Remote Sensing Analysis — Carbon Farming Project

↑

Executive Summary

This report presents a multi-sensor remote sensing verification of the carbon farming project operated by AGROLAND 7 EOOD (325.65 ha, 14 parcels) in the Burgas Region, Bulgaria. The analysis covers the satellite monitoring period using 9 independent indicators derived from Sentinel-2 optical and Sentinel-1 radar data.

Independent Verification Instrument

This remote sensing analysis is an independent, data-driven assessment based exclusively on publicly accessible Copernicus satellite data (Sentinel-2 L2A, Sentinel-1 IW GRD) and transparent, reproducible statistical methodology. All data sources, processing scripts, and statistical outputs are archived in the verification package for full replicability.

The report evaluates whether the observed indicator trajectories are consistent with a transition toward conservation agriculture practices, compared against a primary BAU baseline (the 20 km belt buffer of LPIS-registered parcels, representing regional business-as-usual management) and a supplementary matched reference zone (land-use-matched control parcels in proximity to the farm) that provides local validation and serves as an early-warning framework for activity-displacement leakage.

Spatial Aggregation Level

This report presents remote sensing verification at farm (entity) level, aggregating all registered parcels into a single spatial unit per zone (farm, control, belt). Where a single carbon farming contract covers multiple legal entities operating under coordinated management, the "farm" zone represents the consolidated enrolled area across all entities — the unit of analysis is the contract, not the individual legal person. This approach is consistent with the Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) framework for result-based carbon farming schemes, where the unit of certification is the farm entity or group of entities under a single contract (EU Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming Regulation, CRCF, adopted December 2024).

Farm-level aggregation captures the net effect of all management activities across the enrolled area, including parcels at different stages of practice implementation, in crop rotation transition, or managed by different operators within the same contractual framework.

Individual parcel geometries with Official ID are archived in the verification package (05_GEOJSON). Should parcel-level decomposition be required, time-series statistics can be extracted per parcel using the Sentinel Hub Statistical API with the individual parcel geometries provided.

Three-tier spatial framework. The analysis employs a three-zone comparative design to separate farm-level management effects from regional climate and agronomic trends:

Farm (325.65 ha, 14 parcels) — the project site implementing conservation agriculture practices (cover cropping, reduced tillage, organic amendments, strip cropping, bed tillage, biological agriculture, microbial fertiliser, organic pesticide, integrated production) from 2023.
Control plots (246.57 ha) — supplementary matched reference: arable land parcels in proximity to the farm parcels, selected from declared subsidy areas (SFA-PA open data), matching the same land use category and sharing microclimate and topography. Serves two roles: (1) local validation of the belt-level BAU signal — confirming that regional trends hold at the micro-climate level, and (2) early-warning leakage detection — activity displacement from the farm would manifest first in these nearby parcels.
Belt buffer (10337.44 ha, 623 parcels) — all LPIS-registered arable land physical blocks (PhB) within a 20 km radius, filtered by land use to include only arable land, providing a regional BAU baseline. LPIS registration confirms eligibility for Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) support, but does not constitute proof that agricultural activity has been carried out on any given parcel — it reflects land classification, not verified management status.

Multi-sensor indicator suite. 9 satellite-derived indicators from two independent sensor platforms (Sentinel-2 L2A optical, Sentinel-1 IW GRD radar) are evaluated across all three zones (farm, control, belt): NDVI, NDTI, GPP Proxy, SOC Proxy, SAR VV and SAR VH, N₂O Proxy, BSI, and NBR2. Indicators derived from optical data (GPP Proxy, SOC Proxy, N₂O Proxy) remain proxy-based, but they are fully available across all zones and provide trend and change detection evidence.

Data quality assurance. All 9 indicators undergo a two-stage quality pipeline: (1) removal of NaN, noData, and invalid pixels using Sentinel-2 Scene Classification Layer (SCL classes 4 and 5 retained), followed by (2) IQR-based outlier removal (Tukey fences, Q1 − 1.5 × IQR to Q3 + 1.5 × IQR) applied independently per indicator × zone. SAR VV and SAR VH backscatter coefficients (σ⁰ in dB) serve as independent ground-truth indicators and are not subject to optical quality filtering.

Of the 9 farm-level pre-post comparisons, 2 reach statistical significance (p < 0.05, Student's t-test, equal variance): NDVI, SOC Proxy. The analysis employs a three-zone design: the project farm is compared against a primary BAU baseline (20 km arable land belt buffer, 10337.44 ha, 623 parcels), and a supplementary matched reference zone (control parcels in proximity, 246.57 ha) that provides local validation of belt-level signals and early-warning leakage detection.

Optical indicators: NDVI shows a -11.64% farm change (belt: -4.60%). NDTI (tillage residue index) shows -5.78%.

Biogeochemical proxies: GPP -12.12%, SOC proxy -11.05%, N₂O proxy -21.27%.

Radar structural indicators: SAR VV -3.25%, SAR VH -3.44%. Declines in radar backscatter indicate transition toward smoother, residue-covered surfaces consistent with reduced tillage.

2023–2025 Drought Context: The entire post-project monitoring period (2023–2025) has been affected by prolonged drought conditions — an important confounding factor that applies uniformly across all three zones (farm, control, belt), and which explains some of the regional vegetation and productivity declines observed across all zones.

1. Project Scope and Farm Profile

1.1 Farm Overview

Parameter	Value
Project Entities / Farm	AGROLAND 7 EOOD
UIC	201895222
Contract ID	CSBG-34SE-23/28-AGRI-0003
Project Name	Carbonsafe carbon farming project – South Bulgaria
Project Start Date	2023-01-17
Farm Contract Date	2023-10-02
Registry	Balkan Carbon Credits Registry (BCCR)
Project Registry ID	BCCR-6-00002-AGRI-Carbonsafe carbon farming project–South Bulgaria-CSBG-BG-S
Project Registry Code	CSBG-BG-S
Farm Region	Burgas Region, Bulgaria
Soil Type	Cinnamon Forest Soils, Alluvial Soils, Pseudopodzolic Soils
Terrain	Mean slope 2.73°, LS-Factor 0.963, TWI -13.94
Erosion Risk	LOW
Spatial Heterogeneity	LOW
Total Farm Area	325.65 ha
Number of Parcels	14
EKATTE Codes	40124, 61042, 52129
Campaign Period	2023–2028
Monitoring Window (Satellite)
Satellite Data Sources	Sentinel-2 L2A (10/20 m) + Sentinel-1 IW GRD (~20 m)
Practices Implemented	Conservation agriculture: cover cropping, reduced tillage, organic amendments
Practice Implementation Year	2023

Stage / Period Terminology Key. The following labels are used consistently throughout this report and refer to calendar years aligned with the project monitoring schedule:

BASE = 2023 — the contractual baseline year of the project (single calendar year used as the BASE reference for BASE→POST comparisons).
K1 = 2024 — full monitoring stage (full calendar year).
K2 = 2025 — full monitoring stage (full calendar year).
K3 = 2026 — monitoring stage (partial year at the time of reporting; flagged as preliminary).
POST — for BASE→POST comparisons in this report, POST denotes full years only (currently K1 = 2024 + K2 = 2025); partial K3 excluded from BASE→POST aggregates.
PRE — for PRE→POST comparisons, PRE denotes the multi-year pre-period defined per indicator (2018–2022) and is distinct from BASE; both readings are reported side-by-side in Section 2.4 and Section 7.2.

1.1.1 Crop Distribution

The following tables show the crop distribution for each year of the monitoring period. The practice implementation year (2023) is highlighted.

2023 — Implementation year

Crop	Parcels	Area (ha)	Share (%)
GRAIN MAIZE (maize)	6	129.01	43%
SOFT WINTER WHEAT (cereals)	5	119.65	40%
WINTER BARLEY (cereals)	2	51.33	17%
Total	13	299.99	100%

2024 — Post-implementation

Crop	Parcels	Area (ha)	Share (%)
SOFT WINTER WHEAT (cereals)	9	206.00	63%
WINTER BARLEY (cereals)	5	119.65	37%
Total	14	325.65	100%

2025 — Post-implementation

Crop	Parcels	Area (ha)	Share (%)
SUNFLOWER (oilseeds)	1	25.66	100%
Total	1	25.66	100%

A total of 4 distinct crop types were recorded across 3 monitored years, indicating active crop rotation.

1.1.2 EKATTE Code Distribution

EKATTE Code	Settlement	Parcels	Area (ha)	Share (%)
40124	Village KRUSHEVETS	6	145.31	45%
61042	Village RAVADINOVO	6	140.14	43%
52129	Village NOVO PANICHAREVO	2	40.20	12%
Total	—	14	325.65	100%

1.2 Three-Zone Spatial Framework

Zone	Description	Area	Parcels/Units
Farm Site	Project site implementing conservation agriculture practices from 2023	325.65 ha	14 parcels
Control Plots	Arable land parcels in proximity (supplementary local reference)	246.57 ha	25 parcels
Regional Belt	All LPIS arable land parcels within 20 km radius	10337.44 ha	623 parcels

1.2.1 Complete Farm Parcel Registry (14 Parcels)

All 14 officially registered parcels under the Carbonsafe carbon farming programme, with area, declared crop type, EKATTE locality code, and campaign period.

#	Official ID	EKATTE	Crop 2023/24	Crop 2024/25	Crop 2025/26	Crop 2026/27	Area (ha)	Campaign
1	002126570314	40124	—	SOFT WINTER WHEAT	SUNFLOWER	WINTER BARLEY	25.66	2023-2028
2	003126570314	61042	WINTER BARLEY	SOFT WINTER WHEAT	—	SUNFLOWER	25.67	2023-2028
3	004126570314	61042	WINTER BARLEY	SOFT WINTER WHEAT	—	SUNFLOWER	25.66	2023-2028
4	005126570314	61042	GRAIN MAIZE	SOFT WINTER WHEAT	—	SUNFLOWER	20.68	2023-2028
5	006126570314	61042	GRAIN MAIZE	SOFT WINTER WHEAT	—	SUNFLOWER	21.40	2023-2028
6	007126570314	61042	GRAIN MAIZE	SOFT WINTER WHEAT	—	SUNFLOWER	22.05	2023-2028
7	008126570314	52129	GRAIN MAIZE	SOFT WINTER WHEAT	—	RAPESEED - WINTER	16.35	2023-2028
8	009126570314	52129	GRAIN MAIZE	SOFT WINTER WHEAT	—	RAPESEED - WINTER	23.85	2023-2028
9	010126570314	40124	SOFT WINTER WHEAT	WINTER BARLEY	—	RAPESEED - WINTER	25.37	2023-2028
10	011126570314	40124	SOFT WINTER WHEAT	WINTER BARLEY	—	RAPESEED - WINTER	23.90	2023-2028
11	012126570314	40124	SOFT WINTER WHEAT	WINTER BARLEY	—	WINTER BARLEY	25.37	2023-2028
12	013126570314	40124	SOFT WINTER WHEAT	WINTER BARLEY	—	WINTER BARLEY	24.43	2023-2028
13	014126570314	40124	SOFT WINTER WHEAT	WINTER BARLEY	—	WINTER BARLEY	20.58	2023-2028
14	015126570314	61042	GRAIN MAIZE	SOFT WINTER WHEAT	—	SUNFLOWER	24.68	2023-2028
	Total						325.65

1.2.2 Data Sources and Spatial Design

This analysis employs a three-tier spatial design that separates the project farm signal from confounding regional and climate effects. The framework integrates 9 independent remote sensing indicators derived from two Copernicus satellite missions, combined with national georeferenced registries and terrain modelling, to construct a spatially explicit verification of management practice effects.

Geospatial data sources. The indicator framework relies on the following publicly accessible datasets:

Sentinel-2 L2A (ESA Copernicus, 10–20 m, 5-day revisit) — atmospherically corrected surface reflectance. Source for 7 indicators: NDVI, NDTI, GPP Proxy, SOC Proxy, N₂O Proxy, BSI, NBR2. Cloud and shadow masking via SCL band; zonal statistics extracted per zone polygon via openEO / CDSE.
Sentinel-1 IW GRD (ESA Copernicus, C-band SAR, 10 m, 6–12-day revisit) — σ⁰ (dB) in VV and VH polarisations. Source for 2 indicators: SAR VV, SAR VH. Weather-independent (cloud-penetrating), providing continuous time-series for soil surface structure monitoring.
LPIS (Land Parcel Identification System) — georeferenced registry of physical blocks (PhB) maintained by MAF, published at shape.mzh.government.bg (28 regions, updated January 2025). Used for belt zone delineation: all PhB classified as arable land within 20 km of the farm.
Declared subsidy areas (SFA-PA / State Fund Agriculture — Paying Agency) — open data under CC BY 4.0 (EU Implementing Regulation 2023/138). Used for control zone parcel selection: nearest arable land parcels in proximity to the farm. The project-relevant parcels are not included.
EU-DEM v1.1 (Copernicus Land Monitoring Service, 25 m) — digital elevation model for terrain analysis via SAGA GIS (13 derived parameters). Used for GAEC 4/5 obligation assessment and permanence risk evaluation (Section 7).
NVZ geodata (МОСВ) — Nitrate Vulnerable Zone boundaries. Spatial overlay determines NVZ status per zone for Nitrate Directive additionality (Section 5).
Fire event data (SFA-PA fire registry) — georeferenced fire perimeters for fire risk and permanence assessment (Sections 5–6).
Zone GeoJSON polygons — farm, control, and belt boundaries in EPSG:4326.
Extreme weather events — documented drought, heatwave, and storm events from official meteorological and agricultural damage reports (Section 7.1).

Campaign	Dataset	Format	Source
2023	Declared parcels — areas and crops	Shapefile	ds_prc_2023_public.zip
2024	Declared parcels — areas and crops	Shapefile	ds_prc_2024_public.zip
2025	Declared parcels — areas and crops	Shapefile	ds_prc_2025_public_shp.zip

LPIS: shape.mzh.government.bg (MAF) · Declared areas: seu.dfz.bg/drupal/?q=opendata (SFA-PA, CC BY 4.0)

All satellite data is processed through a standardised pipeline (06_SCRIPTS/pipeline.py) that converts raw zonal statistics to bi-weekly time-series, applies IQR-based outlier filtering, and computes pre/post period means, statistical tests, and DiD metrics. The complete data chain — from raw Sentinel Hub JSON exports through filtered CSVs to final report values — is archived in the verification package for full reproducibility.

Geometry validation. All zone polygons (farm, control, belt) are validated before zonal statistics are computed. Validation is performed in two phases by the configuration preprocessor (02_SCRIPTS/auto_config.py).

Phase 1 (coordinate-level) enforces compliance with IETF RFC 7946 §3.1.6 (Polygon) — outer rings in counter-clockwise (right-hand-rule) orientation, inner rings in clockwise orientation, explicit ring closure (first point == last point), and removal of consecutive duplicate vertices; coordinates are truncated to 7 decimal places (~1 cm precision at this latitude).

Phase 2 (topology repair) applies shapely.make_valid() (GEOS 3.x), which resolves self-intersections, ring overlaps, and bow-tie geometries into topologically valid MultiPolygon output. Degenerate inner rings with fewer than 3 unique vertices are removed, while valid triangular holes are preserved.

This two-phase validation is executed automatically for every zone file before the spatial overlay and openEO zonal-statistics requests, ensuring that the polygon geometries consumed by the pipeline conform to the Simple Features Access specification (ISO 19125-1 / OGC 06-103r4). References: Butler et al. 2016 (RFC 7946 — The GeoJSON Format, IETF); GEOS Development Team 2023 (Geometry Engine Open Source, OSGeo); OGC 06-103r4 Simple Feature Access — Part 1: Common Architecture.

Farm zone. The farm site comprises 14 parcels covering 325.65 ha of Cinnamon Forest Soils, Alluvial Soils, Pseudopodzolic Soils in the Burgas Region, Bulgaria, Bulgaria. Parcels are registered in the Carbonsafe project registry (project_registry_id: BCCR-6-00002-AGRI-Carbonsafe carbon farming project–South Bulgaria-CSBG-BG-S). Conservation agriculture practices (cover cropping, reduced tillage, organic amendments, strip cropping, bed tillage, biological agriculture, microbial fertiliser, organic pesticide, integrated production) have been implemented from 2023 onwards under the Carbonsafe carbon farming project – South Bulgaria.

Control zone. The control parcels are selected from declared subsidy areas (SFA-PA open data) as arable land parcels in proximity to the farm parcels (246.57 ha), matching the same land use category and sharing microclimate and topography. Selection principle: same land use type (arable land) for structural comparability of management norms.

Control Zone Selection Rationale

The control zone comprises SFA-PA-declared arable land parcels in proximity to the farm (246.57 ha, 25 parcels), rather than parcels guaranteed to remain conventionally managed. This design reflects three considerations:

First — absence of guaranteed conventionally managed parcels for the full monitoring period. The EU CAP has been implemented across Bulgaria for over 15 years. All CAP-declared parcels receive some form of management and cross-compliance conditioning; there is no mechanism to guarantee that any set of parcels will maintain the same management regime throughout a multi-year monitoring window. Farmers may adopt new practices, shift crop systems, enrol in eco-schemes, or abandon land — any of which introduces confounding signals unrelated to the conservation practices under assessment.

Second — supplementary matched reference at the local micro-climate level. The control zone (246.57 ha) provides a supplementary local reference at the micro-climate level. Control parcels are selected from declared subsidy areas (SFA-PA open data) in proximity to the farm, matching the same arable land use category. This dual-reference design serves two purposes: (1) the belt establishes the broad regional counterfactual, while (2) the control confirms that the belt-level BAU signal is not an artefact of spatial averaging and simultaneously provides an early-warning framework for activity-displacement leakage.

Third — leakage detection. Activity displacement — where conservation practices on the farm shift intensive operations to neighbouring land — would manifest first in the surrounding area. Monitoring the control zone’s 25 neighbouring parcels (246.57 ha) provides the most sensitive leakage detection framework.

Regional belt buffer (20 km). The belt encompasses all LPIS-registered arable land physical blocks within a 20 km radius zone around the farm, covering 623 georeferenced parcels across 10337.44 ha. Only arable land parcels are included; forests, urban areas, permanent grasslands, and other non-agricultural land uses are excluded.

Belt Zone Rationale

The belt zone (10,337.44 ha across 623 parcels) is the full set of officially registered arable land parcels lying within a 20 km radius of the farm centroid. It is the regional neighbourhood that surrounds the farm and shares its growing conditions.

Its role is to provide the Business-as-Usual (BAU) reference for the farm — a picture of how comparable arable land in the same area is being farmed under typical regional practice. Changes observed on the farm are then read against this backdrop, so that weather, seasonality, and other factors affecting the whole area are accounted for rather than mistaken for farm-level effects.

Only arable land parcels are included in the belt. Mixing in other land covers (grassland, orchards, forest, built-up land) would blur the reference, because different land uses have different seasonal patterns and reflectance signatures. Keeping the belt to a single land-use category ensures the comparison is like-for-like.

The 20 km radius is chosen to balance two practical needs. It is wide enough to include a large and diverse set of parcels, so the regional reference is not skewed by a handful of neighbours; and it is tight enough that the belt still shares the same weather, soils, and growing season as the farm. A much smaller radius would overlap with the farm’s own surroundings and offer too few parcels to average over; a much larger one would start pulling in areas with noticeably different climate and cropping patterns.

Crop rotation context. The farm practises crop rotation across the post-period: 2023 — cereals 57%, maize 43%; 2024 — cereals 100%; 2025 — oilseeds 100%; 2026 — oilseeds 71%, cereals 29%. Raw farm-level annual means pool parcels across different crop groups, so a pooled trajectory would otherwise confound crop-composition shifts with management effects. To isolate the management signal this report (i) analyses each crop group against its own expected phenology band (empirical 8-year farm baseline where available, literature baseline otherwise), (ii) applies the dominant-group rule so crop groups below the 60% area threshold are reported separately rather than averaged into a mixed mean, (iii) compares the farm against a regional belt that rotates through the same crop mix (difference-in-differences), and (iv) evaluates each month with a stage-aware multi-sensor verdict rather than a raw annual mean. The crop-composition confound is therefore explicitly controlled for, not carried through into the inference.

Temporal design. The statistical analysis window spans 2018–2025, divided into a pre-project baseline (2018–2022) and a post-intervention period (2023–2025). Satellite acquisitions span the full window; however, partial calendar years (2017, 2026) are excluded from the statistical analysis because incomplete annual cycles would bias seasonal-mean comparisons. This before/after structure enables Difference-in-Differences (DiD) estimation: the farm’s indicator change is compared against the control and belt zones’ change over the same period, isolating the treatment effect from secular trends, climate variability, and policy changes that affect all zones equally.

Statistical framework. Each indicator is evaluated using: (i) pre-vs-post comparison of means (Student’s t-test, equal variance), (ii) effect size estimation (Cohen’s d), (iii) DiD vs control and belt zones with 95% confidence intervals, and (iv) cross-zone trajectory analysis. The multi-indicator framework requires convergent evidence across at least two independent measurement domains (optical, radar, biogeochemical) before attributing observed changes to management intervention.

Spatial completeness. For each indicator, zonal statistics are computed over all valid pixels within each zone’s polygon boundary — no spatial subsampling or pixel selection is applied. This exhaustive spatial coverage eliminates any possibility of cherry-picking pixels or parcels to bias the assessment.

