separate marine and terrestrial projects with a strong forced crossproject component (“handshake tools” between the projects need to be implemented in this case) could be the most efficient way for the benefits of an easier project coordination and in order to stay focussed. Ideally the projects would be carried out in the form of one or two large collaborative projects. Given the already built up CARBOOCEAN framework, a continuation of essential observation and modelling activities with a refreshed focus could be most efficient.
General concern:
It will not be sufficient at all to include the VOS line network in ICOS, but the far more expensive components such as repeat hydrography and time series stations need also to be considered.
What alternatives should the ocean community envisage: ERA project? Additional ESFRI initiative? Not all of this research can be carried out by national programmes (see also integration issues below).
Carbon cycle research has become an overall challenging research adventure due to the necessary interdisciplinary coordination. A better interdisciplinary integration is needed in order to understand land processes also from the marine side and vice versa. At this stage, the terrestrial and marine research communities are still quite separate and in part have to stay like this in order to keep being focused. However, as the carbon cycle is a global phenomenon crossing over all Earth system reservoir
16

boundaries, a feasible link needs to be established and cultivated. A nice initiative was the greenhouse gas conference in Crete 2006 with attendees from
CARBOEUROPE, CARBOOCEAN, and NITROEUROPE. It revealed, however, that it is not always easy for everybody to cause or develop enthusiasm for areas of research, which one is not fully embedded in all the time. The COCOS proposal (and hopefully project) will be important to foster the link between the land and ocean community and also the 5-Oct-2007 workshop in Brussels showed the potential in cross discipline work. There was found agreement that we need a continuous platform for common interdisciplinary carbon cycle research in Europe (which is also linked to the other networks worldwide).
How to keep C cycle research projects in Europe together (keep network going)? Probably, parallel larger research projects and a common coordination action or “communication action” could be a good idea, so that the major research is done in separate projects tailored to the specific needs of the projects. Certain sub-problems (such as Earth system modelling) may be approached in separate additional projects in order to link ocean and land cycles closely together. Fully synchronous collaborative research projects
(same start and end dates) for land and ocean would potentially the most important issue in order to ensure a seamless cooperation between land and ocean communities.
Data management aspects : It is obvious that no one person, laboratory or country can produce sufficient data to address the questions we are currently asking
(whether the questions be European or Global). It logically follows that having all high quality data available to the public in an easily found place and easily usable format are required. This will require steady funding, but the total amount is small relative to the scientific return.
Certain sub-sets of carbon cycle related issues are being carried out in separate research initiatives (EU or nationally funded), e.g., the upcoming FP7 collaborative projects on “ocean acidification” and “impacts of climate variability and extreme events on terrestrial carbon storage, exchange flows and soil functioning”. These more specialized research projects cannot replace overall assessments of the terrestrial and oceanic carbon fluxes . E.g., the acidification project members can impossibly provide a measurement network, which sufficiently cover their needs themselves, but rely on cooperation with other projects (in this case
CARBOOCEAN). A project structure with marine and terrestrial integrating backbone projects and smaller specialized projects and in addition a coordinationcommunication-action seem the most practical way to go forward.
The link of research oriented carbon cycle measurements with more service oriented end user friendly data products should be enabled through GMES . The time frame and exact functioning of data transfer from research networks to end user interfaces needs better definition. It is hoped that a part of the operational service of ICOS is taken over by GMES. We are still in transition from research to operational observing systems (examples: ICOS, ARGO) and expect a certain sub-set to stay in the research realm.
So far, dissemination of project results and methods has been mostly a part of each separate research project. However, in view of the importance of dissemination when it comes to carbon and climate change (“everybody is a CO2 emitter”, energy, traffic,
CO2 emissions, and mitigation issues are daily in the mass media ), a “more orches trated approach” is necessary . This means, that the research
17

communities/research projects dealing with greenhouse gas research should crosslink and provide a concerted input to policy makers, decision makers in industry and education, and the general public . We have to promote our research in the same way as this was successfully done during the acid rain problem. Two instruments come to mind for achieving such a goal: (1) A greenhouse gas assessment report on relevant ongoing European research. (2) A European greenhouse gas conference bringing together scientists, policy makers, and other societal stakeholders.
Both instruments can be coupled, e.g., the assessment report could be presented on such a greenhouse gas conference.
(a) A greenhouse gas assessment report:
Tentative outline for “European greenhouse gas assessment report”:
What are the results that greenhouse gas cycle research has delivered?
What will be on the research agenda for the coming years?
What is important for policy makers (socio-economy, energy, mitigation/adaptation, the single person, how can behaviour be changed)?
One could follow the IPCC report type structure (by adding a bit more socioeconomic flavour, for example:
(1) Introduction: Greenhouse gases and climate forcing – human and natural.
(2) What policies are needed in the climate change context?
(3) Greenhouse gas evidence from observations – the world IS changing now.
(4) Understanding and predicting greenhouse budgets from models.
(5) Robust findings and key uncertainties – knowledge gaps and research needs in view of climate policy.
(b) A European greenhouse gas conference:
The agenda of such a conference would follow the major issues as raised in the assessment report.
A n example for such an event could be the “50th Anniversary of the Global Carbon
Dioxide Record Symposium and Celebration” (Hawaii, 28-30 Nov 2007, see http://co2conference.org/default2.asp) and their agenda:
 What We’ve Learned from the Global Record