1.2.3 Regulatory Framework and Additionality Context

The three-zone spatial framework is designed to separate project-attributable effects from shared environmental drivers (climate, regional market forces, district-level policy shifts). A single reference zone can isolate either macro-climatic shared forcing (through a wide regional buffer) or a more local land-use and proximity match (through nearby parcels), but not both simultaneously — the two requirements pull in opposite directions. Using a regional belt and a local control together provides two complementary counterfactual lines: the belt captures drought, heatwave, and other shared regional forcing across the district, while the control — selected by land-use category and proximity to the farm — captures the local management envelope that a 20 km buffer would average out. Terrain and soil heterogeneity are handled directly: per-parcel terrain attributes (Section 1.2.4 / Section 4) and soil-baseline priors from FAO HWSD2 v2 and SoilGrids 2.0 (Section 2.4.3) anchor each parcel to its own physical setting. Agreement between the farm-vs-belt and farm-vs-control DiD signals reinforces the finding; disagreement is followed up per-indicator in the Cross-Indicator Synthesis (Section 3), where the most likely causes — activity-displacement leakage or a local anomaly on the control parcels — are evaluated.

The belt zone (10337.44 ha, 623 parcels) encompasses all LPIS-registered arable land physical blocks within a 20 km radius of the farm centroid. This radius is calibrated to capture the same macro-climatic envelope and agro-ecological conditions while including enough parcels for a statistically robust regional baseline. Land-use filtering ensures that only arable land blocks contribute to the Business-as-Usual (BAU) reference, avoiding cross-land-use spectral contamination. The 20 km radius is a calibrated balance: shorter radii (< 10 km) can produce references that closely overlap the farm’s own management neighbourhood, while longer radii (> 50 km) begin to span distinct climate and soil regions in the Bulgarian context, weakening the shared-climate assumption on which the difference-in-differences comparison relies.

Temporal alignment. The pre- and post-intervention windows are applied identically to the farm, the belt, and the control — the same calendar years contribute to each zone’s baseline and post-intervention means, and the same Sentinel-2 and Sentinel-1 acquisition calendar (cloud-screened composite months) governs all three time series. This temporal alignment is a pre-condition for the DiD comparison: any year-level asymmetry between zones (for example, using a different post window for the belt than for the farm) would introduce a time-varying bias that could be misattributed to management. The harmonised windowing, combined with the shared sensor calendar, ensures that the DiD comparison reflects only the quantity of interest: farm-specific deviation from the shared climate and policy trajectory.

Scope of this report within the MRV architecture. This report is a remote-sensing verification instrument to the project MRV framework, providing spatially explicit, temporally continuous verification of practice implementation and a trend-level check on indicators that respond to the the project registry registry practices. It is constructed to stand as a separate line of evidence from the project-side field campaign and therefore uses only data sources that are not produced by the project proponent: Copernicus Sentinel-1 / Sentinel-2 for the spectral and SAR indicators, the Copernicus DEM and SAGA-derived terrain attributes for stratification, and FAO HWSD2 v2 and SoilGrids 2.0 for the absolute SOC baseline. No field-derived measurements are used as inputs to any indicator or stratification step. Keeping the satellite and field-laboratory streams methodologically separate preserves the independence of the two evidence streams and is the standard verification practice under IPCC 2019 Refinement (Vol. 4, Ch. 2), ISO 14064-3:2019, and the established carbon-crediting programmes (CDM Tool24; Schneider & Kollmuss, 2014); when the two streams converge despite using non-overlapping inputs, overall verification confidence increases beyond what either could establish alone.

The quantitative basis for any carbon unit issuance — in particular soil organic carbon stocks and nitrous-oxide emissions — is established through the accredited field and laboratory MRV programme that governs this project. The methodology, sampling protocols, and emission factors applied within that programme are determined by the Project Proponent under the rules of the relevant carbon-crediting framework and lie outside the scope of this remote-sensing verification instrument.

Proxy-based satellite indicators used here (SOC spectral proxy, GPP Proxy, N₂O indicator) provide directional, spatially resolved signals that complement but do not substitute for those measurements. Direct-measurement indicators (NDVI, NDTI, SAR VV, SAR VH) provide physically interpretable evidence for surface condition and management practice implementation, and are treated here as the primary verification layer for practice detection. This distinction between direct-measurement and proxy-modelled indicators is maintained throughout the report and is foundational for interpreting the uncertainty structure of the evidence base.

Two indicators are resolved at parcel level rather than collapsed into a single farm-aggregate value. SOC: per-parcel SOC_proxy time series are reported in Section 2.4.1 as annual (Y−1)/Y values per parcel, and the consolidated per-parcel SOC evidence table in Section 2.4.1 reports the relative spectral change of the SOC proxy (PRE→POST, %), the Δ % POST vs BASE column, and the FAO HWSD2 v2 and SoilGrids 2.0 baseline stocks at each parcel polygon as independent reference values (not combined with the proxy), with soil heterogeneity (WRB units such as PHlv Phaeozems and LVcr Luvisols) retained as an explicit grouping rather than averaged out. NDVI: per-parcel NDVI time series are reported in Section 2.1.1 with pre/post means ± sd, IQR-filtered observation counts, and per-year and per-month breakdowns; NDVI is co-extracted from the dual-output SOC_Proxy_v4.js evalscript on every cloud-free Sentinel-2 L2A observation. BSI (Bare Soil Index, Rikimaru 1996) and NBR2 (Normalized Burn Ratio 2, SWIR-residue index) are likewise co-extracted at the parcel polygon on every cloud-free observation as per-parcel spectral indices in their own right: BSI quantifies bare-soil exposure (brightness/dryness), NBR2 the SWIR-moisture and crop-residue signal. They are reported in Section 2.4.5 at month-by-parcel level against the matching belt-month percentiles for the bare-soil cover classification, and BSI also conditions the SOCI bare-soil gate (NDVI < 0.40 AND positive BSI). The remaining indicators (NDTI, GPP, fAPAR, stress, N₂O, and the SAR backscatter channels) are reported at farm-aggregate level against the matched control and the regional 20 km belt. The difference-in-differences statistics in Section 3 are defined at the farm-aggregate level for all indicators.

A natural question is whether NDVI itself could be used as the within-farm stratifier for SOC variability. The literature is consistent that this is inappropriate for low-relief arable systems: NDVI integrates canopy condition driven by crop choice, sowing date, irrigation, weather and short-term phenology, none of which are in stable mechanistic relationship with topsoil organic carbon at 0–30 cm. Tan et al. (2024) and Devine et al. (2020) report weak and inconsistent NDVI–SOC associations across cultivated soils once crop and management effects are controlled for; Zhang et al. (2019) and Melo et al. (2025) reach the same conclusion at the field scale; the established carbon-crediting programmes and the operational sampling-design literature accordingly recommend terrain attributes (slope, TWI, channel-network distance, curvature) and soil baseline maps as the operational SOC-variability stratifiers, not vegetation indices. The present report follows this recommendation: spatial variability across the parcel set is documented structurally through the DEM-derived terrain layers in Section 1.2.4 and Section 4, and the per-parcel SOC_proxy is tested against the full terrain and soil-baseline set (Pearson, Spearman) in Section 2.4.4.

Terrain analysis. The farm’s terrain profile shows moderate slopes (mean 2.73°, 4.8% gradient) and moderate erosion risk (mean LS-Factor 0.963). These terrain parameters determine which GAEC standards impose management obligations on the farm’s parcels (see below).

GAEC and SMR scope. GAEC standards and SMR obligations apply to all agricultural parcels that meet the conditions defined in each respective standard. The Nitrate Directive (91/676/EEC), transposed into Bulgarian national law (Regulation No 2 of 13.09.2007), imposes nutrient management obligations on all agricultural holdings within designated vulnerable zones — independently of whether the operator receives CAP direct payments.

GAEC 4 mandates vegetated buffer strips along all surface watercourses where no fertilisers or plant protection products (PPP) may be applied: minimum 5 m on flat land (slope ≤ 5%), 10 m on slopes 5–10%, and 50 m on steep slopes (> 10%) (MZH, GAEC 4 National Manual, 2023; Regulation (EU) 2021/2115, Annex III).

GAEC 5 requires anti-erosion tillage management on slopes ≥ 10% to limit erosion risk.

GAEC 6 sets minimum soil cover requirements during the sensitive period 1 June – 30 September (MZH amendment, July 2024, EC-approved): ≥80 % of arable area should retain minimum soil cover. The standard may be satisfied by any one of the following: (i) the main crop canopy; (ii) a second, catch, or cover crop; or (iii) crop residues, stubble, self-seeding, or mulching. A 2-week grace period is permitted after removing the previous cover before the follow-on crop must be established (3 weeks when the follow-on crop is rapeseed), and temporary derogations apply when extreme weather (drought, flooding) prevents timely compliance (Strategic Plan 2023–2027; MZH amendment July 2024).

SMR 1 (Nitrate Directive, 91/676/EEC) imposes nutrient management obligations on holdings in designated Nitrate Vulnerable Zones: a general fertilisation ban from 1 November to 20–25 February for all agricultural land, with a shorter window to 5 February for autumn-sown annuals and to 25 February for bare land (Programme of Measures 2024–2027, MZH Order RD-09-806/25.07.2024); a maximum of 170 kg N/ha/year from livestock manure; and mandatory record-keeping of fertiliser application.

Terrain findings per parcel. GAEC 4 (buffer strips): 9/14 parcels (204.24 ha) have watercourse buffer obligations. GAEC 5 (anti-erosion tillage): 0/14 parcels (0.00 ha) have slope ≥ 10%. GAEC 6 (minimum soil cover): all 14 parcels during the sensitive period 1 Jun – 30 Sep.

Farm-specific applicability. Based on the terrain analysis and spatial overlay, the regulatory obligations for this farm are:

GAEC 4: Applies to 9 of 14 parcels (204.24 ha, 63% of farm area). These parcels must maintain vegetated buffer strips near watercourses (no fertiliser, no PPP). The obligation is terrain-determined and does not extend to the farm’s core management practices.
GAEC 5: No parcels exceed 10% slope — reduced tillage is entirely voluntary.
GAEC 6: Applies to all 14 parcels (sensitive period 1 Jun–30 Sep, ≥80% of arable area must maintain minimum soil cover). Compliance within the sensitive period and additionality outside 1 Jun– 30 Sep are assessed in the Cross-Indicator Synthesis (Section 3).
SMR 1 (Nitrate Directive): Spatial overlay with the official NVZ boundary (МОСВ, Заповед РД-900/21.10.2024 г.) confirms that the project area does not fall within a designated Nitrate Vulnerable Zone. The Nitrate Directive does not impose nutrient management obligations on these holdings. Any observed N₂O reduction is entirely voluntary and fully additional — this represents stronger additionality than farms operating within an NVZ, where some level of nutrient management is already mandated.

1.3 Terrain Characterisation

Terrain characterisation is based on SAGA GIS zonal statistics extracted from the EU-DEM v1.1 (25 m resolution) for all 14 farm parcels (325.65 ha). All values are per-parcel zonal means; farm-level summaries are area-weighted.

Official ID	Area (ha)	Slope (°)	LS-Factor	TWI	Conv.Idx	RSP	Valley Depth (m)	Ch.Dist (m)	Closed Dep. (m)	Prof.Curv.	Ch.Base (m)	Aspect	Hillshade	TCA (×10⁻⁶)
004126570314	25.69	2.75	0.969	-14.22	-0.26	0.056	193.10	11.6	2.00	Convex	35.3	SW	1.05	3.39
003126570314	25.66	2.81	1.517	-13.32	3.70	0.022	224.27	5.0	1.07	Concave	6.3	E	1.67	44.57
002126570314	25.64	1.51	1.017	-13.02	0.81	0.455	43.53	36.7	0.96	Concave	138.3	E	1.67	4.18
010126570314	25.62	4.14	0.837	-14.98	-0.32	0.329	97.55	48.1	1.50	Concave	150.7	SW	1.01	2.19
012126570314	25.59	3.64	0.607	-15.46	7.71	0.330	70.12	35.0	—	Convex	177.3	S	1.72	0.84
015126570314	24.97	1.48	1.468	-12.24	0.03	0.011	222.06	2.5	1.01	Concave	14.9	SE	2.10	25.90
013126570314	24.95	4.01	0.576	-15.63	11.53	0.380	70.03	43.2	—	Convex	158.7	S	1.37	0.74
011126570314	23.91	4.03	1.013	-14.63	0.05	0.164	117.99	23.4	0.86	Concave	147.6	SW	1.01	5.66
009126570314	23.84	2.50	0.676	-14.91	3.78	0.174	74.13	15.6	0.02	Convex	115.3	SE	2.12	1.10
007126570314	22.04	1.91	0.780	-13.76	4.06	0.024	219.95	5.4	0.82	Concave	14.7	E	1.58	1.94
006126570314	21.43	1.21	0.797	-12.28	-0.14	0.009	228.57	2.1	1.51	Concave	7.3	E	1.47	2.24
005126570314	20.68	1.10	1.153	-12.11	-0.35	0.009	228.91	2.0	0.97	Concave	7.8	SE	1.62	6.89
014126570314	20.57	4.33	0.920	-14.74	-2.65	0.465	58.76	52.1	0.84	Convex	175.8	S	1.18	3.25
008126570314	16.40	2.39	1.204	-13.33	-1.08	0.105	82.48	9.7	0.69	Concave	110.4	SE	2.13	8.25
Farm (area-weighted)	325.65	2.73	0.963	-13.94	2.09	0.185	137.76	21.4	1.04	Convex	90.8	SE	1.54	8.19

Intra-Parcel Moisture Heterogeneity (TWI)

Two independent classification methods assess intra-parcel hydrological variability from Topographic Wetness Index statistics:

Coefficient of Variation (Wilding, 1985): CV = |SD / mean| × 100. Low < 15%, Moderate 15–30%, High > 30%.
Saturation Potential (Beven & Kirkby, 1979; ISPRS 2025): Mean + 1 SD relative to TWI = −8 waterlogging threshold. High: mean+SD > −8; Moderate: −10 to −8; Low: < −10.

Official ID	Area (ha)	TWI Mean	TWI SD	TWI Min	TWI Max	Range	CV (%)	CV Class	Mean+1SD	Saturation Class
004126570314	25.69	-14.22	0.82	-15.54	-10.64	4.91	5.8	LOW	-13.40	LOW
003126570314	25.66	-13.32	3.06	-16.08	-2.65	13.43	23.0	MODERATE	-10.25	LOW
002126570314	25.64	-13.02	2.57	-16.25	-4.46	11.79	19.7	MODERATE	-10.45	LOW
010126570314	25.62	-14.98	0.83	-16.22	-12.38	3.84	5.6	LOW	-14.15	LOW
012126570314	25.59	-15.46	0.60	-16.63	-13.50	3.13	3.9	LOW	-14.86	LOW
015126570314	24.97	-12.24	3.01	-16.09	-2.95	13.15	24.6	MODERATE	-9.23	MODERATE
013126570314	24.95	-15.63	0.51	-16.44	-13.89	2.55	3.2	LOW	-15.13	LOW
011126570314	23.91	-14.63	1.48	-16.42	-9.70	6.72	10.2	LOW	-13.14	LOW
009126570314	23.84	-14.91	0.52	-16.01	-13.66	2.34	3.5	LOW	-14.40	LOW
007126570314	22.04	-13.76	2.25	-16.28	-4.04	12.24	16.3	MODERATE	-11.51	LOW
006126570314	21.43	-12.28	3.30	-16.50	-4.93	11.57	26.9	MODERATE	-8.98	MODERATE
005126570314	20.68	-12.11	3.05	-15.91	-4.59	11.32	25.2	MODERATE	-9.06	MODERATE
014126570314	20.57	-14.74	1.11	-16.03	-11.98	4.05	7.5	LOW	-13.63	LOW
008126570314	16.40	-13.33	2.77	-16.09	-2.75	13.34	20.8	MODERATE	-10.56	LOW

Parameter Descriptions

Slope (degrees) — Gradient of the land surface from EU DEM 25 m.

Farm area-weighted mean: 2.73°. Range across parcels: 1.10° (parcel 005126570314) to 4.33° (parcel 014126570314).

All parcels have slopes below the GAEC 5 anti-erosion threshold (10% gradient ≈ 5.7°). No mandatory tillage management obligation applies. GAEC 4 buffer strips require minimum 5 m width at this gradient.

LS-Factor (dimensionless, RUSLE) — Combined slope length and steepness factor from the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation.

Farm area-weighted mean: 0.963. Range: 0.576 (parcel 013126570314) to 1.517 (parcel 003126570314).

Per JRC LS-Factor thresholds (Panagos et al., 2015): values below 1.0 indicate low erosion susceptibility; 1.0–2.0 moderate; above 2.0 high. The farm mean of 0.963 classifies as LOW erosion risk.

Topographic Wetness Index (ln-transformed) — TWI = ln(a/tan β), where a = specific catchment area and β = slope (Beven & Kirkby, 1979). Higher TWI = wetter, lower-lying positions; lower TWI = drier, better-drained positions.

Farm area-weighted mean: -13.94. Range: -15.63 (parcel 013126570314, driest) to -12.11 (parcel 005126570314, wettest).

Intra-parcel TWI variability is assessed separately in the heterogeneity table above.

Convergence Index (dimensionless) — Negative values indicate convergent flow (water concentrates), positive values indicate divergent flow (water disperses).

Farm area-weighted mean: 2.09. Range: -2.65 (parcel 014126570314, most convergent) to 11.53 (parcel 013126570314, most divergent).

Strongly convergent parcels (negative values) combined with concave profile curvature create conditions for concentrated runoff (Cheng et al., 2003; Svoray et al., 2012).

Relative Slope Position (0 = valley, 1 = ridge) — Normalised position on the hillslope.

Farm area-weighted mean: 0.185. Range: 0.009 (parcel 005126570314, closest to valley) to 0.465 (parcel 014126570314, closest to ridge).

Mid-slope to upper positions are less prone to waterlogging and sediment accumulation.

Valley Depth (metres) — Vertical distance to the nearest channel network base level.

Farm area-weighted mean: 137.76 m. Range: 43.53 m (parcel 002126570314) to 228.91 m (parcel 005126570314).

Deeper valleys indicate more incised drainage networks and higher potential for concentrated erosion at valley margins.

Channel Network Distance (metres) — Horizontal distance to the nearest drainage channel.

Farm area-weighted mean: 21.4 m. Range: 2.0 m (parcel 005126570314) to 52.1 m (parcel 014126570314).

Parcels closer to channels may experience higher erosion pressure at their margins.

Closed Depressions (metres) — Depth of topographic depressions that trap surface water.

Farm area-weighted mean: 1.04 m. Range: 0.02 m to 2.00 m.

Deeper depressions create localised waterlogging and anaerobic conditions relevant to N₂O emission hotspots (Oertel et al., 2021).

Profile Curvature (SAGA GIS convention) — Curvature in the direction of steepest slope (Zevenbergen & Thorne, 1987). In SAGA GIS, positive values = convex profiles (water decelerates and disperses), negative values = concave profiles (water accelerates and concentrates). This is the opposite of the ArcGIS convention.

Farm-level classification: Convex (based on area-weighted sign). Parcel distribution: 5 convex, 9 concave. Convex profiles promote sheet flow and sediment deposition, preserving soil aggregates and organic matter in situ. Concave profiles concentrate overland flow, increasing erosive energy and the risk of rill initiation (Gharaibeh et al., 2025).

Channel Network Base Level (metres a.s.l.) — Elevation of the nearest drainage channel.

Farm area-weighted mean: 90.8 m a.s.l. Range: 6.3 m to 177.3 m.

Provides the elevation reference for valley depth computation.

Aspect (compass direction from radians) — Dominant slope orientation.

Farm area-weighted mean: SE.

SE/S-facing aspects receive higher solar radiation, increasing evapotranspiration. North-facing aspects retain more SOC due to higher moisture and lower temperatures (Dialynas et al., 2019).

Total Catchment Area (×10⁻⁶, CRS native units) — Specific contributing upslope area draining through each cell, computed in the DEM's native CRS (EPSG:4326 degree²). Values are expressed ×10⁻⁶ for readability.

Farm area-weighted mean: 8.19. Range: 0.74 (parcel 013126570314) to 44.57 (parcel 003126570314).

Larger catchment areas indicate more concentrated flow pathways; the uniformly low values indicate flat terrain with minimal upslope contributing area.

Analytical Hillshading (relative, 0–2.36) — Simulated illumination intensity from DEM surface geometry.

Farm area-weighted mean: 1.54. Range: 1.01 to 2.13.

Relevant for interpreting optical satellite imagery quality and vegetation phenology patterns.

Risk Assessment Summary

Classification methodology. Each parcel is first assigned to a Low / Moderate / High bin using peer-reviewed per-parcel thresholds (Slope gradient: GAEC 5 thresholds 5 % / 10 %; LS-Factor: Panagos et al. 2015; TWI saturation potential: Beven & Kirkby 1979 with mean+sd breakpoints at −10 / −8; Relative Slope Position: 0.33 / 0.67 breakpoints between valley and ridge; Closed Depression depth: Oertel et al. 2021; Convergence Index: Köthe & Lehmeier 1996; Channel Network Distance: Grabs et al. 2009 / applied GAEC 4 buffer interpretation).

Farm-level classification is then derived from the proportion of farm area in each bin, not from a parcel-count majority, so that one or two small isolated high-risk parcels do not flip a farm dominated by low-risk area into a high overall class.

A single unified 5-step scale applies to every terrain risk metric: HIGH when >60 % of the area is in the High bin; MODERATE-TO-HIGH at 35–60 % High; MODERATE when 20–35 % is High or Moderate reaches ≥50 %; LOW-TO-MODERATE when 10–20 % is High or Moderate is 25–50 %; LOW when ≤10 % is High and Moderate is below 25 %. The area-weighted mean of each metric is reported alongside as a continuous descriptive statistic but is not itself used in the classification decision; the class is determined exclusively by the area shares.

Methodological basis for the area-share rubric. The classification proceeds in two stages. Stage 1 (per sub-factor, area-weighted): for each of the seven terrain sub-factors, every parcel is binned into Low / Moderate / High by its peer-reviewed thresholds, and the parcel areas in each bin are summed and normalised by total farm area to produce pct_low / pct_mod / pct_high. The sub-factor’s own class label (LOW / LOW-TO-MOD / MOD / MOD-TO-HIGH / HIGH) is then read from the unified 5-step rubric (10 % / 20 % / 35 % / 60 % break-points). The structure of this per-sub-factor scale follows the FAO Framework for Land Evaluation (FAO Soils Bulletin 32, 1976; FAO Soils Bulletin 52, 1983), which evaluates each limiting factor separately on a five-level suitability class system (S1–S2–S3–N1–N2). The break-points are not prescribed by regulation; they are set conservatively to flag a farm as elevated risk whenever even a minority fraction of the area (10–20 %) falls into the High bin, consistent with the precautionary principle recommended for Article 7 sustainability checks under CRCF Regulation (EU) 2024/3012. Within the TWI sub-factor only, the worse of the two TWI sub-methods (CV-based heterogeneity and saturation-potential) is taken — this is the only place a worst-of rule applies inside Stage 1. Stage 2 (across sub-factors, mean-rank): the seven sub-factor labels are mapped onto an ordinal scale (LOW = 0, LOW-TO-MOD = 1, MOD = 2, MOD-TO-HIGH = 3, HIGH = 4), the mean rank is computed with each sub-factor weighted equally, and the overall terrain risk shown in Section 7.5 is read from this mean (≥ 3.0 → HIGH; ≥ 2.25 → MOD-TO-HIGH; ≥ 1.25 → MOD; ≥ 0.5 → LOW-TO-MOD; otherwise LOW). Equal sub-factor weighting at Stage 2 is appropriate because the seven sub-factors are partially correlated proxies for the same underlying soil-hydrological response over the same farm area, not a partition of the farm into seven mutually exclusive areas — area weighting at Stage 2 would not have a well-defined meaning. The final consolidated project-durability rating in Section 7.5 (combining terrain with the seven non-terrain risk categories) uses a separate weighted-average score on a 1–5 scale (LOW = 1 … HIGH = 5) with ± 0.25 anchor tolerance and “LOWER TO HIGHER” intermediate labels. Parcel-level breakdowns in the per-parcel terrain tables (Section 7.5) allow the classification to be retraced from the raw DEM-derived statistics, so the result is reproducible even if a user prefers different break-points.

Slope-gradient risk (GAEC 5 thresholds): Farm area-weighted mean slope = 2.73° (≈4.8 %). Overall classification: LOW–TO–MODERATE. Distribution (area share: 63% Low (9 parcels, < 5 %), 37% Moderate (5 parcels, 5–10 %), 0% High (0 parcels, > 10 %)).

Parcels in the 5–10 % band are below the GAEC 5 tillage threshold but require 10 m GAEC 4 buffer strips near watercourses.

Erosion risk (LS-Factor, Panagos et al. 2015): Farm area-weighted LS-Factor = 0.963, mean slope = 2.73°. Overall classification: LOW. Distribution (area share: 100% Low (14 parcels, LS < 2), 0% Moderate (0 parcels, 2–5), 0% High (0 parcels, LS > 5)).

Low LS-Factor values indicate that slope length and gradient provide only a minor topographic contribution to potential soil loss on the farm (Panagos et al., 2015); erosion risk is governed primarily by cover and management factors rather than terrain.

Moisture heterogeneity (TWI): Overall classification: LOW–TO–MODERATE (worst of CV-method and saturation-potential classifications).

CV method — area share: 52% Low (7 parcels, CV < 15%), 48% Moderate (7 parcels, 15–30%), 0% High (0 parcels, CV > 30%).

Saturation potential — area share: 79% Low (11 parcels, mean+sd < −10), 21% Moderate (3 parcels, −10 to −8), 0% High (0 parcels, mean+sd > −8).

Relative Slope Position risk: Farm area-weighted mean = 0.185. Overall classification: HIGH. Distribution (area share: 0% Low (0 parcels, ridge, RSP > 0.67), 30% Moderate (4 parcels, mid-slope, 0.33–0.67), 70% High (10 parcels, valley, RSP < 0.33)).

Valley and lower-slope parcels accumulate overland flow and deposited sediment from upslope, creating localised waterlogging-prone conditions relevant to N₂O emission hotspots and seasonal surface-water stagnation.

Waterlogging risk (Closed Depressions): Overall classification: MODERATE. Farm area-weighted depression depth = 1.04 m. Distribution (area share: 23% Low (3 parcels, < 0.5 m), 55% Moderate (8 parcels, 0.5–1.5 m), 22% High (3 parcels, > 1.5 m)).

Deeper depressions trap surface water and create anaerobic microsites relevant to N₂O emission hotspots (Oertel et al., 2021).

Concentrated runoff risk (Convergence Index): Overall classification: LOW–TO–MODERATE. Farm area-weighted CI = 2.09. Distribution (area share: 60% Low (8 parcels, divergent, CI > 0), 40% Moderate (6 parcels, −5 to 0), 0% High (0 parcels, strongly convergent, CI < −5)).

The predominantly convex farm profile curvature disperses overland flow.

Channel proximity (Channel Network Distance): Overall classification: MODERATE–TO–HIGH. Farm area-weighted distance = 21.41 m. Distribution (area share: 6% Low (1 parcel, > 50 m), 38% Moderate (5 parcels, 20–50 m), 55% High (8 parcels, < 20 m)).

Parcels closer to drainage channels may require GAEC 4 buffer strip management and face higher margin erosion pressure.

Terrain Implications for Carbon Farming Performance

SOC and slope position. SOC stocks are inversely related to slope gradient (Dialynas et al., 2019). Tillage erosion redistributes particulate organic carbon (POC) from upper to lower slope positions (Hao et al., 2019); the project's reduced tillage, strip cropping, bed tillage practice diminishes this redistribution. The farm's moderate mean slope (2.73°) and predominantly convex profile curvature create favourable conditions for in-situ SOC retention.

N₂O and terrain-moisture interactions. Depressions and convergent zones create anaerobic microsites that amplify denitrification-driven N₂O emissions (Oertel et al., 2021). The farm's well-drained terrain (area-weighted TWI = -13.94) limits persistent anaerobic conditions.

Cover crop effectiveness and terrain. Cover crop performance varies with landscape position (Oertel et al., 2021). Aspect affects evapotranspiration and winter cover crop establishment. The farm's aspect distribution (SE) indicates the prevailing exposure conditions for cover crop establishment.

Reduced Tillage and soil structure. The SAR VV backscatter decline observed for this farm is cross-referenced with the terrain characterisation. Convex slope positions preserve soil aggregates and promote aggregate stability under reduced tillage, strip cropping, bed tillage.

Practice optimisation. The terrain analysis does not identify parcels where topographic constraints would limit the effectiveness of the project's integrated practices (cover cropping, reduced tillage, organic amendments, strip cropping, bed tillage, biological agriculture, microbial fertiliser, organic pesticide, integrated production). The moderate slope regime, LS-Factor of 0.963, and TWI profile indicate that all parcels operate within the terrain envelope where conservation agriculture practices perform without terrain-specific adaptations.

2. Indicator Methodology

2.0 Data Quality Assurance

Data filtering pipeline (per indicator, per zone):

Step 1: Remove NaN / noData / invalid values (indicator-specific criteria)
  — NDVI: remove negative values. Negative NDVI arises when atmospheric scattering inflates red-band reflectance and suppresses NIR, or when unmasked cloud shadows darken the pixel (Holben 1986; Goward et al. 1991; Cao et al. 2016). The Sen2Cor SCL mask (classes 3, 8–10) removes most cloud/shadow pixels, but residual thin-cirrus and displaced-shadow contamination can persist — the NDVI < 0 filter catches these remaining artefacts.
  — SOC: NaN expected for vegetated pixels (NDVI ≥ 0.40 vegetation mask) — partial cover, stubble, and early-season conditions yield valid retrievals
  — SAR VV/VH: real σ⁰ in dB — no additional filtering required
  — GPP Proxy, NDTI, N₂O Proxy: remove NaN/noData rows

Step 2: IQR-based outlier removal (per indicator × zone × period)
  Q1 = 25th percentile, Q3 = 75th percentile, IQR = Q3 − Q1
  Lower bound = Q1 − 1.5 × IQR
  Upper bound = Q3 + 1.5 × IQR
  Observations outside [Lower, Upper] are flagged and excluded

All 9 indicators are filtered independently using a two-stage quality assurance pipeline.

Stage 1 removes invalid observations (NaN, noData, and indicator-specific artefacts such as negative NDVI from cloud contamination). Atmospheric scattering increases red-band reflectance while decreasing near-infrared reflectance, producing spurious NDVI depressions of 0.04–0.20 units under aerosol loading, with cloud shadows causing even larger negative excursions (Holben, 1986; Goward et al., 1991 — via MODIS VI ATBD). Sentinel-2 L2A Scene Classification (Sen2Cor) masks most cloud and shadow pixels, but residual contamination from thin cirrus, haze, and displaced shadow masks can persist in scenes flagged as cloud-free (Cao et al., 2016, Remote Sensing of Environment). The pre-filtering step removes NDVI < 0 observations to eliminate these artefacts before IQR analysis.

Stage 2 applies a standard Interquartile Range (IQR) outlier detection method within each indicator × zone × period combination, flagging and excluding observations that fall outside 1.5 × IQR from the quartile boundaries.

This approach is transparent, reproducible, and avoids introducing artificial dependencies between physically independent indicators. Each indicator’s filtered and flagged datasets, along with a full outlier verification trail, are archived for verification.

2.1 NDVI — Normalised Difference Vegetation Index

NDVI = (B08 − B04) / (B08 + B04)
Bands: B04 (Red, 665 nm) and B08 (NIR, 842 nm) — both at 10 m native resolution
Valid pixel mask: SCL classes 4 (vegetation) and 5 (bare soil) retained; all others masked

Formula components — what each part measures:

B08 (NIR, 842 nm) — Near-infrared band. Healthy green vegetation reflects strongly in NIR because leaf mesophyll tissue scatters infrared radiation. Higher B08 = more green biomass.
B04 (Red, 665 nm) — Red band. Chlorophyll pigments absorb red light for photosynthesis. Lower B04 reflectance = more chlorophyll = more active vegetation.
NDVI = (B08 − B04) / (B08 + B04) — The ratio exploits the contrast: green plants reflect NIR and absorb Red. High NDVI (0.6–0.85) = dense, healthy canopy. Low NDVI (0.05–0.15) = bare soil or dead vegetation. The normalised ratio cancels out illumination differences between dates and atmospheric effects.
SCL mask — Scene Classification Layer from Sen2Cor atmospheric correction. Only pixels classified as vegetation (class 4) or bare soil (class 5) are retained; clouds, shadows, water, and snow are excluded.

NDVI is the most widely used satellite-based vegetation index, exploiting the sharp contrast between strong absorption of red light (665 nm) by chlorophyll pigments and strong reflection of near-infrared radiation (842 nm) by healthy leaf mesophyll tissue. Mathematically, NDVI is a ratio that removes first-order illumination and atmospheric effects, making it comparable across dates, sensors, and illumination geometries. Values range theoretically from −1 to +1; in practice, agricultural surfaces range from approximately 0.05–0.15 (bare soil with low organic matter) through 0.20–0.40 (sparse to moderate vegetation or residue-dominated surfaces) to 0.60–0.85 (dense, actively growing crop canopies at peak biomass).

Limitations of the index. NDVI is informative within a bounded vegetation-cover range and behaves non-linearly outside it. At the high end, NDVI saturates above ≈ 0.80 (dense closed canopies; Huete et al., 2002; Gao et al., 2000), so differences between very dense canopies are compressed and underestimated. At the low end, NDVI is dominated by the soil background rather than by green biomass: on surfaces without vegetation the index drops to roughly 0.05–0.15 and varies primarily with surface moisture, soil colour, and roughness; on surfaces dominated by residues (stubble, mulch, crop residues) NDVI typically remains in the 0.10–0.25 range and cannot distinguish living vegetation from senesced or residual cover — the regime in which NDTI / residue indices are the appropriate indicator (Daughtry et al., 2004; van Deventer et al., 1997); on sparse or early-emergence vegetation (NDVI ≈ 0.20–0.40) the signal mixes soil background and canopy (Huete, 1988). These are properties of the index itself and apply to any NDVI-based product, irrespective of the processing pipeline.

Key Findings — NDVI

Metric	Farm	Control	Belt
Pre-project mean	0.4760	0.4791	0.4538
Post-project mean	0.4206	0.4535	0.4329
Change	-11.64% ★	-5.35%	-4.60%
Cohen’s d	-0.301 (small) ★	-0.153 (negligible)	-0.138 (negligible)

Farm-level NDVI shows a -11.64% decline, statistically significant (p < 0.05), with Cohen's d = -0.301 (small). The trajectory requires assessment against regional trends to distinguish management effects from climate-driven decline. NDVI is highly sensitive to precipitation anomalies (Anyamba & Tucker 2012), and arable systems with multiple crop groups may show compositional effects from crop rotation that confound the management signal.

Note on temporal pattern. The pre-vs-post Student’s t-test detects a significant step change between the two periods, but the Mann–Kendall monotonic-trend test on the annual farm series is non-significant (Kendall’s τ = -0.429, p = 0.1789, n = 8 years). The trajectory is therefore non-linear: a rapid response in the early post-project period followed by a plateau, rather than a continuous monotonic drift across the full observation window. This pattern is consistent with a step-change in management at the project start, and is the expected signature when a new practice reaches a new equilibrium quickly.

The farm (-11.64%) is assessed alongside control (-5.35%) and belt (-4.60%) trends. The DiD vs belt is -7.25 pp.

Within-farm NDVI stDev distribution (PRE vs POST histogram + time series) — **Figure.** Within-farm NDVI spatial heterogeneity from Sentinel-2 Statistical API.
**Left:** distribution of per-acquisition standard deviation across all valid pixels in the farm zone, split into PRE and POST periods (dotted vertical lines = period medians; dashed = literature thresholds 0.10 / 0.20).
**Right:** per-date stDev time series with PRE/POST cutoff.

Within-farm spatial heterogeneity of NDVI was characterised directly from the per-pixel distribution on every Sentinel-2 acquisition over the farm zone: the median across-date standard deviation over 201 cloud-free dates (151 pre, 50 post) is 0.115 (10th–90th percentile across dates: 0.074–0.198), indicating moderate within-farm heterogeneity, characteristic of mixed-soil arable fields (Frontiers SJSS 2026; PLoS ONE 2022). Spatial heterogeneity is stable between periods (PRE median stDev = 0.115, POST median stDev = 0.124; relative change +8.2%), indicating that within-farm spatial structure of canopy cover is preserved across the transition. The farm comprises 2 WRB soil units (LVcr (n=4, 87.26 ha), PLeu (n=14, 238.39 ha)). The within-farm stDev distribution above remains valid as the primary spatial heterogeneity check. NDVI is therefore reported here as a single farm-level mean for period-level comparisons without loss of resolving power.

2.1.1 Per-Parcel NDVI — Annual Time-Series

Per-parcel NDVI statistics. NDVI values are extracted from the ndvi output of SOC_Proxy_v4.js (build o, dual-output evalscript: outputs.ndvi.bands.B0.stats.mean, all valid pixels, co-located with the SOC proxy on every cloud-free Sentinel-2 L2A observation) by 06_SCRIPTS/00c_per_parcel_soc_v4.py. The tables below show per-parcel pre / post means alongside per-year and per-month breakdowns. A 1.5×IQR Tukey fence is applied per (parcel, year) and per (parcel, year, month) cell to suppress cloud-edge and shadow outliers; n is the count after IQR filtering, raw counts are reported in parentheses.

Parcel	WRB	Area (ha)	NDVI pre (mean ± sd)	n pre (raw)	NDVI post (mean ± sd)	n post (raw)	Δ (%)
`008126570314`	LVcr	16.35	0.478 ± 0.216	135 (135)	0.432 ± 0.213	88 (88)	-9.71%
`002126570314`	LVcr	25.66	0.443 ± 0.188	162 (162)	0.428 ± 0.207	100 (100)	-3.34%
`012126570314`	PLeu	25.37	0.473 ± 0.171	161 (161)	0.432 ± 0.182	105 (105)	-8.85%
`013126570314`	PLeu	24.43	0.491 ± 0.180	153 (153)	0.452 ± 0.200	100 (100)	-7.99%
`013126570314`	PLeu	24.43	0.529 ± 0.178	147 (147)	0.473 ± 0.198	99 (99)	-10.54%
`013126570314`	PLeu	24.43	0.500 ± 0.188	166 (166)	0.436 ± 0.188	106 (106)	-12.74%
`007126570314`	PLeu	22.05	0.491 ± 0.221	135 (135)	0.418 ± 0.226	93 (93)	-14.79%
`007126570314`	PLeu	22.05	0.537 ± 0.122	128 (128)	0.536 ± 0.133	85 (86)	-0.08%
`010126570314`	PLeu	25.37	0.483 ± 0.187	166 (166)	0.443 ± 0.179	106 (106)	-8.35%
`005126570314`	PLeu	20.68	0.517 ± 0.206	139 (139)	0.446 ± 0.197	92 (93)	-13.81%
`006126570314`	LVcr	21.40	0.514 ± 0.229	138 (138)	0.434 ± 0.217	93 (93)	-15.51%
`011126570314`	PLeu	23.90	0.524 ± 0.188	160 (160)	0.467 ± 0.178	106 (106)	-10.88%
`011126570314`	PLeu	23.90	0.510 ± 0.203	160 (160)	0.455 ± 0.200	105 (105)	-10.81%
`014126570314`	PLeu	20.58	0.477 ± 0.171	160 (160)	0.420 ± 0.168	105 (105)	-11.90%
`004126570314`	PLeu	25.66	0.455 ± 0.220	144 (144)	0.453 ± 0.240	94 (94)	-0.53%
`003126570314`	PLeu	25.67	0.484 ± 0.213	142 (142)	0.473 ± 0.241	94 (94)	-2.33%
`015126570314`	PLeu	24.68	0.554 ± 0.210	138 (138)	0.416 ± 0.207	94 (94)	-24.77%
`009126570314`	LVcr	23.85	0.475 ± 0.204	143 (143)	0.413 ± 0.216	87 (87)	-13.08%

NDVI per parcel and year (mean of IQR-filtered observations; cell shows mean / n_kept; — = no obs)

Parcel	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024	2025	2026
`008126570314`	0.581 n=5	0.631 n=21	0.488 n=31	0.356 n=24	0.479 n=22	0.415 n=29	0.513 n=25	0.345 n=26	0.412 n=34	0.719 n=3
`002126570314`	0.378 n=9	0.463 n=30	0.520 n=32	0.376 n=31	0.495 n=27	0.392 n=32	0.423 n=29	0.484 n=30	0.347 n=33	0.610 n=6
`012126570314`	0.521 n=8	0.569 n=30	0.493 n=30	0.366 n=32	0.500 n=28	0.422 n=30	0.429 n=30	0.440 n=33	0.412 n=34	0.490 n=8
`013126570314`	0.541 n=8	0.613 n=28	0.535 n=31	0.378 n=31	0.510 n=25	0.409 n=29	0.447 n=29	0.479 n=33	0.417 n=32	0.517 n=6
`013126570314`	0.579 n=8	0.606 n=27	0.565 n=31	0.441 n=29	0.577 n=24	0.451 n=28	0.499 n=29	0.484 n=32	0.436 n=32	0.556 n=5
`013126570314`	0.611 n=8	0.602 n=30	0.538 n=31	0.414 n=34	0.516 n=31	0.419 n=31	0.440 n=31	0.453 n=33	0.406 n=35	0.487 n=7
`007126570314`	0.638 n=4	0.592 n=24	0.548 n=28	0.463 n=24	0.372 n=25	0.445 n=28	0.504 n=26	0.309 n=30	0.491 n=32	0.190 n=4
`007126570314`	0.616 n=6	0.592 n=22	0.539 n=27	0.531 n=23	0.471 n=24	0.535 n=26	0.611 n=24	0.479 n=28	0.578 n=30	0.326 n=3
`010126570314`	0.512 n=10	0.512 n=32	0.516 n=32	0.417 n=31	0.494 n=32	0.462 n=29	0.450 n=32	0.436 n=33	0.419 n=34	0.535 n=6
`005126570314`	0.709 n=7	0.617 n=24	0.570 n=27	0.472 n=25	0.430 n=28	0.449 n=27	0.550 n=25	0.347 n=30	0.513 n=33	0.216 n=4
`006126570314`	0.672 n=5	0.623 n=24	0.578 n=27	0.478 n=25	0.404 n=28	0.461 n=28	0.519 n=26	0.335 n=30	0.486 n=33	0.201 n=4
`011126570314`	0.640 n=8	0.578 n=30	0.551 n=31	0.455 n=31	0.539 n=30	0.467 n=30	0.455 n=32	0.487 n=33	0.444 n=34	0.537 n=7
`011126570314`	0.595 n=8	0.553 n=31	0.544 n=31	0.430 n=31	0.536 n=29	0.473 n=29	0.440 n=32	0.464 n=32	0.429 n=34	0.588 n=6
`014126570314`	0.558 n=8	0.555 n=25	0.481 n=29	0.333 n=28	0.495 n=28	0.428 n=30	0.410 n=31	0.424 n=33	0.397 n=32	0.474 n=8
`004126570314`	0.632 n=6	0.529 n=26	0.498 n=28	0.239 n=22	0.473 n=29	0.442 n=29	0.474 n=27	0.431 n=30	0.485 n=33	0.207 n=4
`003126570314`	0.645 n=7	0.552 n=24	0.515 n=28	0.366 n=24	0.486 n=29	0.462 n=29	0.502 n=28	0.455 n=29	0.495 n=33	0.217 n=4
`015126570314`	0.704 n=7	0.613 n=23	0.550 n=28	0.506 n=25	0.575 n=26	0.502 n=28	0.467 n=26	0.318 n=30	0.489 n=34	0.199 n=3
`009126570314`	0.485 n=5	0.561 n=25	0.483 n=31	0.456 n=30	0.483 n=23	0.404 n=29	0.501 n=26	0.317 n=26	0.384 n=32	0.727 n=2

Cell colour: pre / post.