Terrestrial Impacts, Feedbacks & Human Adaptation

Oceanic Impacts, Feedbacks & Human Adaptation

Energy Alternatives; Mitigation Options

Regionally Based Efforts to Control Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Economic Impacts
– Financial Incentives

Communicating Science to the Public

Future Measurements and Research
– What Will Be Needed?
For a European conference we may place the focus a little bit different:
(1)Greenhouse gases and climate forcing – what is at risk?
(2) The changing world in the greenhouse – what greenhouse gas observing systems deliver
(3) The future in the greenhouse – the potential of modelling for guiding informed decisions.
(4) Knowledge gaps and research needs in order to provide optimal guard rails for policy makers.
(5) Policy, economy, and education – facing the challenges from individuals to society.
Possible conference title:
18

“Greenhouse gas cycling and Europe – what we know, what we need to find out, and what we have to do”
Possible conference location and dates: end of 2008, beginning of 2009.
Brussels (European Commission) has several practical and political advantages. or
Paris (UNESCO) would also be a high visibility venue.
Potentially coupled to (see http://www.iisd.ca/upcoming/linkagesmeetings.asp?id=5 ):
- 14 th Conference of the parties to the UNFCCC and 4 th meeting of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol: 1-12 December 2008, Poznan, Poland.
- 15 th Conference of the parties to the UNFCCC and 4 th meeting of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol: 30 November 2009 - 11 December 2009. Copenhagen,
Denmark.
Potential invitees/participants:
Scientists (climate, earth sciences, economical evaluation).
Politicians (environment, economy, energy, foreign aid, education, science & technology).
Policy makers (relevant officers, members of parliament).
Educational sector (teachers, university directors).
Economy and industry (managers, trade unions, chamber of trade representatives, tourism, insurance, traffic, energy, bank, stock market).
Mass media (press, TV, web services).
Environmental agencies and services (such as weather services, libraries).
Infrastructural experts.
Maybe cover also anthropological, psychological and ethical/philosophical aspects
(How about minorities, e.g. in polar regions? What responsibilities do we have for others? How to handle threat and risk?)
(c) Further ideas on dissemination:
CarboSchools is an educative programme for secondary schools which will continue under Carboschools+.
Journalists may be shipped round (e.g., as group) to carbon flux measurement sites
(flux towers on land, ships of opportunity when they are in port; we also had journalists on research cruises and at the mesocosm laboratory site in
CARBOOCEAN).
19

Appendix II : Past and running marine C cycle related EU projects
Dedicated specifically targeted research – various approaches from different directions and different disciplines and for different regions:
FP4/MAST:
1. CARUSO
2. ESCOBA
3. ASGAMAGE
4. CANIGO
5. SINOPS
6. OMEX I and OMEX II
7. IMCORP
8. MERLIM
9. ESOP I and ESOP II
10. OCMIP I & II
11. BIOGEST
Progressing combination of field data, modeling, and process studies within single projects - bridging disciplines, building observing systems, developing prognostic models, dedicated researcher training:
FP5:
1. ORFOIS
2. IRONAGES
3. TRACTOR
4. CAVASSOO
5. EUROTROPH
6. OCMIP (phase 1 and phase 2)
7. GREENCYCLES
8. GOSAC
9. NAOC
10. NOCES
Interdisciplinary synthesis of specific ocean sciences problems, development of prototype observing/prediction systems, pooling knowledge across the disciplines:
FP6:
1. CARBOOCEAN (IP)
2. Eur-Oceans (NoE)
3. MERSEA (IP)
4. SESAME (IP)
20

Prof. E.-Detlef Schulze
Max-Planck Institut für Biogeochemie
Hans-Knoell-Strasse 10, 07745 Jena or
PO Box 100164, 07701 Jena, Germany
Tel: +49 3641 576100
Prof. Christoph Heinze
University of Bergen,
Geophysical Inst. & Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research
Allégaten 70, N-5007 Bergen, Norway
Dr. Annette Freibauer
CarboEurope-IP Scientific Office
Max-Planck-Institute for Biogeochemistry
P.O. Box 10 01 64, 07701 Jena, Germany
Phone: +49 3641 576164
Prof. Dr. Arne Körtzinger
Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences (IFM-GEOMAR)
Marine Biogeochemistry
Duesternbrooker Weg 20
D-24105 Kiel, Germany
Prof. Riccardo Valentini
Department of Forest Science and Environment
University of Tuscia
Via S. Camillo de Lellis 01100 VITERBO, Italy
Tel +390761357394
Prof. Andrew J Watson
School of Environmental Sciences,
University of East Anglia,
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Tel +44 1603 593761
Dr. Michael Obersteiner
IIASA, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
Phone: +43 2236 807-460
21

Prof. Peter Kuhry,
Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology,
Stockholm University, SWEDEN
Tel: +46 8 164806
Dr. Pierre Friedlingstein,
IPSL/LSCE
CEA-Saclay, L'Orme des Merisiers, Bat 712
91191 Gif sur Yvette
France
Tel: +33 1 69 08 87 30
Dr. Mark A. Sutton
Head of Atmospheric Sciences
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH)
Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian
Scotland, UK, EH26 0QB
Tel: +44 131 445 4343
Dr. Philippe Ciais
IPSL/LSCE
CE Saclay 91191
Gif sur Yvette, France
22