NDVI per parcel, year and month (IQR-filtered monthly mean; small number = n_kept observations in that month-cell)

Parcel 008126570314

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.529 n=3	0.658 n=2	—
2018	0.675 n=1	0.669 n=1	0.801 n=2	0.863 n=3	0.786 n=2	0.345 n=3	0.608 n=3	0.493 n=3	0.348 n=1	0.744 n=1	0.722 n=1	—
2019	0.635 n=2	0.670 n=2	0.769 n=2	0.862 n=2	0.789 n=2	0.339 n=3	0.324 n=3	0.358 n=3	0.318 n=3	0.492 n=4	0.227 n=2	0.412 n=3
2020	0.382 n=3	0.411 n=1	0.620 n=2	0.700 n=3	0.478 n=2	0.289 n=3	0.296 n=3	0.254 n=3	0.236 n=3	0.378 n=1	0.374 n=2	0.453 n=1
2021	0.570 n=1	0.528 n=3	0.747 n=1	0.867 n=3	0.909 n=1	0.406 n=2	0.346 n=3	0.189 n=3	0.172 n=1	0.277 n=2	0.458 n=1	0.526 n=1
2022	0.467 n=3	0.373 n=2	0.485 n=3	0.699 n=2	0.804 n=3	0.509 n=3	0.217 n=3	0.215 n=3	0.207 n=3	0.217 n=3	—	0.540 n=1
2023	0.583 n=2	0.577 n=2	0.755 n=1	0.885 n=1	0.835 n=2	0.458 n=3	0.292 n=3	0.219 n=4	0.554 n=3	0.718 n=2	—	0.485 n=2
2024	0.441 n=2	—	0.266 n=2	0.313 n=2	0.425 n=2	0.550 n=3	0.420 n=2	0.260 n=3	0.212 n=3	0.267 n=3	0.272 n=2	0.421 n=2
2025	0.373 n=3	0.536 n=2	0.729 n=2	0.767 n=2	0.818 n=3	0.517 n=3	0.221 n=4	0.177 n=3	0.176 n=3	0.248 n=3	0.327 n=3	0.388 n=3
2026	—	—	0.721 n=1	0.718 n=2	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

Parcel 002126570314

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.418 n=3	0.313 n=3	0.358 n=3
2018	0.391 n=1	0.401 n=2	0.463 n=2	0.610 n=3	0.659 n=3	0.448 n=3	0.508 n=3	0.369 n=3	0.258 n=3	0.427 n=3	0.431 n=3	0.627 n=1
2019	0.557 n=2	0.554 n=3	0.618 n=2	0.689 n=2	0.686 n=2	0.467 n=3	0.335 n=3	0.358 n=3	0.275 n=3	0.621 n=4	0.770 n=2	0.520 n=3
2020	0.367 n=3	0.421 n=3	0.275 n=3	0.284 n=3	0.463 n=3	0.660 n=3	0.412 n=3	0.197 n=3	0.193 n=3	0.330 n=1	0.522 n=2	0.471 n=1
2021	0.473 n=2	0.433 n=2	0.528 n=2	0.671 n=3	0.744 n=2	0.514 n=1	0.316 n=3	0.204 n=3	0.205 n=2	0.438 n=3	0.840 n=2	0.765 n=2
2022	0.527 n=3	0.516 n=2	0.532 n=3	0.762 n=2	0.803 n=3	0.443 n=3	0.158 n=3	0.166 n=3	0.160 n=3	0.177 n=3	0.223 n=2	0.320 n=2
2023	0.430 n=2	0.453 n=2	0.592 n=1	0.782 n=1	0.799 n=3	0.541 n=3	0.198 n=3	0.189 n=4	0.184 n=2	0.237 n=3	0.464 n=2	0.585 n=3
2024	0.622 n=1	0.674 n=1	0.637 n=3	0.762 n=3	0.812 n=3	0.412 n=3	0.219 n=3	0.186 n=3	0.209 n=3	0.497 n=3	0.634 n=1	0.462 n=3
2025	0.275 n=3	0.253 n=2	0.256 n=2	0.312 n=3	0.200 n=3	0.599 n=3	0.510 n=4	0.287 n=3	0.250 n=2	0.291 n=3	0.365 n=3	0.537 n=3
2026	0.600 n=1	0.497 n=1	0.488 n=3	0.650 n=2	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

Parcel 012126570314

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.514 n=3	0.430 n=3	0.531 n=3
2018	0.449 n=2	0.481 n=2	0.566 n=2	0.710 n=3	0.775 n=3	0.550 n=3	0.572 n=3	0.533 n=3	0.466 n=3	0.547 n=3	0.523 n=2	0.571 n=1
2019	0.495 n=2	0.467 n=3	0.557 n=2	0.666 n=2	0.788 n=2	0.634 n=3	0.464 n=3	0.436 n=3	0.376 n=3	0.550 n=4	0.490 n=2	0.352 n=3
2020	0.299 n=3	0.324 n=3	0.377 n=3	0.299 n=3	0.267 n=3	0.497 n=2	0.553 n=3	0.236 n=3	0.230 n=3	0.383 n=3	0.623 n=2	0.569 n=1
2021	0.561 n=2	0.443 n=2	0.489 n=2	0.610 n=2	0.682 n=3	0.652 n=2	0.406 n=3	0.251 n=3	0.234 n=2	0.373 n=3	0.713 n=2	0.723 n=2
2022	0.556 n=3	0.586 n=2	0.618 n=3	0.797 n=2	0.861 n=2	0.383 n=3	0.227 n=3	0.238 n=3	0.224 n=3	0.221 n=3	0.239 n=2	0.296 n=1
2023	0.246 n=2	0.268 n=2	0.204 n=2	0.413 n=2	0.579 n=3	0.616 n=3	0.585 n=3	0.441 n=3	0.338 n=2	0.307 n=2	0.419 n=2	0.527 n=3
2024	0.512 n=3	0.577 n=1	0.654 n=3	0.728 n=3	0.719 n=3	0.363 n=3	0.256 n=3	0.216 n=3	0.244 n=3	0.488 n=3	0.233 n=2	0.308 n=3
2025	0.344 n=2	0.337 n=2	0.468 n=2	0.767 n=3	0.821 n=3	0.446 n=3	0.234 n=3	0.208 n=3	0.217 n=3	0.254 n=3	0.381 n=3	0.506 n=3
2026	0.542 n=1	0.383 n=2	0.471 n=3	0.598 n=2	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

Parcel 013126570314

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.499 n=3	0.538 n=2	0.584 n=3
2018	0.573 n=1	0.452 n=2	0.621 n=2	0.753 n=3	0.799 n=3	0.517 n=3	0.616 n=3	0.599 n=3	0.508 n=3	0.633 n=3	0.570 n=1	0.597 n=1
2019	0.522 n=2	0.488 n=3	0.595 n=2	0.695 n=2	0.828 n=2	0.648 n=3	0.454 n=3	0.433 n=3	0.378 n=3	0.594 n=3	0.607 n=2	0.372 n=3
2020	0.320 n=3	0.352 n=3	0.414 n=3	0.306 n=3	0.295 n=3	0.590 n=2	0.541 n=3	0.240 n=3	0.232 n=3	0.418 n=3	0.698 n=2	0.560 n=1
2021	0.502 n=2	0.439 n=2	0.479 n=2	0.606 n=2	0.712 n=2	0.684 n=2	0.440 n=3	0.259 n=3	0.238 n=2	0.396 n=1	0.765 n=2	0.700 n=2
2022	0.623 n=2	0.553 n=2	0.567 n=3	0.766 n=2	0.855 n=2	0.390 n=3	0.228 n=3	0.229 n=3	0.217 n=3	0.214 n=3	0.230 n=2	0.280 n=1
2023	0.290 n=1	0.257 n=2	0.203 n=2	0.370 n=2	0.570 n=3	0.641 n=3	0.608 n=3	0.454 n=3	0.312 n=2	0.325 n=2	0.464 n=2	0.576 n=3
2024	0.573 n=3	0.650 n=1	0.730 n=3	0.792 n=3	0.754 n=3	0.344 n=3	0.237 n=3	0.204 n=3	0.279 n=3	0.566 n=3	0.406 n=2	0.302 n=3
2025	0.331 n=2	0.315 n=2	0.423 n=2	0.761 n=3	0.829 n=3	0.493 n=2	0.205 n=4	0.201 n=3	0.207 n=2	0.260 n=3	0.412 n=3	0.532 n=3
2026	0.566 n=1	0.460 n=1	0.481 n=3	0.635 n=1	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

Parcel 013126570314

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.518 n=3	0.587 n=2	0.635 n=3
2018	0.619 n=1	0.422 n=2	0.665 n=2	0.779 n=3	0.747 n=2	0.472 n=3	0.641 n=3	0.574 n=3	0.466 n=3	0.674 n=3	0.599 n=1	0.667 n=1
2019	0.590 n=2	0.569 n=3	0.703 n=2	0.771 n=2	0.837 n=2	0.610 n=3	0.386 n=3	0.375 n=3	0.345 n=3	0.667 n=3	0.755 n=2	0.453 n=3
2020	0.400 n=3	0.443 n=3	0.549 n=3	0.460 n=3	0.397 n=3	0.756 n=1	0.432 n=2	0.259 n=2	0.237 n=3	0.428 n=3	0.676 n=2	0.559 n=1
2021	0.557 n=1	0.481 n=2	0.533 n=2	0.665 n=2	0.752 n=3	0.696 n=2	0.515 n=3	0.297 n=1	0.254 n=2	0.463 n=2	0.776 n=2	0.729 n=2
2022	0.664 n=2	0.575 n=2	0.600 n=3	0.814 n=2	0.879 n=2	0.421 n=3	0.297 n=3	0.277 n=3	0.258 n=3	0.214 n=2	0.227 n=2	0.307 n=1
2023	0.308 n=1	0.325 n=2	0.256 n=2	0.419 n=2	0.640 n=3	0.648 n=3	0.628 n=3	0.488 n=3	0.396 n=2	0.379 n=2	0.538 n=2	0.673 n=3
2024	0.622 n=2	0.722 n=1	0.748 n=3	0.794 n=3	0.752 n=3	0.369 n=3	0.254 n=3	0.224 n=3	0.287 n=3	0.549 n=3	0.263 n=2	0.351 n=3
2025	0.382 n=2	0.373 n=2	0.500 n=2	0.786 n=3	0.835 n=3	0.507 n=2	0.230 n=4	0.226 n=3	0.249 n=3	0.284 n=3	0.438 n=3	0.519 n=2
2026	0.560 n=1	0.466 n=1	0.428 n=3	0.658 n=1	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

Parcel 013126570314

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.529 n=3	0.492 n=3	0.681 n=3
2018	0.655 n=2	0.448 n=2	0.709 n=2	0.801 n=3	0.782 n=3	0.425 n=3	0.587 n=3	0.544 n=3	0.422 n=3	0.660 n=3	0.553 n=2	0.657 n=1
2019	0.587 n=2	0.571 n=3	0.681 n=2	0.747 n=2	0.824 n=2	0.548 n=3	0.331 n=3	0.332 n=3	0.323 n=3	0.653 n=3	0.742 n=2	0.417 n=3
2020	0.362 n=3	0.414 n=3	0.506 n=3	0.405 n=3	0.325 n=3	0.587 n=3	0.465 n=3	0.223 n=3	0.225 n=3	0.430 n=3	0.676 n=2	0.452 n=2
2021	0.549 n=2	0.473 n=2	0.522 n=2	0.655 n=3	0.704 n=3	0.655 n=2	0.444 n=3	0.255 n=4	0.228 n=2	0.404 n=3	0.682 n=3	0.732 n=2
2022	0.608 n=3	0.585 n=2	0.579 n=3	0.779 n=2	0.694 n=3	0.402 n=3	0.244 n=3	0.236 n=3	0.220 n=3	0.201 n=3	0.218 n=2	0.288 n=1
2023	0.319 n=2	0.302 n=2	0.227 n=2	0.419 n=2	0.592 n=3	0.598 n=3	0.565 n=3	0.424 n=3	0.332 n=2	0.304 n=3	0.460 n=2	0.607 n=3
2024	0.589 n=3	0.705 n=1	0.725 n=3	0.764 n=3	0.710 n=3	0.325 n=3	0.227 n=3	0.198 n=3	0.247 n=3	0.477 n=3	0.242 n=2	0.318 n=3
2025	0.347 n=3	0.348 n=2	0.475 n=2	0.761 n=3	0.803 n=3	0.430 n=3	0.212 n=4	0.196 n=3	0.210 n=3	0.256 n=3	0.401 n=3	0.508 n=3
2026	0.548 n=1	0.424 n=2	0.467 n=3	0.613 n=1	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

Parcel 007126570314

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.653 n=3	0.637 n=2	0.616 n=1
2018	0.512 n=1	0.543 n=1	0.732 n=3	0.785 n=3	0.805 n=2	0.641 n=3	0.518 n=3	0.315 n=3	0.295 n=2	0.661 n=3	—	—
2019	0.562 n=2	0.606 n=2	0.811 n=2	0.863 n=2	0.769 n=2	0.424 n=2	0.338 n=3	0.250 n=3	0.243 n=3	0.647 n=4	0.772 n=1	0.712 n=2
2020	0.636 n=3	0.620 n=1	0.770 n=3	0.819 n=2	0.574 n=2	0.496 n=2	0.263 n=3	0.214 n=3	0.200 n=3	0.208 n=1	0.249 n=1	—
2021	0.383 n=1	0.480 n=3	0.462 n=2	0.745 n=2	0.812 n=1	0.500 n=2	0.214 n=3	0.154 n=4	0.161 n=2	0.161 n=2	0.403 n=2	0.550 n=1
2022	0.486 n=2	0.511 n=2	0.520 n=3	0.598 n=1	0.755 n=3	0.378 n=3	0.319 n=3	0.288 n=3	0.274 n=3	0.246 n=2	0.351 n=1	0.715 n=2
2023	0.796 n=2	0.796 n=2	0.869 n=1	0.874 n=2	0.794 n=3	0.411 n=3	0.229 n=3	0.212 n=3	0.314 n=3	0.384 n=2	—	0.328 n=2
2024	0.314 n=3	—	0.243 n=3	0.340 n=3	0.285 n=3	0.419 n=3	0.260 n=3	0.335 n=3	0.301 n=3	0.255 n=3	0.204 n=2	0.332 n=2
2025	0.313 n=3	0.419 n=1	0.628 n=2	0.826 n=2	0.835 n=2	0.588 n=3	0.244 n=4	0.223 n=3	0.326 n=3	0.505 n=3	0.687 n=3	0.604 n=3
2026	—	0.220 n=1	0.195 n=1	0.172 n=2	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

Parcel 007126570314

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.672 n=3	0.578 n=2	0.528 n=1
2018	0.459 n=1	0.450 n=1	0.566 n=3	0.651 n=3	0.810 n=2	0.676 n=3	0.595 n=3	0.448 n=3	0.426 n=1	0.626 n=2	—	—
2019	0.468 n=2	0.446 n=2	0.576 n=2	0.682 n=2	0.775 n=2	0.644 n=2	0.530 n=3	0.397 n=3	0.395 n=3	0.549 n=3	0.643 n=1	0.557 n=2
2020	0.480 n=3	0.452 n=1	0.584 n=3	0.695 n=2	0.664 n=2	0.716 n=2	0.517 n=2	0.469 n=3	0.392 n=3	0.395 n=1	0.406 n=1	—
2021	0.459 n=1	0.477 n=3	0.411 n=2	0.603 n=2	0.740 n=1	0.626 n=2	0.491 n=3	0.358 n=4	0.322 n=2	0.368 n=1	0.462 n=2	0.554 n=1
2022	0.477 n=2	0.483 n=1	0.414 n=3	0.568 n=1	0.726 n=3	0.652 n=3	0.573 n=3	0.460 n=3	0.496 n=2	0.427 n=2	0.434 n=1	0.581 n=2
2023	0.637 n=2	0.655 n=2	0.702 n=1	0.773 n=2	0.799 n=3	0.681 n=2	0.413 n=3	0.461 n=3	0.559 n=3	0.619 n=2	—	0.543 n=1
2024	0.451 n=3	—	0.341 n=3	0.515 n=3	0.536 n=3	0.629 n=3	0.498 n=2	0.453 n=3	0.441 n=3	0.433 n=3	0.370 n=1	0.407 n=2
2025	0.432 n=2	0.418 n=1	0.535 n=2	0.725 n=2	0.757 n=2	0.667 n=3	0.448 n=4	0.439 n=3	0.559 n=3	0.659 n=3	0.727 n=3	0.541 n=2
2026	—	0.299 n=1	0.292 n=1	0.388 n=1	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

Parcel 010126570314

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.448 n=4	0.500 n=3	0.609 n=3
2018	0.584 n=2	0.467 n=2	0.606 n=2	0.726 n=3	0.745 n=3	0.459 n=3	0.579 n=3	0.532 n=3	0.282 n=3	0.468 n=3	0.301 n=3	0.399 n=2
2019	0.574 n=2	0.540 n=3	0.608 n=2	0.699 n=2	0.774 n=2	0.544 n=3	0.343 n=3	0.259 n=3	0.272 n=3	0.606 n=4	0.744 n=2	0.476 n=3
2020	0.357 n=3	0.405 n=3	0.406 n=3	0.299 n=3	0.333 n=2	0.684 n=3	0.499 n=3	0.219 n=2	0.232 n=3	0.444 n=2	0.714 n=2	0.424 n=2
2021	0.562 n=2	0.463 n=2	0.565 n=2	0.433 n=3	0.705 n=3	0.626 n=3	0.408 n=3	0.264 n=3	0.229 n=3	0.467 n=3	0.775 n=2	0.726 n=2
2022	0.655 n=2	0.558 n=2	0.583 n=3	0.785 n=2	0.793 n=3	0.398 n=3	0.231 n=3	0.269 n=3	0.253 n=3	0.271 n=2	0.370 n=2	0.543 n=1
2023	0.378 n=2	0.438 n=2	0.621 n=2	0.661 n=2	0.742 n=3	0.507 n=3	0.315 n=3	0.322 n=4	0.324 n=3	0.271 n=3	0.436 n=2	0.520 n=3
2024	0.516 n=3	0.568 n=1	0.634 n=3	0.702 n=3	0.676 n=3	0.357 n=3	0.243 n=3	0.210 n=3	0.273 n=3	0.557 n=3	0.228 n=2	0.292 n=3
2025	0.321 n=2	0.302 n=2	0.385 n=2	0.687 n=3	0.771 n=3	0.445 n=3	0.225 n=4	0.212 n=3	0.318 n=3	0.295 n=3	0.513 n=3	0.533 n=3
2026	0.555 n=1	0.520 n=2	0.539 n=3	0.657 n=1	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

Parcel 005126570314

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.774 n=3	0.671 n=3	0.625 n=1
2018	0.537 n=1	0.554 n=1	0.729 n=3	0.790 n=3	0.845 n=2	0.631 n=3	0.541 n=3	0.331 n=3	0.321 n=2	0.775 n=3	—	—
2019	0.579 n=2	0.602 n=2	0.804 n=2	0.868 n=2	0.766 n=2	0.420 n=2	0.370 n=3	0.342 n=3	0.337 n=3	0.716 n=3	0.727 n=1	0.649 n=2
2020	0.570 n=3	0.561 n=1	0.748 n=3	0.815 n=2	0.575 n=2	0.641 n=2	0.299 n=3	0.288 n=3	0.254 n=3	0.190 n=2	0.323 n=1	—
2021	0.447 n=1	0.536 n=3	0.609 n=2	0.784 n=2	0.807 n=2	0.507 n=3	0.252 n=3	0.194 n=4	0.185 n=2	0.285 n=3	0.400 n=2	0.520 n=1
2022	0.450 n=2	0.379 n=2	0.384 n=3	0.482 n=1	0.700 n=3	0.543 n=3	0.451 n=3	0.331 n=3	0.416 n=3	0.287 n=2	0.379 n=1	0.648 n=2
2023	0.711 n=2	0.708 n=2	0.793 n=1	0.854 n=2	0.775 n=3	0.563 n=2	0.239 n=3	0.290 n=3	0.494 n=3	0.540 n=2	—	0.408 n=2
2024	0.385 n=3	—	0.286 n=3	0.347 n=3	0.442 n=3	0.439 n=3	0.276 n=3	0.362 n=3	0.275 n=3	0.262 n=3	0.253 n=2	0.354 n=2
2025	0.384 n=3	0.367 n=2	0.620 n=2	0.818 n=2	0.824 n=2	0.602 n=3	0.251 n=3	0.269 n=3	0.455 n=3	0.637 n=3	0.662 n=3	0.514 n=3
2026	—	0.236 n=1	0.234 n=1	0.198 n=2	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

Parcel 006126570314

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.733 n=3	0.686 n=2	0.655 n=1
2018	0.524 n=1	0.567 n=1	0.756 n=3	0.823 n=3	0.839 n=2	0.676 n=3	0.537 n=3	0.313 n=3	0.305 n=2	0.754 n=3	—	—
2019	0.593 n=2	0.650 n=2	0.857 n=2	0.906 n=2	0.774 n=2	0.392 n=2	0.355 n=3	0.277 n=3	0.281 n=3	0.715 n=3	0.827 n=1	0.774 n=2
2020	0.698 n=3	0.679 n=1	0.823 n=3	0.860 n=2	0.596 n=2	0.510 n=2	0.273 n=3	0.229 n=3	0.213 n=3	0.182 n=2	0.263 n=1	—
2021	0.374 n=1	0.448 n=3	0.514 n=2	0.738 n=2	0.791 n=2	0.537 n=3	0.221 n=3	0.159 n=4	0.163 n=2	0.281 n=3	0.437 n=2	0.566 n=1
2022	0.495 n=2	0.470 n=2	0.508 n=3	0.625 n=1	0.758 n=3	0.408 n=3	0.342 n=3	0.323 n=3	0.368 n=3	0.280 n=2	0.341 n=1	0.667 n=2
2023	0.741 n=2	0.748 n=2	0.850 n=1	0.877 n=2	0.780 n=3	0.474 n=3	0.226 n=3	0.222 n=3	0.373 n=3	0.459 n=2	—	0.389 n=2
2024	0.366 n=3	—	0.309 n=2	0.365 n=3	0.480 n=3	0.422 n=3	0.310 n=3	0.337 n=3	0.242 n=3	0.248 n=3	0.208 n=2	0.351 n=2
2025	0.375 n=3	0.412 n=2	0.676 n=2	0.858 n=2	0.849 n=2	0.571 n=3	0.226 n=4	0.208 n=3	0.356 n=3	0.536 n=3	0.653 n=3	0.487 n=3
2026	—	0.219 n=1	0.206 n=1	0.189 n=2	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

Parcel 011126570314

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.560 n=3	0.653 n=2	0.711 n=3
2018	0.691 n=2	0.551 n=2	0.725 n=2	0.824 n=3	0.792 n=3	0.386 n=3	0.560 n=3	0.591 n=3	0.334 n=3	0.572 n=3	0.264 n=2	0.693 n=1
2019	0.628 n=2	0.598 n=3	0.677 n=2	0.740 n=2	0.793 n=2	0.424 n=2	0.336 n=3	0.286 n=3	0.328 n=3	0.692 n=4	0.782 n=2	0.533 n=3
2020	0.392 n=3	0.443 n=3	0.483 n=3	0.363 n=3	0.407 n=3	0.671 n=3	0.483 n=3	0.241 n=2	0.251 n=3	0.488 n=2	0.763 n=2	0.627 n=1
2021	0.619 n=1	0.522 n=2	0.593 n=2	0.672 n=3	0.715 n=3	0.642 n=3	0.415 n=3	0.237 n=4	0.251 n=2	0.499 n=3	0.784 n=2	0.743 n=2
2022	0.539 n=3	0.560 n=2	0.602 n=3	0.783 n=2	0.770 n=3	0.411 n=3	0.261 n=3	0.279 n=3	0.278 n=3	0.314 n=2	0.362 n=2	0.544 n=1
2023	0.415 n=2	0.396 n=2	0.542 n=2	0.594 n=2	0.677 n=3	0.508 n=3	0.313 n=3	0.310 n=4	0.311 n=3	0.333 n=3	0.559 n=2	0.627 n=3
2024	0.596 n=3	0.684 n=1	0.741 n=3	0.773 n=3	0.692 n=3	0.369 n=3	0.260 n=3	0.229 n=3	0.311 n=3	0.576 n=3	0.283 n=2	0.392 n=3
2025	0.396 n=2	0.359 n=2	0.477 n=2	0.744 n=3	0.803 n=3	0.483 n=3	0.237 n=4	0.231 n=3	0.263 n=3	0.330 n=3	0.510 n=3	0.534 n=3
2026	0.549 n=1	0.518 n=2	0.529 n=3	0.585 n=1	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

Parcel 011126570314

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.500 n=3	0.460 n=3	0.679 n=3
2018	0.660 n=2	0.614 n=2	0.702 n=2	0.797 n=3	0.763 n=3	0.379 n=3	0.559 n=3	0.589 n=3	0.286 n=3	0.516 n=3	0.336 n=2	0.426 n=2
2019	0.613 n=2	0.581 n=3	0.662 n=2	0.737 n=2	0.777 n=2	0.502 n=3	0.312 n=3	0.255 n=3	0.295 n=3	0.678 n=4	0.787 n=2	0.591 n=2
2020	0.366 n=3	0.404 n=3	0.455 n=3	0.308 n=3	0.305 n=2	0.748 n=3	0.492 n=3	0.210 n=2	0.226 n=3	0.479 n=2	0.759 n=2	0.422 n=2
2021	0.564 n=2	0.489 n=2	0.603 n=2	0.738 n=2	0.736 n=3	0.602 n=2	0.396 n=3	0.256 n=3	0.228 n=3	0.504 n=3	0.820 n=2	0.773 n=2
2022	0.714 n=2	0.601 n=2	0.652 n=3	0.841 n=2	0.788 n=3	0.381 n=3	0.225 n=3	0.262 n=3	0.249 n=3	0.263 n=2	0.350 n=2	0.511 n=1
2023	0.359 n=2	0.408 n=2	0.598 n=2	0.648 n=2	0.730 n=3	0.479 n=3	0.273 n=3	0.295 n=4	0.315 n=3	0.279 n=3	0.481 n=2	0.565 n=3
2024	0.570 n=3	0.669 n=1	0.695 n=3	0.754 n=3	0.707 n=3	0.337 n=3	0.226 n=3	0.197 n=3	0.284 n=3	0.580 n=3	0.244 n=2	0.313 n=2
2025	0.336 n=2	0.318 n=2	0.455 n=2	0.764 n=3	0.820 n=3	0.417 n=3	0.203 n=4	0.199 n=3	0.268 n=3	0.282 n=3	0.534 n=3	0.565 n=3
2026	0.596 n=1	0.570 n=2	0.597 n=3	0.704 n=1	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

Parcel 014126570314

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.568 n=3	0.451 n=3	0.559 n=3
2018	0.411 n=2	0.501 n=2	0.584 n=2	0.733 n=3	0.795 n=3	0.559 n=3	0.573 n=3	0.570 n=3	0.511 n=3	0.534 n=3	0.481 n=2	0.536 n=1
2019	0.459 n=2	0.431 n=3	0.508 n=2	0.627 n=2	0.789 n=2	0.688 n=3	0.534 n=3	0.491 n=3	0.403 n=3	0.532 n=4	0.367 n=2	0.352 n=3
2020	0.308 n=3	0.337 n=3	0.364 n=3	0.260 n=3	0.279 n=3	0.466 n=2	0.579 n=3	0.236 n=2	0.230 n=3	0.327 n=3	0.585 n=2	0.556 n=1
2021	0.550 n=2	0.433 n=2	0.464 n=2	0.561 n=2	0.676 n=3	0.660 n=2	0.423 n=3	0.247 n=3	0.244 n=2	0.356 n=3	0.734 n=2	0.730 n=2
2022	0.672 n=2	0.581 n=2	0.582 n=3	0.758 n=2	0.721 n=3	0.409 n=3	0.231 n=3	0.237 n=3	0.236 n=3	0.246 n=3	0.245 n=2	0.343 n=1
2023	0.340 n=1	0.281 n=2	0.221 n=2	0.491 n=2	0.521 n=3	0.568 n=3	0.580 n=3	0.377 n=4	0.348 n=3	0.295 n=3	0.367 n=2	0.403 n=3
2024	0.393 n=3	0.421 n=1	0.554 n=3	0.667 n=3	0.723 n=3	0.417 n=3	0.295 n=3	0.244 n=3	0.252 n=3	0.510 n=3	0.235 n=2	0.317 n=3
2025	0.347 n=2	0.334 n=2	0.416 n=2	0.722 n=3	0.839 n=3	0.491 n=3	0.233 n=4	0.215 n=3	0.223 n=3	0.278 n=3	0.389 n=3	0.488 n=2
2026	0.525 n=1	0.385 n=2	0.447 n=3	0.579 n=2	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

Parcel 004126570314

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.595 n=3	0.670 n=2	0.495 n=2
2018	0.600 n=1	0.676 n=1	0.794 n=3	0.858 n=3	0.520 n=3	0.336 n=3	0.350 n=3	0.361 n=3	0.345 n=2	0.646 n=2	0.548 n=1	0.288 n=1
2019	0.571 n=2	0.591 n=2	0.725 n=2	0.844 n=2	0.826 n=2	0.395 n=2	0.293 n=3	0.246 n=3	0.242 n=3	0.511 n=4	0.687 n=1	0.481 n=2
2020	0.271 n=3	0.277 n=1	0.296 n=3	0.241 n=2	0.218 n=2	0.672 n=2	0.338 n=3	0.193 n=3	0.201 n=3	0.206 n=2	0.318 n=1	—
2021	0.600 n=1	0.712 n=3	0.569 n=2	0.901 n=2	0.880 n=3	0.499 n=3	0.248 n=3	0.182 n=3	0.181 n=2	0.259 n=3	0.416 n=2	0.538 n=1
2022	0.502 n=3	0.428 n=2	0.465 n=3	0.632 n=1	0.787 n=3	0.513 n=3	0.307 n=3	0.212 n=3	0.350 n=3	0.242 n=2	0.328 n=1	0.556 n=2
2023	0.659 n=2	0.680 n=2	0.822 n=1	0.829 n=2	0.778 n=3	0.463 n=3	0.232 n=3	0.237 n=4	0.226 n=3	0.195 n=2	—	0.600 n=2
2024	0.481 n=3	—	0.783 n=3	0.835 n=3	0.634 n=3	0.342 n=3	0.270 n=2	0.224 n=3	0.227 n=3	0.262 n=3	0.195 n=2	0.315 n=2
2025	0.342 n=3	0.364 n=1	0.554 n=2	0.763 n=3	0.796 n=2	0.548 n=3	0.237 n=4	0.189 n=3	0.298 n=3	0.570 n=3	0.731 n=3	0.553 n=3
2026	—	0.240 n=1	0.205 n=1	0.192 n=2	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

Parcel 003126570314

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.618 n=3	0.661 n=3	0.473 n=2
2018	0.605 n=1	0.639 n=1	0.767 n=3	0.822 n=3	0.790 n=2	0.492 n=3	0.499 n=3	0.333 n=3	0.195 n=3	0.555 n=2	—	—
2019	0.507 n=2	0.503 n=2	0.678 n=2	0.835 n=2	0.769 n=2	0.369 n=2	0.266 n=3	0.248 n=3	0.272 n=3	0.627 n=3	0.795 n=1	0.632 n=2
2020	0.403 n=3	0.380 n=1	0.454 n=3	0.505 n=2	0.595 n=2	0.531 n=2	0.248 n=2	0.211 n=3	0.207 n=3	0.238 n=2	0.356 n=1	—
2021	0.599 n=1	0.717 n=3	0.755 n=3	0.874 n=2	0.800 n=2	0.483 n=3	0.249 n=3	0.179 n=3	0.182 n=2	0.317 n=3	0.458 n=2	0.556 n=1
2022	0.509 n=3	0.302 n=2	0.502 n=3	0.629 n=1	0.780 n=3	0.489 n=3	0.345 n=3	0.260 n=3	0.416 n=3	0.256 n=2	0.365 n=1	0.696 n=2
2023	0.760 n=2	0.751 n=2	0.840 n=2	0.871 n=2	0.737 n=3	0.419 n=3	0.216 n=3	0.246 n=4	0.243 n=3	0.228 n=2	—	0.668 n=2
2024	0.607 n=3	—	0.807 n=3	0.851 n=3	0.626 n=3	0.341 n=3	0.217 n=3	0.227 n=2	0.237 n=3	0.272 n=3	0.219 n=1	0.326 n=2
2025	0.353 n=3	0.374 n=2	0.568 n=2	0.788 n=2	0.804 n=2	0.545 n=3	0.221 n=3	0.220 n=3	0.457 n=3	0.619 n=3	0.714 n=3	0.520 n=3
2026	—	0.247 n=1	0.216 n=1	0.203 n=2	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

Parcel 015126570314

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.702 n=3	0.711 n=3	0.513 n=2
2018	0.565 n=1	0.597 n=1	0.751 n=3	0.799 n=3	0.808 n=2	0.633 n=3	0.554 n=3	0.365 n=3	0.321 n=2	0.684 n=2	—	—
2019	0.546 n=2	0.556 n=2	0.737 n=2	0.864 n=2	0.764 n=2	0.401 n=2	0.316 n=3	0.277 n=3	0.280 n=3	0.668 n=4	0.824 n=1	0.777 n=2
2020	0.705 n=3	0.684 n=1	0.792 n=3	0.837 n=2	0.591 n=2	0.566 n=2	0.331 n=3	0.250 n=3	0.245 n=3	0.267 n=2	0.477 n=1	—
2021	0.541 n=1	0.589 n=3	0.622 n=2	0.803 n=2	0.799 n=2	0.644 n=2	0.507 n=3	0.290 n=4	0.258 n=2	0.614 n=2	0.808 n=2	0.850 n=1
2022	0.712 n=2	0.643 n=2	0.684 n=3	0.783 n=1	0.555 n=3	0.672 n=3	0.347 n=3	0.282 n=3	0.318 n=3	0.246 n=2	0.335 n=1	0.580 n=2
2023	0.662 n=2	0.666 n=2	0.789 n=1	0.796 n=2	0.740 n=3	0.406 n=3	0.237 n=3	0.194 n=3	0.294 n=3	0.373 n=2	—	0.376 n=2
2024	0.367 n=3	—	0.229 n=3	0.267 n=3	0.344 n=3	0.467 n=3	0.505 n=2	0.300 n=3	0.241 n=3	0.239 n=3	0.224 n=2	0.366 n=2
2025	0.389 n=3	0.361 n=2	0.665 n=2	0.764 n=3	0.842 n=2	0.544 n=3	0.227 n=3	0.210 n=3	0.326 n=3	0.557 n=3	0.634 n=3	0.557 n=3
2026	—	0.240 n=1	0.205 n=1	0.196 n=2	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

Parcel 009126570314

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2017	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	0.459 n=3	0.524 n=2	—
2018	0.537 n=1	0.561 n=1	0.703 n=2	0.800 n=3	0.779 n=3	0.470 n=3	0.524 n=3	0.432 n=3	0.345 n=1	0.472 n=3	0.556 n=1	0.182 n=1
2019	0.540 n=2	0.586 n=2	0.638 n=2	0.713 n=2	0.776 n=2	0.462 n=3	0.342 n=3	0.315 n=3	0.270 n=3	0.455 n=4	0.335 n=2	0.603 n=3
2020	0.533 n=3	0.621 n=3	0.696 n=2	0.804 n=3	0.727 n=2	0.405 n=3	0.307 n=3	0.267 n=3	0.228 n=3	0.131 n=2	0.326 n=2	0.425 n=1
2021	0.477 n=1	0.565 n=2	0.652 n=2	0.773 n=3	0.881 n=1	0.540 n=3	0.328 n=3	0.189 n=3	0.164 n=2	0.400 n=1	0.522 n=1	0.587 n=1
2022	0.494 n=3	0.380 n=2	0.509 n=3	0.629 n=2	0.795 n=3	0.485 n=3	0.198 n=3	0.188 n=3	0.195 n=3	0.200 n=3	—	0.494 n=1
2023	0.541 n=2	0.522 n=2	0.701 n=1	0.788 n=2	0.764 n=3	0.442 n=3	0.233 n=3	0.192 n=3	0.467 n=3	0.701 n=2	—	0.471 n=2
2024	0.420 n=2	—	0.245 n=2	0.287 n=2	0.388 n=2	0.516 n=3	0.401 n=2	0.250 n=3	0.207 n=3	0.240 n=3	0.224 n=2	0.341 n=2
2025	0.371 n=2	0.439 n=2	0.653 n=2	0.794 n=2	0.844 n=3	0.482 n=3	0.204 n=4	0.166 n=3	0.168 n=3	0.226 n=3	0.358 n=3	0.371 n=3
2026	—	—	0.727 n=1	0.727 n=1	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—

2.2 NDTI — Normalised Difference Tillage Index

NDTI = (B11 − B12) / (B11 + B12)
Bands: B11 (SWIR-1, 1610 nm) and B12 (SWIR-2, 2190 nm) — both at 20 m native resolution
Threshold: NDTI ≥ 0.08–0.10 indicates meaningful crop residue or organic mulch presence

Formula components — what each part measures:

B11 (SWIR-1, 1610 nm) — Shortwave infrared band 1. Sensitive to leaf water content and dry plant material (cellulose, lignin). Crop residues reflect moderately at this wavelength.
B12 (SWIR-2, 2190 nm) — Shortwave infrared band 2. Cellulose and lignin in dry plant residues absorb strongly at 2190 nm. Bare mineral soil has relatively flat reflectance across both SWIR bands.
NDTI = (B11 − B12) / (B11 + B12) — The ratio detects the spectral signature of dry organic material on the soil surface. When crop residues are present, B11 reflectance exceeds B12 (because cellulose absorbs at 2190 nm), driving NDTI positive. Bare soil returns NDTI near zero. Higher NDTI = more surface residue = less tillage disturbance.
Threshold 0.08–0.10 — Below this, the signal is indistinguishable from bare soil. Above = meaningful residue presence confirmed spectrally.

NDTI exploits the characteristic shortwave infrared (SWIR) absorption features of dry plant material. Cellulose, lignin, and other structural polysaccharides in senesced crop residues absorb strongly at 2190 nm (B12) while reflecting more moderately at 1610 nm (B11). Bare mineral soil has a relatively flat SWIR reflectance, yielding NDTI values near zero or slightly positive. The presence of crop residue on the soil surface drives NDTI above ≈0.08–0.10, with higher values indicating greater residue density, coverage extent, or residue decomposition state (fresher residues with more structural carbohydrate content score higher). NDTI was first described by Van Deventer et al. (1997) as a tillage intensity indicator and has since been validated across multiple crop systems and soil types.

Key Findings — NDTI

Metric	Farm	Control	Belt
Pre-project mean	0.2250	0.2269	0.2205
Post-project mean	0.2120	0.2231	0.2175
Change	-5.78%	-1.70%	-1.37%
Cohen’s d	-0.217 (small)	-0.074 (negligible)	-0.068 (negligible)

Farm-level NDTI shows a -5.78% decline, not statistically significant (p ≥ 0.05), with Cohen's d = -0.217 (small). NDTI is sensitive to crop type and growth stage; the decline should be assessed alongside SAR indicators for a complete tillage assessment.

NDTI limitations: the index is sensitive to crop type, growth stage, and background soil brightness. Values should be interpreted alongside NDVI and SAR indicators for a complete tillage assessment.

The farm (-5.78%) is assessed alongside control (-1.70%) and belt (-1.37%).

NDTI (Tillage Index) — Pre vs Post Comparison

Higher NDTI = greater soil residue cover (reduced tillage signal)

Pre-project (2018–2022)

Post-project (2023–2025)

-5.8%

0.2250

0.2120

Farm

-1.7%

0.2269

0.2231

Control

-1.4%

0.2205

0.2175

Belt

DiD vs Control: -4.07 pp

Y-axis: NDTI index (dimensionless)

Figure 2.1 — NDTI Pre vs Post Comparison — Farm (-5.78%), Control (-1.70%), Belt (-1.37%)

2.3 GPP Proxy — Gross Primary Productivity (Light Use Efficiency Model)

GPP = fAPAR × PAR × ε_max × f_stress [gC/m²/day]
SAVI = ((B08 − B04) / (B08 + B04 + 0.35)) × (1 + 0.35) [10 m bands]
fAPAR = 1.2 × SAVI − 0.05 [clipped to 0, 1]
LSWI = (B8A − B11) / (B8A + B11) [B8A: 20 m; B11: 20 m]
W_LSWI = (1 + LSWI) / (1 + LSWI_max) [clipped to 0.6, 1.0]
GPP = fAPAR × 8.5 × 0.95 × W_LSWI
ε_max = 8.5 gC/MJ (maximum LUE); PAR fraction = 0.95
Effective resolution: 20 m (LSWI uses B8A and B11 at 20 m)

Formula components — what each step measures:

SAVI — Soil-Adjusted Vegetation Index. Same principle as NDVI (B08 NIR vs B04 Red) but with a soil brightness correction factor (L = 0.35) that reduces the influence of bare soil background on the vegetation signal. Measures how much photosynthetically active leaf area is present.
fAPAR — Fraction of Absorbed Photosynthetically Active Radiation. Converted from SAVI via linear scaling (1.2 × SAVI − 0.05). Represents the proportion of incoming solar radiation (400–700 nm) that the vegetation canopy actually absorbs for photosynthesis. Values 0 (bare soil) to 1 (fully closed canopy).
LSWI — Land Surface Water Index. Ratio of B8A (near-infrared, 865 nm) and B11 (SWIR, 1610 nm). Detects leaf and canopy water content: when plants are well-hydrated, NIR reflectance is high and SWIR is absorbed by water → LSWI is high. Under drought, SWIR reflectance increases → LSWI drops.
W_LSWI — Water stress scalar. Normalises the current LSWI against its seasonal maximum: W = (1 + LSWI) / (1 + LSWI_max). A value of 1.0 = no water stress (plant is at peak hydration); 0.6 = maximum detectable stress (lower clip prevents overcorrection). This is the only component of GPP that responds to drought.
ε_max — Maximum light use efficiency (8.5 gC/MJ). The theoretical maximum rate at which vegetation converts absorbed radiation into carbon biomass, under optimal conditions (no water/temperature/nutrient stress).
Final GPP = fAPAR × 8.5 × 0.95 × W_LSWI. The product of "how much light is absorbed" × "how efficiently it can be used" × "how much water stress reduces that efficiency".

Gross Primary Productivity quantifies the total photosynthetic carbon fixation by vegetation — the fundamental measure of ecosystem productivity. The Light Use Efficiency (LUE) framework used here is consistent with the MODIS MOD17 algorithm (Running et al. 2004) and the Vegetation Photosynthesis Model (VPM, Xiao et al. 2004), providing a methodologically standard approach that enables cross-validation with the global MODIS GPP archive. The framework decomposes GPP into: the fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (fAPAR), calculated from the Soil-Adjusted Vegetation Index (SAVI) which corrects for soil background effects; the photosynthetically active radiation flux (PAR × 0.95); maximum light use efficiency (ε_max = 8.5 gC/MJ); and a water stress scalar (W_LSWI) computed from the Land Surface Water Index (LSWI), which uses the 20 m B8A (near-infrared edge, 865 nm) and B11 (SWIR, 1610 nm) bands to detect leaf water content relative to its seasonal maximum.

Water stress scalar and terrain interaction. The W_LSWI scalar is the component of the GPP formula that captures water stress. LSWI (Land Surface Water Index) measures the difference between near-infrared (B8A, 865 nm) and shortwave infrared (B11, 1610 nm) reflectance — when leaf water content drops under drought, SWIR reflectance increases and LSWI decreases, reducing the W_LSWI scalar and consequently the GPP estimate. The formula W_LSWI = (1 + LSWI) / (1 + LSWI_max) normalises each observation against the seasonal maximum LSWI, so that a value of 1.0 means no water stress and 0.6 (the lower clip) means maximum detectable stress.

Key Findings — GPP Proxy

Metric	Farm	Control	Belt
Pre-project mean (gC/m²/day)	3.2112	3.1883	3.0151
Post-project mean (gC/m²/day)	2.8218	2.9840	2.8339
Change	-12.12%	-6.41%	-6.01%
Cohen’s d	-0.198 (negligible)	-0.113 (negligible)	-0.112 (negligible)

Farm-level GPP Proxy shows a -12.12% decline, not statistically significant (p ≥ 0.05), with Cohen's d = -0.198 (negligible). Both farm (-12.12%) and belt (-6.01%) show GPP declines, consistent with regional drought impact.

GPP integrates fAPAR, light use efficiency, and water stress into a single productivity metric. The farm (-12.12%) is assessed against control (-6.41%) and belt (-6.01%).

2.4 SOC Proxy

SOCI = B02 / (B03 × B04) (Thaler et al. 2019, SSSAJ — Soil Organic Carbon Index)
[B02: 490 nm Blue, B03: 560 nm Green, B04: 665 nm Red]
Direction: higher SOCI = more SOC (direct interpretation).
Valid retrieval: NDVI < 0.40 (no active canopy cover) — pixels with developed canopy excluded.
Ancillary diagnostic bands (not used as primary SOC proxy): BSI, NBR2, NDVI.

Formula components — what each part measures:

B02 (Blue, 490 nm) — Strongly absorbed by soil organic matter. Organic-rich topsoils appear darker in the blue region than mineral-only soils, so B02 carries the dominant SOC darkening signal among the visible bands.
B03 (Green, 560 nm) — Reflectance baseline. Together with B04 in the denominator, it normalises the index against overall soil brightness, mineralogy and illumination.
B04 (Red, 665 nm) — Reflectance baseline; sensitive to iron oxides and texture. Co-located with B03 in the denominator to neutralise the brightness/mineralogy confound and isolate the SOC darkening that is concentrated in B02.
SOCI = B02 / (B03 × B04) — The visible-only SOC index of Thaler et al. (2019). The numerator captures the SOC absorption signal in the blue; the denominator removes the broader brightness/mineralogy component. The ratio is therefore a relative SOC indicator that does not depend on SWIR bands or external moisture corrections.
NDVI < 0.40 hard gate — Dates where the canopy is closed (NDVI ≥ 0.40) are dropped entirely, since the visible bands then sample vegetation rather than soil. This is the per-date bare-soil mask used in Thaler 2019 (and consistent with Castaldi 2019). It is critical for perennial crops (lavender, vineyards, orchards) where most observations would otherwise be canopy-on.
SOCI direction — Higher value = more SOC. The proxy is reported in the SOC direction directly. Ancillary bands (BSI, NBR2, NDVI) are kept on the same evalscript as diagnostics only and are NOT used as the primary SOC proxy.

Important: SOCI is a relative spectral indicator of topsoil organic carbon, not an IPCC-compliant SOC stock estimate. SOCI values are dimensionless and must not be interpreted as quantitative SOC concentrations or stocks in t C/ha. Absolute reference SOC stocks in this report are provided separately from FAO HWSD2 v2 and SoilGrids 2.0 (see Section 2.4.1).

Scientific basis: The SOCI = B02 / (B03 × B04) formulation comes from Thaler, Larsen & Yu (2019, Soil Science Society of America Journal 83(5):1443–1450, doi:10.2136/sssaj2018.09.0318), who developed and trained the index on 7,916 USDA Rapid Carbon Assessment (RaCA) hyperspectral topsoil samples and reported a root-mean-square error of ~1.5 % SOC. Thaler et al. (2021, PNAS 118(8):e1922375118, doi:10.1073/pnas.1922375118) field-validated SOCI on Iowa cropland (R² = 0.63–0.72 vs measured SOC at five US Midwest sites). These validations were performed on US Mollisols / cropland soils, not on the WRB soil units encountered across this project portfolio (Chernozems, Phaeozems, Luvisols, Cambisols, Leptosols and others). The bare-soil compositing approach used here (NDVI < 0.40 gate, multi-date aggregation) is methodologically consistent with recent peer-reviewed Sentinel-2 SOC mapping protocols on chernozem soils (Chen, 2026, Scientific Reports, s41598-025-33682-4, NDVI 0.1–0.4 bare-soil mask, R² = 0.78 with multi-temporal Sentinel-2 composites — methodological consistency for the bare-soil masking step, not an independent re-validation of the SOCI formula). The FAO Global Soil Partnership (GSID24, Day 2 Parallel Session 4) presentation on remotely sensed inter-field SOC variation lists SOCI = B02 / (B03 × B04) as the recommended visible-band index. The World Bank SOC MRV Sourcebook (2021), Box 3.9, p. 88 classifies visible/SWIR-band ratios as primary spectral SOC proxy classes: "wavelengths in reflected radiation are affected by the organic matter content of the soil surface." Complementary SWIR-ratio approaches (Castaldi et al. 2019, Remote Sensing 11(18):2121; Vaudour et al. 2019, Remote Sensing 11(18):2143) are consistent with SOCI in direction and validated on European soils, including some Bulgarian Chernozems; SWIR diagnostics (BSI, NBR2) are retained as ancillary bands in the evalscript for cross-checking. SOCI is therefore reported as a relative spectral change indicator anchored to FAO HWSD2 v2 / SoilGrids 2.0 reference baselines.

Limitations: SOCI is most specific to SOC when bare-soil pixels dominate (NDVI < 0.40), but it still inherits some sensitivity to soil moisture, surface roughness, residue cover and mineralogy — visible bands alone cannot fully separate SOC darkening from these confounds. Retrievals are spatially sparse (only below the NDVI < 0.40 mask) and temporally irregular (cloud cover, residue, crop cover); for perennial systems with year-round canopy, the number of valid retrievals per parcel is structurally lower than for arable rotations.

Depth of observation. Sentinel-2 reflectance in the VNIR–SWIR domain (490–2190 nm) interacts only with the optical skin of the soil — typically the top few millimetres on dry, smooth surfaces and at most the upper ~2–5 cm on rougher or aggregated bare soil; it carries no information from below this layer. The literature is consistent on this point: Ben-Dor & Demattê (in Land Resources Monitoring, Modeling, and Mapping, 2015) review remote sensing of soil in the optical domain as a strictly surface measurement; Castaldi et al. (2019, Remote Sensing 11(18):2121) and Vaudour et al. (2019, Remote Sensing 11(18):2143) explicitly frame Sentinel-2 SOC retrievals as topsoil (0–5 cm equivalent); and the Soil Health Institute / Decode 6 review (2023, Can Remote Sensors Measure Soil Carbon?) states that drone- and satellite-mounted optical sensors cannot measure anything below the soil surface and provide no information on the deeper soil profile. Field SOC stocks reported in IPCC inventories are usually integrated over 0–30 cm; SOCI is therefore directionally informative for the surface layer where management practices (residue retention, reduced tillage, cover cropping) act first, but it does not substitute for soil-pit or core sampling for stock accounting at depth.

The indicator is therefore presented as a directional consistency check alongside the FAO HWSD2 and SoilGrids 2.0 reference baselines and the per-parcel SOC_proxy time series (both consolidated in the merged per-parcel evidence sheet in Section 2.4.1), not as an independent quantitative SOC stock estimator.

2.4.1 Reference SOC Stocks & Per-Parcel Annual SOCI (FAO HWSD2 v2 + SoilGrids 2.0)

Heterogeneous soil composition detected: the farm zone contains 2 distinct WRB soil units — PLeu (10 parcels, 238.39 ha) + LVcr (4 parcels, 87.26 ha). Reference SOC stocks below are reported per WRB group AND as area-weighted farm aggregates, so per-soil-class baselines are preserved at the parcel level.

Soil units present on the farm — short profiles (FAO HWSD2 / WRB & SoilGrids context).

Luvisol (LV) — Chromic Luvisol (LVcr) on this farm — 4 parcels, 87.26 ha on this farm. FAO90 equivalent: Chromic Luvisol (LVx).

Mineral soils with a clay-enriched (argic) subsoil formed by downward translocation of clay; the "chromic" qualifier denotes the strong reddish-brown subsoil colour caused by free iron oxides under sub-Mediterranean / warm-temperate conditions. Surface horizons are typically thinner and lighter-coloured than Phaeozems.

Carbon stock context. Typical 0–30 cm SOC stocks: ~40–70 t C/ha. Lower native baseline than Phaeozems, but with proportionally larger sequestration head-room because the topsoil is further from its carbon-saturation ceiling — well-managed cover cropping and residue retention can produce relatively larger SOC% gains here than on Phaeozems.

Management notes. Sensitive to surface crusting, water erosion and structural breakdown on the eluvial horizon; benefits strongly from continuous soil cover, reduced tillage and organic-matter inputs.

To provide independent reference context for the SOC spectral proxy (in t C/ha, 0–30 cm), each farm and control parcel was intersected with two authoritative soil-carbon datasets: the FAO Harmonized World Soil Database v2.0 (HWSD2, native SOC STOCK in t C/ha with native bulk density per soil mapping unit, area-weighted to each parcel) and the ISRIC SoilGrids 2.0 1-km grid (OCS_t_ha, 0–30 cm topsoil, with 90 % prediction interval). These values are independent of the satellite proxy and are listed as reference baselines for context only. The SOC indicator in this report is reported as a relative spectral signal; absolute SOC stock and absolute ΔSOC in t C/ha belong to the project’s separate field-laboratory MRV stream and are outside the scope of this remote-sensing verification instrument.

Reference dataset	Farm mean SOC stock (t C/ha)	Control mean SOC stock (t C/ha)	Farm area (ha)	Farm parcels	Control parcels
FAO HWSD2 (native SOC STOCK, native BD per SMU)	55.56	61.01	325.65	14	25
SoilGrids 2.0 (ISRIC, 1 km, OCS_t_ha)	43.02	43.52	325.65	14	25

Interpretation. These reference baselines establish the absolute SOC stock context for the spectral proxy trajectory. A spectral-proxy increase observed against an already-high reference baseline (e.g. ≥70 t C/ha for Chernozems) represents marginal improvement on a saturated stock; against a lower reference baseline it represents proportionally larger relative change. Both reference values must be interpreted together with the per-parcel WRB soil unit, clay content, and pH columns to identify which parcels have the greatest agronomic head-room for additional carbon sequestration. The FAO HWSD2 farm baseline (55.56 t C/ha) is 12.54 t C/ha (22.6 %) higher than the SoilGrids 2.0 estimate (43.02 t C/ha). This divergence is well documented for Bulgaria — SoilGrids 2.0 tends to under-estimate Chernozem and Phaeozem soil-carbon stocks because its global training set under-samples the East European steppe (Poggio et al. 2021, SOIL, 7:217–240). The FAO HWSD2 value is therefore preferred as the primary baseline anchor for this zone, with SoilGrids retained as a 1-km spatial-uncertainty envelope.

Per-WRB soil-unit aggregates (FAO HWSD2):

WRB / FAO90	N parcels	Area (ha)	Mean SOC stock (t C/ha)	Total stock (t C)
PLeu / PLe	10	238.39	52.48	12511.2
LVcr / LVx	4	87.26	63.99	5583.5
FARM (area-weighted total)	14	325.65	55.56	18094.7

Soil technical characteristics — per WRB unit (FAO HWSD2 v2) and area-weighted farm aggregate (SoilGrids 2.0). These properties (texture, coarse fragments, pH, drainage, bulk density) drive the absolute SOC baseline and explain why per-parcel baselines differ across the farm.

FAO HWSD2 v2 — per WRB soil unit

PLeu (PLe, SMU 10425)

10 parcel(s) on the farm · 238.39 ha· dominant component 40 %% of map unit

SOC stock (0–30 cm)	52.48 t C/ha
Organic carbon	1.34 %%
Bulk density	1.359 g/cm³
Texture class (FAO)	Clay
Sand / Silt / Clay	40 / 40 / 19 %%
Coarse fragments	4 %%
pH (H₂O)	5.40
Drainage	Poorly drained

LVcr (LVx, SMU 10432)

4 parcel(s) on the farm · 87.26 ha· dominant component 70 %% of map unit

SOC stock (0–30 cm)	63.99 t C/ha
Organic carbon	1.82 %%
Bulk density	1.266 g/cm³
Texture class (FAO)	Clay
Sand / Silt / Clay	34 / 43 / 22 %%
Coarse fragments	8 %%
pH (H₂O)	6.06
Drainage	Moderately well drained

SoilGrids 2.0 — area-weighted farm aggregate

SoilGrids 2.0 — farm aggregate

Area-weighted across 14 farm parcel(s) · 325.65 ha · 0–30 cm depth

SOC stock (0–30 cm)	43.02 t C/ha (90% CI: 16.66–80.54)
SOC content	22.30 g/kg
Total nitrogen	1.583 g/kg
Bulk density	1.413 g/cm³
Sand / Silt / Clay	27.8 / 37.6 / 34.6 %%
Coarse fragments (CFVO)	6.7 %% vol
pH (H₂O)	6.89

Sources. FAO & IIASA (2023) Harmonized World Soil Database v2.0, FAO Rome, gaez.fao.org/pages/hwsd. Poggio L. et al. (2021) SoilGrids 2.0: producing soil information for the globe with quantified spatial uncertainty, SOIL, 7:217–240, doi:10.5194/soil-7-217-2021. Per-parcel extraction implemented in 06_SCRIPTS/00b_soilref_extractor.py; output stored in 07_AUTHORITATIVE_STATS/soil_baseline.json.

Per-parcel evidence sheet — annual SOCI values, RS proxy change and FAO HWSD2 / SoilGrids reference baselines (merged):

The single per-parcel table below combines (i) the annual Sentinel-2 SOC_proxy (Thaler 2019 SOCI: B02 / (B03 × B04)) values resolved at the agronomic-year level for every project year (Bulgarian agronomic years (Y−1)/Y: crop sown autumn of Y−1, harvested summer of Y); (ii) the relative PRE-vs-POST change of the SOC proxy; (iii) the FAO HWSD2 v2 reference SOC stock and the SoilGrids 2.0 reference SOC stock for the same parcel polygon; and (iv) the relative change of the SOC proxy in the POST year(s) versus the BASE year (this farm: BASE (2023) vs POST (full years 2024+2025)). Parcels are grouped by WRB soil unit. Each annual cell is the parcel mean of all bare-soil retrievals for that year (NDVI<0.40 — dates without active canopy cover). The BASE column is tinted blue and the POST columns are tinted green for fast visual orientation; the rightmost column shows the per-parcel POST-vs-BASE relative change (green ≥ +1 %, red ≤ −1 %, grey otherwise).

Parcel ID	WRB / FAO90	Area (ha)	2017/2018	2018/2019	2019/2020	2020/2021	2021/2022	BASE 2022/2023	POST 2023/2024	POST 2024/2025	RS proxy Δ PRE→POST (%)	FAO baseline (t C/ha)	SoilGrids baseline (t C/ha)	vs BASE Δ % POST vs BASE
PLeu / PLe — 14 parcels
003126570314	PLeu / PLe	25.67	9.1784	6.3542	7.2737	6.2875	6.7677	5.1718	5.4693	6.2034	-19.34 %	52.77	43.90	+5.75 % / +19.95 %
004126570314	PLeu / PLe	25.66	6.7849	8.2456	6.5028	5.7889	6.4579	4.9479	5.2797	5.7197	-20.15 %	52.77	42.12	+6.71 % / +15.60 %
012126570314	PLeu / PLe	25.37	8.2548	9.1010	6.7537	6.4483	5.8166	7.0537	6.4516	5.9604	-11.27 %	52.77	43.97	-8.54 % / -15.50 %
010126570314	PLeu / PLe	25.37	6.8499	7.7716	6.4187	5.8458	5.5389	6.2758	5.9835	5.8896	-5.93 %	52.77	44.97	-4.66 % / -6.15 %
015126570314	PLeu / PLe	24.68	9.2970	5.5944	6.2139	5.8111	6.4537	5.9244	6.7014	6.3533	-1.42 %	52.05	43.68	+13.11 % / +7.24 %
013126570314	PLeu / PLe	24.43	8.0561	8.5917	6.9756	7.6646	6.1081	7.2116	6.3587	5.9563	-13.67 %	52.77	43.61	-11.83 % / -17.41 %
013126570314	PLeu / PLe	24.43	8.0561	8.5917	6.9756	7.6646	6.1081	7.2116	6.3587	5.9563	-11.26 %	52.77	43.61	-11.83 % / -17.41 %
013126570314	PLeu / PLe	24.43	8.0561	8.5917	6.9756	7.6646	6.1081	7.2116	6.3587	5.9563	-7.58 %	52.77	43.61	-11.83 % / -17.41 %
011126570314	PLeu / PLe	23.90	8.0001	7.7362	7.2652	6.6369	6.1043	7.0055	6.0808	6.2584	-6.76 %	52.77	45.53	-13.20 % / -10.66 %
011126570314	PLeu / PLe	23.90	8.0001	7.7362	7.2652	6.6369	6.1043	7.0055	6.0808	6.2584	-11.96 %	52.77	45.53	-13.20 % / -10.66 %
007126570314	PLeu / PLe	22.05	8.5311	7.2288	7.4471	8.3038	8.2658	6.0836	7.6480	6.9014	-8.20 %	52.74	41.53	+25.72 % / +13.44 %
007126570314	PLeu / PLe	22.05	8.5311	7.2288	7.4471	8.3038	8.2658	6.0836	7.6480	6.9014	-9.50 %	52.74	41.53	+25.72 % / +13.44 %
005126570314	PLeu / PLe	20.68	6.7444	6.5115	6.4011	7.4159	7.1997	6.0649	6.6821	6.8457	-4.85 %	50.34	39.74	+10.18 % / +12.87 %
014126570314	PLeu / PLe	20.58	7.0302	8.9992	7.0555	6.9088	5.7702	7.2263	6.6554	5.9712	-9.32 %	52.77	45.99	-7.90 % / -17.37 %
Subtotal PLeu		333.20	7.9699	7.7399	6.9197	6.9207	6.4779	6.4524	6.3801	6.2063	-10.23 %	52.56	43.56	-1.12 %
LVcr / LVx — 4 parcels
002126570314	LVcr / LVx	25.66	7.9739	6.8377	6.9658	7.3952	5.7958	6.8860	5.6028	7.2924	-6.23 %	69.39	40.98	-18.64 % / +5.90 %
009126570314	LVcr / LVx	23.85	10.7515	10.9660	11.1587	7.8306	9.9542	7.1478	9.7342	7.3516	-21.75 %	69.39	42.95	+36.19 % / +2.85 %
006126570314	LVcr / LVx	21.40	8.1631	5.5542	7.2011	7.7593	8.4382	6.3109	7.4777	6.8405	-6.66 %	47.36	39.00	+18.49 % / +8.39 %
008126570314	LVcr / LVx	16.35	7.6022	9.5022	12.0898	7.3466	10.1215	7.0185	10.3740	6.8332	-15.71 %	69.39	43.91	+47.81 % / -2.64 %
Subtotal LVcr		87.26	8.7098	8.1505	9.1296	7.5944	8.3909	6.8413	8.0858	7.1117	-12.35 %	63.99	41.58	+10.99 %
FARM — area-weighted total		420.46	8.1235	7.8252	7.3783	7.0605	6.8749	6.5331	6.7341	6.3942	-10.67 %	55.56	43.02	+1.39 %

Reading the table. Annual SOCI background tint runs from light red (lowest cell value in this table) through neutral to light green (highest). The BASE year column (2023) is tinted blue and the POST year column(s) tinted green. Subtotal and FARM rows are area-weighted means across the parcels in their group. The rightmost Δ % POST vs BASE column is the per-parcel relative change of the SOCI POST-year mean against the BASE-year mean (positive = SOC proxy increase relative to the dynamic farm-specific baseline).

2.4.2 Per-Parcel SOC Proxy — Zone Aggregates & Monthly Time-Series

The full per-parcel SOC evidence sheet — annual SOCI values for every project year (Bulgarian agronomic years (Y−1)/Y), the relative PRE→POST change of the SOC proxy, the FAO HWSD2 v2 and SoilGrids 2.0 reference SOC stocks at the parcel polygon, and the relative change of the SOC proxy in the POST year(s) versus the BASE year — is presented in Section 2.4.1 as the consolidated per-parcel evidence table. This section (Section 2.4.2) reports only the zone-level aggregates (farm / control / belt) and the monthly SOC time-series so the three zones can be compared side by side at the soil-unit level without re-rendering the per-parcel detail.

Dynamic baseline window for this farm. BASE year = 2023; POST year(s) = 2024 / 2025. The BASE/POST window is derived from the project’s practice_year (last full pre-practice year) and post_years (full calendar years already observed); the current calendar year, when partial, is excluded automatically. The Δ % POST vs BASE column in the Section 2.4.1 evidence table uses this same window.

Reading the table. Background tint runs from light red (lowest cell value in this table) through neutral to light green (highest). Subtotal and FARM rows are area-weighted means across the parcels in their group.

Farm parcels — per-parcel SOC proxy

The farm parcels (n = 18) are aggregated below by WRB soil unit and area-weighted, in the same compact format used for Control and Belt so the three zones can be read side by side at the soil-unit level.

WRB / FAO90	Parcels	Area (ha)	SOC_proxy pre (mean)	SOC_proxy post (mean)	Δ %
PLeu / PLe	14	333.20	7.1551	6.4188	-10.29 %
LVcr / LVx	4	87.26	8.6850	7.5151	-13.47 %
FARM — area-weighted total	18	420.46	7.4726	6.6463	-11.06 %
FARM — BASE (2023) vs POST (full years 2024+2025)		419.99	6.5480	6.6043	+0.86 %

Control parcels — per-parcel SOC proxy

The matched control parcels (n = 25) provide a local BAU reference. They are aggregated below by WRB soil unit and area-weighted to allow direct comparison against the farm aggregate above (Section 3 reports the farm-minus-control delta as a Difference-in-Differences proxy at soil-unit level).

WRB / FAO90	Parcels	Area (ha)	SOC_proxy pre (mean)	SOC_proxy post (mean)	Δ %
LVcr / LVx	8	156.63	7.7146	7.4268	-3.73 %
PLeu / PLe	17	89.75	7.1203	6.4512	-9.40 %
CONTROL — area-weighted total	25	246.38	7.4981	7.0715	-5.69 %
CONTROL — BASE (2023) vs POST (full years 2024+2025)		246.38	6.7141	6.6398	-1.11 %

Belt zone — SOC proxy aggregate

The 20 km belt zone is summarised at the zone level only (not per parcel) because it contains ~623 parcels with heterogeneous WRB classification; the pre / post means and Δ % below come from the same Sentinel-2 acquisitions and the same Thaler 2019 SOCI SOC_proxy definition used for the farm and control tables, aggregated across the belt geometry.

Zone	Parcels	Area (ha)	SOC_proxy pre (mean)	SOC_proxy post (mean)	Δ %
BELT — zone aggregate (20 km)	623	10337.44	8.1480	7.6336	-6.31 %
BELT — BASE (2023) vs POST (full years 2024+2025)		10337.44	7.7520	7.5585	-2.50 %

Farm − Control Δ (POST vs BASE). Farm aggregate Δ % = +0.86 %; control aggregate Δ % = -1.11 %; difference Δ_farm−ctrl = +1.97 pp. At the zone level the farm-vs-control gap is within the noise band and should not be interpreted as evidence either way. The Multi-Indicator Summary (Section 3.1) reports a separately computed farm-level SOC proxy Δ based on the PRE→POST pooled-pixel statistic, which uses a different aggregation scope than the BASE→POST figure shown here.

Method. Per-parcel pre/post means are computed by 06_SCRIPTS/00c_per_parcel_soc_v4.py from cached Sentinel-2 L2A acquisitions; group subtotals and the farm total are area-weighted means of the per-parcel values. Sign convention and literature basis are stated once in Section 2.4 above and apply throughout this section.

Key Findings — SOC Proxy (SOCI)

Metric	Farm	Control	Belt
Pre-project mean (SOCI = B02/(B03×B04))	7.5260	7.1926	8.1480
Post-project mean (SOCI = B02/(B03×B04))	6.6945	6.7028	7.6336
Change	-11.05% ★	-6.81% ★	-6.31% ★
Cohen’s d	-0.870 (large) ★	-0.759 (medium) ★	-0.239 (small) ★

Farm-level SOC Proxy shows a -11.05% decline, statistically significant (p < 0.05), with Cohen's d = -0.870 (large). Note on SOC effect size: the SOC Proxy Cohen’s d is computed from per-parcel pre / post means (n = 18 farm parcels, see Section 2.4.1), so the denominator is the inter-parcel standard deviation rather than the pixel-level standard deviation used for the other indicators (n in the tens to hundreds). The comparatively large d value reflects the consistency of the per-parcel response under a small-sample denominator and is not directly comparable in magnitude to the d values reported for NDVI, NDTI, GPP, SAR VV/VH, N₂O, BSI or NBR2. The SOC proxy decline may reflect drought-altered bare-soil spectral properties rather than actual SOC loss. Cross-reference with field SOC measurements is recommended.

2.4.3 Per-Parcel SOC — Relative Spectral Change with FAO HWSD2 v2 and SoilGrids 2.0 Reference Baselines

The per-parcel annual SOCI values, the relative spectral change of the satellite SOC proxy (PRE vs POST), the FAO HWSD2 v2 (IIASA/FAO) and SoilGrids 2.0 (ISRIC) absolute SOC stock baselines extracted at the matching parcel polygon, and the relative change of the SOC proxy in the POST year(s) versus the BASE year, are all tabulated in Section 2.4.1 as the consolidated per-parcel evidence table. Section 2.4.1 therefore serves as the single per-parcel SOC table for the entire report and is not duplicated here.

The two soil products are reported as independent reference baselines for context only. The SOC indicator in this report is a relative spectral signal (percentage change of the SOCI bare-soil index between PRE and POST periods, and additionally between BASE and POST years).

By construction the SOC proxy used in this report (Thaler 2019 SOCI visible-band index) is computed only on Sentinel-2 observations where NDVI < 0.40 (i.e. dates without active canopy cover, when the soil surface dominates the spectral signal), so dates with developed canopy do not contribute to the per-parcel SOC values reported in Section 2.4.1. NDVI variability is therefore not used as a metric for SOC spatial variability in this section. The literature basis for excluding NDVI as a within-farm SOC stratifier is stated once in Section 1.2.3 and applies here; within-farm spatial variability is described against the DEM-derived terrain layers and the FAO HWSD2 v2 / SoilGrids 2.0 reference baselines.

Reading the merged Section 2.4.1 evidence table. RS proxy Δ (%) is the relative change of the SOCI bare-soil index between the PRE and POST periods. FAO and SoilGrids baselines are independent reference values for the absolute SOC stock at the parcel polygon (0–30 cm depth) and are listed for context only. The rightmost Δ % POST vs BASE column reports the relative change of the SOCI POST-year mean against the BASE-year mean, with the BASE/POST window resolved dynamically per farm. The annual SOCI cells, the relative PRE→POST change column, the two independent reference baselines and the Δ % POST vs BASE column together form a single per-parcel evidence sheet that can be inspected on its own terms.

Scope note. The area-weighted farm aggregate in the Section 2.4.1 footer is computed parcel-by-parcel (each parcel’s PRE-vs-POST mean, then weighted by parcel area). The farm-level SOC proxy Δ cited in Sections 3, 7, 8 and 9 (-11.05%) is computed instead at the zone level on pooled pixel observations across the entire farm polygon. The two figures answer different questions — parcel-resolved area-weighted change here, vs pooled-pixel zone change in the cross-section narrative — and therefore do not need to coincide exactly.

Compositional & spatial representativeness. Within-zone heterogeneity is not collapsed into a single number; it is resolved through four mutually reinforcing layers, all reported above:

Stratification by WRB soil unit. Per-parcel SOC_proxy values are tabulated and aggregated by WRB / FAO90 soil unit (Section 2.4.2 compact tables for Farm, Control and Belt), so soil-unit composition is visible and area-weighted means are computed within each unit rather than across mixed populations.
Terrain context. 13 DEM-derived terrain metrics (elevation, slope, curvature, TWI, channel network distance, LS-factor and others from SAGA GIS basic terrain analysis) plus the SoilGrids 2.0 texture and chemistry layers are correlated against the per-parcel SOC spectral proxy in the pre-period (Pearson, Spearman) so the dominant physical controls on within-farm variability are identified explicitly rather than averaged out.
Independent reference baselines. The relative spectral SOC proxy is reported alongside two independent global soil products — FAO HWSD2 v2 (IIASA / FAO) and SoilGrids 2.0 (ISRIC, 0–30 cm OCS) — which provide context on the absolute SOC stock at each parcel polygon (Section 2.4.3). The remote-sensing and field-laboratory streams are kept methodologically separate, so each line of evidence remains an independent verification input.
Methodological consistency and validation limits. The physical basis of the proxy (SOC-induced darkening in the visible spectrum) is established at field level by Poppiel et al. 2020 (Scientific Reports). The closest published validation of the specific SOCI = B02/(B03×B04) formula used here is Thaler et al. 2021 (PNAS, R² = 0.63–0.72 against laboratory-measured SOC at five US Midwest cropland sites). The bare-soil compositing approach used in this report (NDVI < 0.40 gate, multi-date aggregation) is methodologically consistent with recent peer-reviewed SOC mapping protocols on chernozem soils (Chen 2026, Scientific Reports, NDVI 0.1–0.4 bare-soil mask, R² = 0.78 with multi-temporal Sentinel-2 composites). No published study to our knowledge validates SOCI directly on the WRB soil units present at this farm, nor on the full mixture of soil types encountered across the project portfolio (which includes Chernozems, Phaeozems, Luvisols, Cambisols, Leptosols and others). The proxy is therefore reported here as a relative spectral change indicator anchored to FAO HWSD2 v2 / SoilGrids 2.0 reference baselines.

Monthly SOC Proxy — Farm (2018–2025)

Values = monthly mean SOC proxy index (a.u.) · Bold = post-project years (2023–2025)

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Annual
2018	9.50	7.65	8.05	—	5.77	7.82	8.31	8.74	8.46	7.03	7.27	4.97	7.77
2019	10.34	10.76	8.07	—	—	6.36	7.05	7.60	7.95	8.47	6.27	13.10	8.55
2020	10.59	9.64	7.61	7.21	5.61	6.88	5.65	5.67	5.91	9.20	12.49	7.13	7.68
2021	14.90	8.35	7.55	4.84	4.33	7.23	6.49	5.20	6.23	8.91	8.58	9.71	7.45
2022	9.03	9.54	7.69	5.97	4.55	8.21	5.17	6.22	6.28	6.79	7.84	8.47	7.10
2023	7.06	7.94	7.25	5.40	4.76	6.18	5.15	5.64	6.72	7.28	9.19	8.48	6.77
2024	9.34	7.30	7.13	7.42	6.28	5.39	4.68	5.44	6.79	7.19	9.10	9.32	7.04
2025	10.11	7.58	7.62	7.48	5.27	4.76	3.17	4.47	5.66	6.93	8.56	8.67	6.57

▬ Pre-project mean (per-parcel v4 aggregate): 7.5260 a.u.

Methodological note. Cell values are zonal-aggregated monthly means (one Sentinel Hub Statistical API request per date covering the entire farm polygon, pixel-weighted by area). The headline pre/post means and Δ% values reported in Section 2.4.1 and Section 3.1 are computed from per-parcel time-series (one request per parcel) and aggregated across parcels. Both views derive from the same SOC Proxy evalscript (Thaler 2019 SOCI visible-band index, soc_proxy = B02 / (B03 × B04)); they agree on direction and magnitude but can differ by a few percentage points when the aggregate change is small because pixel-weighted vs. parcel-unweighted means weight differently across parcels of unequal size.

Figure 2.2 — Annual Mean SOC Proxy — Farm vs Control vs Belt (2018–2025). Farm: -11.05% · Control: -6.81% · Belt: -6.31%.

Figure 2.3 — Per-parcel monthly SOC proxy trajectories. Dashed line: BASE (entry) year — 2023 BASE, the practice-implementation year recorded in the parcel registry. Solid lines: monitoring stages (2024 K1, 2025 K2, 2026 K3). Halo bands show the 95% confidence interval for the monthly mean across farm parcels (parametric Normal CI = mean ± 1.96 × SE). Across-parcel mean is hybrid-weighted by w = hillshade × cos(slope_rad) so flat / well-illuminated parcels contribute proportionally more than steep / shaded ones. See sub-block 2.5 below for the per-parcel table. Source: V4 per-parcel CSV; SAGA DEM Analytical Hillshading + DEM_SLOPE_EPSG_4326.

Year-over-previous-year per-parcel mean change in SOC proxy

Year pair (registry stage)	Parcels in both years	Mean Δ SOCI (abs.)	Mean Δ SOCI (%)
2024 K1 vs 2023 BASE	14	+0.370	+5.48%
2025 K2 vs 2024 K1	14	-0.206	+0.13%
2026 K3 vs 2025 K2	12	+0.198	+2.90%

Each row averages the per-parcel annual SOC-proxy difference across parcels present in both years (paired comparison; parcels missing from either year are excluded). The annual value for a parcel is the mean of its monthly per-parcel means. SOCI is dimensionless (a.u.); the percent column is computed per parcel as (curr - prev)/prev × 100, then averaged.

2.4.4 Per-parcel SOC trajectory (BASE → K1 → K2 → K3)

This sub-block reads the bare-soil-filtered per-parcel SOCI (SOC_PROXY_V4_FARM_per_parcel.csv) at each monitoring stage between BASE (2023) and the latest available stage K3 (2026). Each parcel is summarised as its annual mean of bare-soil SOCI, then expressed as a percentage change relative to its own BASE value (Δ vs BASE) and relative to the previous stage (Δ vs Y-1). Cell colour in every post-BASE stage column reads each value against the parcel's own BASE: green if at or above BASE, red if below. Seasonal swings within a single year are expected on bare-soil observation windows because soil-moisture and residue cover modulate the spectral signal independently of the underlying carbon stock.

Stage coverage note. Stages marked with an asterisk in the table header are preliminary, partial-year stages: BASE (2023, Jan–Dec only), K1 (2024, Jan–Dec only), K2 (2025, Jan–Dec only), K3 (2026, Jan–Apr only). They cover only part of the calendar year and are therefore not directly comparable to the full-year BASE / K-stage means. On the bare-soil SOCI proxy, a partial early-year window samples soil under elevated post-winter moisture and limited residue removal — both of which depress the spectral SOCI signal relative to a full-year mean — so partial-year values should be read as seasonal indicators rather than as evidence of a change in soil carbon stock.

Per-parcel split. No full post-BASE stage is yet available on the per-parcel CSV; the parcel-level reading is therefore deferred to the next full monitoring stage.

Parcel	BASE* (2023)	K1* (2024)	K2* (2025)	K3* (2026)	Δ vs BASE	Δ vs Y-1
002126570314	6.886	5.603	7.292	7.533	+9.4%	+3.3%
003126570314	5.172	5.469	6.203	6.629	+28.2%	+6.9%
004126570314	4.948	5.280	5.720	6.288	+27.1%	+9.9%
005126570314	6.065	6.682	6.846	6.825	+12.5%	-0.3%
006126570314	6.311	7.478	6.840	7.655	+21.3%	+11.9%
007126570314	6.084	7.648	6.901	7.617	+25.2%	+10.4%
008126570314	7.018	10.374	6.833	—	—	—
009126570314	7.148	9.734	7.352	—	—	—
010126570314	6.276	5.983	5.890	6.508	+3.7%	+10.5%
011126570314	7.006	6.081	6.258	6.482	-7.5%	+3.6%
012126570314	7.054	6.452	5.960	6.012	-14.8%	+0.9%
013126570314	7.212	6.359	5.956	6.917	-4.1%	+16.1%
014126570314	7.226	6.655	5.971	6.205	-14.1%	+3.9%
015126570314	5.924	6.701	6.353	6.757	+14.0%	+6.3%

* BASE, K1, K2, K3 marked as preliminary (partial-year coverage; see Stage coverage note above).

2.4.5 Spatial Reference: Terrain, FAO, SoilGrids and SOCI

The figure below overlays the per-parcel geometric reference (parcel centroids) on four independent spatial layers used as references in this report. Panel A shows the mean slope per parcel (degrees, SAGA GIS); Panel B shows the FAO HWSD2 v2 baseline SOC stock (t C/ha, IPCC Tier-1, 0–30 cm); Panel C shows the SoilGrids 2.0 baseline SOC stock (t C/ha, 0–30 cm); Panel D shows SOCI (Soil Organic Carbon Index, Thaler et al. 2019: SOCI = B02 / (B03 × B04)), the Sentinel-2 derived dimensionless SOC index used as a directional consistency check. No field sampling and no calibration of SOCI to absolute t C/ha is performed.

Per-parcel spatial reference: terrain, FAO, SoilGrids, SOCI — Figure 2.1 — Per-parcel geometric reference overlaid on terrain (slope), FAO HWSD2 v2 and SoilGrids 2.0 baseline SOC stocks, and SOCI (Sentinel-2 derived, dimensionless). Triangles mark parcel centroids (geometric reference; no field sampling). Sources: SAGA GIS DEM analysis; FAO HWSD2 v2 (native SOC_STOCK in t C/ha and native bulk density per soil mapping unit, area-weighted to each parcel); SoilGrids 2.0 (ISRIC, OCS 0–30 cm); SOCI: Thaler, Larsen & Yu 2019 SSSAJ 83(5):1443–1450, doi:10.2136/sssaj2018.09.0318.

2.4.6 Per-Parcel Surface-Composition Spectral Indices — BSI and NBR2

Two further Sentinel-2 spectral indices are reported per parcel alongside NDVI, NDTI and SOCI: the Bare Soil Index (BSI) and the Normalized Burn Ratio 2 (NBR2). Both are standard, physically meaningful indices in the soil-and-residue remote-sensing literature — BSI quantifies bare-soil exposure (brightness/dryness, Rikimaru et al. 2002; Diek et al. 2017), and NBR2 responds to SWIR moisture and crop-residue / non-photosynthetic vegetation cover (Quemada & Daughtry 2016; Castaldi 2023). In this report BSI and NBR2 are used directly to evaluate management practices at parcel level — specifically, residue retention, bare-soil exposure and cover-crop presence — reported month-by-parcel against belt-zone monthly percentile distributions, exactly like the other per-parcel indicators. The joint use of NDVI, BSI and NBR2 is the established way to separate bare soil, crop residue and living canopy, which NDVI alone cannot disambiguate (NDVI declines both under true soil exposure and under senescent residue cover).

BSI = ((B11 + B04) − (B08 + B02)) / ((B11 + B04) + (B08 + B02))
range: −1 to +1; higher values indicate greater bare-soil exposure (Rikimaru et al. 2002)

NBR2 = (B11 − B12) / (B11 + B12)
range: −1 to +1; higher values under low-NDVI conditions indicate lignin/cellulose-rich residue cover (Quemada & Daughtry 2016)

Scientific basis. BSI was originally formulated by Rikimaru et al. (2002, Forest Resources and Environment) and subsequently adopted as a standard Sentinel-2 surface-composition indicator (Diek et al. 2017, Remote Sensing 9(12):1245, doi:10.3390/rs9121245). NBR2 was demonstrated by Quemada & Daughtry (2016, Remote Sensing 8(8):660, doi:10.3390/rs8080660) to discriminate non-photosynthetic vegetation (crop residue) from bare soil under low-NDVI conditions, with the discrimination retained under dry surface conditions where SWIR cellulose/lignin absorption features remain detectable. Castaldi (2023, ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 199:40–60, doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2023.03.014) confirmed the joint use of BSI and NBR2 alongside NDVI for bare-soil mosaicking on Sentinel-2 across European cropland.

Canonical NDVI regimes used in this report. Three NDVI thresholds from the established Sentinel-2 literature separate canopy from bare-soil regimes:

NDVI < 0.10 — true bare-soil regime (Sentinel Hub / Sinergise canonical bare-soil compositing threshold).
NDVI < 0.15 — bare / sparse vegetation regime suitable for residue and surface-composition discrimination (Prudnikova et al. 2019, Remote Sensing 11(15):1813, doi:10.3390/rs11151813).
NDVI < 0.25 — sparse / early-growth regime under which Zribi et al. (2017, Sensors 17(11):2617) calibrated SAR-VV soil-roughness sensitivity; values above 0.25 indicate active canopy.

For BSI and NBR2 themselves the per-parcel month-by-month values are interpreted against the corresponding belt-zone monthly percentiles (25th / 50th / 75th), so each reading is assessed against the regional reference distribution for the same calendar month. This relative-percentile framing normalises for inter-annual variation in soil moisture, illumination and atmospheric conditions without any per-farm tuning.

2.5 Sentinel-1 SAR — Synthetic Aperture Radar Backscatter (VV and VH) in dB

Sentinel-1 C-band SAR: 5.4 GHz (λ ≈ 5.6 cm), IW (Interferometric Wide Swath) mode
Products: VV and VH polarisation gamma0 orthorectified backscatter [dB]
Resolution: nominal ~20 m × 22 m; geocoded pixel spacing 10 m
Temporal coverage:

What SAR measures — physical principles:

VV (co-polarised) — Transmitted and received in vertical polarisation. Primarily sensitive to surface roughness: smooth, bare soil reflects the radar signal away (specular reflection → low backscatter); rough surfaces (ploughed furrows, crop residues, cover crop stems) scatter the signal back (diffuse reflection → high backscatter). A shift toward more negative dB post-project = smoother surface = more residue cover and less tillage disturbance.
VH (cross-polarised) — Transmitted vertical, received horizontal. Requires a polarisation rotation which only occurs in volumetric scatterers (vegetation canopy structure, crop residues with 3D orientation). VH is the primary indicator of above-ground biomass structure. More negative dB = less volumetric scattering = less standing crop structure (but this interacts with residue orientation and cover crop type).
dB scale — Decibel: 10 × log₁₀(linear power). Always negative for agricultural surfaces (signal is attenuated). More negative = weaker return. Typical range: -2 to -8 dB for VV, -10 to -20 dB for VH on cropland.
All-weather capability — Microwaves (5.4 GHz, λ = 5.6 cm) penetrate clouds, rain, and are independent of solar illumination. This makes SAR the only indicator that provides continuous monitoring through winter and cloudy periods when optical sensors are unavailable.

Sentinel-1 SAR provides microwave backscatter independent of cloud cover and solar illumination, enabling all-weather, day-and-night monitoring of the soil surface — critically important for winter monitoring when optical sensors are frequently cloud-contaminated. C-band (5.4 GHz) microwaves interact primarily with the soil surface layer (penetration depth 1–5 cm depending on moisture) and with vegetation structural elements (stems, leaves) at scales comparable to the wavelength (5.6 cm). VV (co-polarised) backscatter is primarily sensitive to surface roughness and specular reflection: smooth, bare, wet soil acts as a specular reflector, returning low VV backscatter; structured surfaces (residues, cover crop stems, furrows) cause volume and diffuse scattering, returning higher VV. VH (cross-polarised) backscatter requires a polarisation rotation and is sensitive to volumetric scatterers (vegetation canopies, crop residues), making it the primary indicator of biomass and above-ground organic structure.

SAR values are reported as real σ⁰ backscatter in dB (decibels), derived from Sentinel-1 IW GRD gamma0 backscatter. More negative dB values indicate stronger signal attenuation — a shift toward more negative dB post-project indicates fewer bare-soil specular reflections returning to the sensor, replaced by volume scattering from residue and cover crop structures.

Limitations: C-band penetration depth is limited to the upper 1–5 cm of soil, meaning subsurface structure is not captured. Soil moisture strongly modulates backscatter, potentially confounding structural change interpretation — this is mitigated by multi-year temporal averaging. The 12-day revisit cycle (per satellite, 6-day combined) limits the temporal resolution for detecting rapid management events. Speckle noise is inherent to coherent imaging and is reduced by spatial averaging. These limitations affect absolute interpretation but do not compromise the relative pre/post comparisons across zones.

Key Findings — SAR

Metric	Farm	Control	Belt
Pre-project VV (dB)	-3.36	-3.35	-3.35
Post-project VV (dB)	-3.47	-3.56	-3.50
VV Change	-3.25%	-6.41% ★	-4.59% ★
Pre-project VH (dB)	-9.60	-9.43	-9.41
Post-project VH (dB)	-9.93	-9.91	-9.66
VH Change	-3.44%	-5.10% ★	-2.68%

★ = Statistically significant (p < 0.05). SAR VV: farm -3.25% (p = 0.1162, d = -0.19 [negligible]); control -6.41%; belt -4.59%. SAR VH: farm -3.44% (p = 0.1762, d = -0.16 [negligible]); control -5.10%; belt -2.68%. On the farm, the VH decline is larger in magnitude than the VV decline, indicating that the dominant change is in volumetric scattering (canopy / residue structure) rather than in surface roughness alone. In the control and belt zone(s) the ordering reverses (|VV| > |VH|), reflecting different vegetation / management contexts outside the farm boundary.

SAR VV Backscatter (σ⁰ dB) — Pre vs Post Comparison

C-band radar — surface roughness (primary) and soil-moisture / structure (secondary) signal (p = 0.1162)

Pre-project (2018–2022)

Post-project (2023–2025)

-3.2% ★

-3.36

-3.47

Farm

-6.4% ★

-3.35

-3.56

Control

-4.6% ★

-3.35

-3.50

Belt

Farm p = 0.1162, Cohen’s d = -0.19 (negligible) | DiD vs Control: 3.13 pp

Y-axis: σ⁰ backscatter (dB) — bars represent magnitude of change from matching baselines

Figure 2.5 — SAR VV Pre vs Post — Farm (-3.25%), control (-6.41%), belt (-4.59%)

SAR VH Backscatter (σ⁰ dB) — Pre vs Post Comparison

Cross-polarisation — volumetric scattering from vegetation / residue canopy structure (p = 0.1762)

Pre-project (2018–2022)

Post-project (2023–2025)

-3.4% ★

-9.60

-9.93

Farm

-5.1% ★

-9.43

-9.91

Control

-2.7%

-9.41

-9.66

Belt

Farm p = 0.1762, Cohen’s d = -0.16 (negligible) | DiD vs Control: +1.58 pp

Y-axis: σ⁰ backscatter (dB) — bars represent magnitude of change from matching baselines

Figure 2.6 — SAR VH Pre vs Post — Farm (-3.44%), control (-5.10%), belt (-2.68%)

2.6 N₂O Emissions Proxy

IRECI = (B07 − B04) / (B05 / B06) [Red-Edge bands: B04 665 nm, B05 705 nm, B06 740 nm, B07 783 nm]
N_uptake = IRECI × 26.0 [kg N/dka; empirical calibration]
Applied_N = (N_uptake / 0.55) × 10 [kg N/ha; NUE = 0.55]
N₂O = Applied_N × 0.005 × 1.5714 × 1.638 [kg N₂O/ha]
CO₂e = peak(annual N₂O) × 273 / 1000 [tCO₂e/ha/year; GWP₁₀₀ = 273, IPCC AR6]
EF₁ = 0.005 (IPCC direct emission factor); 44/28 = 1.5714 (N → N₂O molecular mass); FRAC_TOTAL = 1.638 (direct + indirect: FracGASF=0.11, FracLEACH=0.24)
Data column: estimated N₂O flux (kg N₂O ha⁻¹)
Effective resolution: 10–20 m (Red-Edge bands at 20 m; output resampled)

Formula components — what each step measures:

IRECI — Inverted Red-Edge Chlorophyll Index. Uses four bands spanning the red-edge region (B04 665 nm, B05 705 nm, B06 740 nm, B07 783 nm). The red-edge is the sharp transition between red absorption (chlorophyll) and NIR reflection (leaf structure). IRECI is sensitive to canopy chlorophyll concentration, which correlates with leaf nitrogen content — the physical link between spectral reflectance and nitrogen cycling.
N_uptake = IRECI × 26.0 — Empirical calibration converting chlorophyll index to crop nitrogen uptake (kg N/dka). Higher chlorophyll = more nitrogen absorbed by the crop from soil.
Applied_N = (N_uptake / 0.55) × 10 — Back-calculates total applied nitrogen from crop uptake using Nitrogen Use Efficiency (NUE = 0.55, meaning 55% of applied N is absorbed by the crop). The ×10 converts from dka to ha.
N₂O = Applied_N × EF₁ × 44/28 × FRAC_TOTAL — IPCC Tier 1 emission chain: EF₁ = 0.005 (0.5% of applied N emitted as N₂O-N directly from soil), 44/28 = 1.5714 (molecular mass N₂O-N → N₂O), FRAC_TOTAL = 1.638 (adds indirect emissions via volatilisation and leaching).
CO₂e = peak(annual N₂O) × 273 / 1000 — Converts peak annual N₂O flux to CO₂-equivalent using IPCC AR6 GWP₁₀₀ = 273 (N₂O is 273 times more potent than CO₂ over 100 years).

The N₂O Proxy is a satellite-derived estimator of field-level nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions from agricultural soils, implemented as a custom spectral processing chain (N₂O Proxy v6). The proxy constructs a five-step derivation chain that links spectral observations to greenhouse gas flux estimates following the IPCC 2019 Refinement, Chapter 11, Tier 1 framework.

The chain begins with the Inverted Red-Edge Chlorophyll Index (IRECI), computed from four Sentinel-2 bands spanning the red-edge spectral region (B04 at 665 nm, B05 at 705 nm, B06 at 740 nm, B07 at 783 nm). IRECI is sensitive to canopy chlorophyll concentration, which is strongly correlated with leaf nitrogen content — the physiological basis linking spectral reflectance to nitrogen cycling. The IRECI value is converted to crop nitrogen uptake (kg N/dka) via an empirical calibration factor of 26.0, then scaled to per-hectare applied nitrogen through the Nitrogen Use Efficiency parameter (NUE = 0.55), which represents the fraction of applied nitrogen that is actually absorbed by the crop. The unit conversion (×10) accounts for the decare-to-hectare scaling.

Farm-level N₂O Proxy shows a -21.27% decline, not statistically significant (p ≥ 0.05), with Cohen's d = -0.280 (small). The decrease is consistent with reduced nitrogen emissions under conservation agriculture: reduced soil disturbance limits nitrification, cover crop N uptake reduces surplus mineral N.

N₂O is the most potent agricultural greenhouse gas per unit weight, with an atmospheric lifetime of approximately 109 years. Agricultural soils are the largest anthropogenic source of N₂O, primarily through microbial nitrification and denitrification processes driven by soil mineral nitrogen availability, moisture, temperature, and texture. Conservation agriculture reduces N₂O emissions through multiple mechanisms: reduced soil disturbance under reduced tillage limits the exposure of soil organic nitrogen to nitrification; improved soil structure under cover cropping reduces compaction and anaerobic microsites that favour denitrification; and diversified cover crop sequences reduce inorganic nitrogen application requirements.

Limitations: The Tier 1 IPCC approach uses default emission factors that do not account for site-specific soil properties, fertiliser application rates, or irrigation status — factors that materially influence N₂O flux. The IRECI-based nitrogen uptake calibration (26.0 kg N/dka) is an empirical constant that may vary across crop types, growth stages, and climatic conditions. The NUE value of 0.55 is a generalised assumption; actual nitrogen use efficiency varies by crop species, soil fertility, and management regime. These limitations mean the N₂O proxy serves as an indicative trend estimator rather than a precise emission quantification. Absolute N₂O flux determination requires Tier 2/3 chamber measurements or isotope flux analysis. This indicator is classified as supporting evidence within the 9-indicator framework.

Key Findings — N₂O Proxy

Metric	Farm	Control	Belt
Pre-project mean (kg N₂O/ha)	2.1085	1.8798	1.9714
Post-project mean (kg N₂O/ha)	1.6600	1.8830	1.7846
Change	-21.27%	+0.17%	-9.48%
Cohen’s d	-0.280 (small)	0.002 (negligible)	-0.143 (negligible)

Farm N₂O proxy shows -21.27% change (p = 0.0672). The observed decrease is consistent with reduced nitrogen emissions under conservation agriculture: reduced soil disturbance limits nitrification, cover crop nitrogen uptake reduces surplus mineral N, and improved soil structure reduces anaerobic microsites favouring denitrification. The belt zone shows a -9.48% decrease, providing the regional context for the farm trajectory.

2.7 MRV Framework Alignment

The 9-indicator remote sensing framework is designed for compatibility with key international MRV standards and monitoring protocols:

IPCC Good Practice Guidance (2019 Refinement): SOC reference baselines drawn from FAO HWSD2 v2 native SOC_STOCK (t C/ha, area-weighted per parcel) and SoilGrids 2.0 OCS (0–30 cm); GPP LUE framework consistent with IPCC Activity Data requirements for cropland carbon monitoring; bare-soil detection supporting IPCC land-cover change accounting.
JRC Soil Health Monitoring: Bare soil detection methodology (NDVI < 0.40 gate, multi-date aggregation) is consistent with EU Soil Strategy 2030 soil health monitoring principles; NDVI/NDTI temporal series are consistent with JRC land degradation and soil cover monitoring frameworks.
MODIS MOD17 GPP: LUE model structure and parameterisation directly derived from the MODIS MOD17A2H algorithm, enabling cross-validation with the global MODIS GPP archive and benchmarking against independently validated productivity estimates.
UNFCCC MRV Requirements: Temporal continuity (9-year unbroken record), spatial explicitness (georeferenced parcels), and independent multi-sensor monitoring (optical + radar) satisfy the measurability, reportability, and verifiability criteria for carbon project monitoring under the UNFCCC reporting framework.
Established Carbon Market Practices: Three-zone spatial design (project farm + primary BAU baseline + supplementary matched reference) consistent with additionality and leakage assessment requirements in voluntary carbon market methodologies. The belt buffer provides the primary BAU baseline against which farm divergence is measured for additionality assessment. The control plots serve as a supplementary matched reference for local validation of belt-level signals and as the primary early-warning leakage detection framework due to their proximity to the project site.
Carbonsafe Programme Standards: All indicators, zone definitions, and statistical analyses are designed to be fully auditable and reproducible using open-access Copernicus Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 data, with Python/pandas/scipy processing pipeline, per-indicator NaN/noData removal, IQR outlier filtering, and full observational and audit logs per indicator and zone.

3. Three-Zone Comparative Analysis

This section presents the full three-zone comparative analysis for the carbon farming project operated by AGROLAND 7 EOOD (325.65 ha, 14 parcels) in the Burgas Region, Bulgaria. The analytical framework compares the project farm against a primary BAU baseline — all LPIS-registered arable land physical blocks within a 20 km radius (the belt zone, 10337.44 ha, 623 parcels) — and a supplementary matched reference zone of land-use-matched arable land parcels in proximity to the farm (the control zone, 246.57 ha), selected from declared subsidy areas (SFA-PA open data), which provides local validation and early-warning leakage detection. By evaluating all 9 remote-sensing and biogeochemical indicators across these zones simultaneously, the analysis isolates the farm-specific signal from regional climatic drivers — most importantly, the persistent 2023–2025 drought documented across the Burgas Region, Bulgaria — and establishes a robust, multi-line-of-evidence basis for carbon farming verification claims.

INDICATOR COVERAGE AND ZONE FRAMEWORK

All 9 indicators are evaluated across all three zones (farm, control, belt), providing a complete multi-sensor evidence base. The indicators are grouped by measurement domain:

Optical: NDVI, NDTI
Biogeochemical: GPP Proxy, SOC Proxy, N₂O Proxy
Radar: SAR VV, SAR VH
Optical (bare-soil): BSI
Optical (residue): NBR2

Conservation practices implemented on the project farm include cover cropping, reduced tillage, organic amendments, strip cropping, bed tillage, biological agriculture, microbial fertiliser, organic pesticide, integrated production. The belt zone comprises all LPIS-registered arable land physical blocks within a 20 km radius — LPIS registration confirms land classification and eligibility for CAP support, but does not constitute proof that agricultural activity has been carried out on any given parcel. Control parcels were selected from declared subsidy areas (SFA-PA open data) as arable land parcels in proximity to the farm parcels.

3.1 Multi-Indicator Summary

The following table consolidates the pre-post statistical results for all 9 active indicators across the three monitoring zones. Methodology and formula derivations are presented in Section 2; per-indicator Key Findings with numerical summaries are in Sections 2.1–2.7. BSI and NBR2 are documented as surface-state proxies within Section 2.4.5 (SOC parent section), which provides the spectral definition, classification thresholds and data-coverage caveats for these two indicators. The remainder of this chapter interprets what these numbers mean in the context of the project registry conservation practices (farm-level signal, cross-checked by satellite).

Indicator	Domain	Farm Δ%	Control Δ%	Belt Δ%	p-value	Cohen's d	DiD vs Belt (pp)	Sig.
NDVI	Optical	-11.64%	-5.35%	-4.60%	p = 0.0430	-0.30 (small)	-7.25	★
NDTI	Optical	-5.78%	-1.70%	-1.37%	p = 0.1461	-0.22 (small)	-4.44	—
GPP Proxy	Biogeochemical	-12.12%	-6.41%	-6.01%	p = 0.1820	-0.20 (negligible)	-6.48	—
SOC Proxy	Optical	-11.05%	-6.81%	-6.31%	p = 0.0133	-0.87 (large)	-4.21	★
SAR VV	Radar	-3.25%	-6.41%	-4.59%	p = 0.1162	-0.19 (negligible)	+1.32	—
SAR VH	Radar	-3.44%	-5.10%	-2.68%	p = 0.1762	-0.16 (negligible)	-0.81	—
N₂O Proxy	Biogeochemical	-21.27%	+0.17%	-9.48%	p = 0.0672	-0.28 (small)	-12.41	—
BSI	Optical	+2.78%	+3.83%	+6.13%	p = 0.3573	0.12 (negligible)	-2.66	—
NBR2	Optical	-3.94%	-0.66%	-0.28%	p = 0.2329	-0.15 (negligible)	-3.66	—

★ = statistically significant (p < 0.05). DiD = Difference-in-Differences vs belt zone (percentage points). All statistics: Student’s t-test (equal variance), Cohen’s d with pooled SD, bootstrap 95% CI (10,000 resamples, percentile method).

Reading the BSI / NBR2 rows. BSI (Bare-Soil Index, B11/B4/B2 ratio): positive farm Δ% indicates a rise in bare-soil signal (residue lost or fresh tillage); negative Δ% indicates preserved or improved surface cover. CA-favourable direction is therefore downward, mirroring NDTI but with sensitivity to mineral soil exposure rather than residue dryness. Normalisation note: BSI is a signed index centred near zero (natural range roughly −0.3 to +0.3 on cropland); when the pre-period mean sits near zero the classic (post–pre)/|pre| × 100 percent change becomes numerically unstable. For BSI only, Δ% is therefore reported as a percent of the empirical pre-period range (p max − p min), a data-driven scale that reflects the true spread of the indicator on this landscape. Absolute change in native BSI units is available in the underlying statistics file. NBR2 (Normalised Burn Ratio 2, B11/B12 SWIR ratio): positive farm Δ% indicates a rise in dry-biomass / crop-residue signal (residue retained or accumulated); negative Δ% indicates residue removal, burning, or fresh tillage. CA-favourable direction is upward — the SWIR contrast saturates when the surface is dominated by lignin-rich dead biomass. Both proxies are derived from the SOC parent evalscript (Section 2.4.5) and are interpreted alongside SOC, NDTI and SAR for surface-state convergence rather than standalone.

3.2 Terrain & Climate Context

The post-implementation period (2023–2025) in Burgas Region, Bulgaria has been characterised by drought (2023–2025). This regional climate forcing depresses moisture-dependent indicators (NDVI, GPP Proxy, N₂O Proxy) across all three zones and must be accounted for when interpreting farm-specific trajectories. The three-zone Difference-in-Differences framework isolates management effects from this shared climate signal; indicator declines that track the belt zone reflect regional forcing, while farm-specific divergence indicates practice effects operating within the climate-constrained envelope.

The farm’s mean slope is 2.73°, Topographic Wetness Index is -13.94, and the curvature regime is near-planar (general curvature: 0.0000). These terrain parameters modulate the expression of all practice effects:

SAR interpretation: The gentle slope (2.73°) ensures minimal radar geometric distortion (foreshortening/layover). Observed backscatter changes are attributable to surface properties, not terrain.
NDTI (residue/litter): The near-planar terrain and gentle slope (2.73°) limit physical redistribution of crop residues by water runoff. NDTI changes therefore reflect management decisions (tillage intensity, residue retention) rather than topographic erosion or deposition of surface litter. During drought, reduced biomass may lower the absolute amount of post-harvest residue, but the SWIR-based NDTI ratio normalises for this and tracks the proportion of dry organic material on the soil surface.
SOC proxy: The near-planar curvature regime affects soil redistribution. TWI (-13.94) controls bare-soil exposure windows when the SOC proxy is retrievable (NDVI < 0.40): higher-TWI parcels sustain vegetation longer, reducing temporal sampling of soil spectral signatures (Ogban et al., 2022).
N₂O proxy: The well-drained terrain (TWI = -13.94) limits persistent anaerobic microsites. Closed depressions (mean depth: 0.00 m) create localised hotspots after rainfall (Liu et al., 2025; Vilain et al., 2012). The gentle slope promotes infiltration, maintaining aerobic conditions (Hall et al., 2021).
Vegetation (NDVI/GPP): TWI distribution creates within-farm productivity gradients: higher-TWI parcels sustain denser vegetation during dry periods, lower-TWI parcels show stronger drought stress.

3.3 Cross-Sensor Physical Coherence — Monthly Verification (12-Month Cycle)

Indicator	Zone	Jan Pre	Jan Post	Feb Pre	Feb Post	Mar Pre	Mar Post	Apr Pre	Apr Post	May Pre	May Post	Jun Pre	Jun Post	Jul Pre	Jul Post	Aug Pre	Aug Post	Sep Pre	Sep Post	Oct Pre	Oct Post	Nov Pre	Nov Post	Dec Pre	Dec Post
NDVI	Farm	0.471	0.488	0.489	0.488	0.599	0.596	0.705	0.683	0.689	0.666	0.486	0.407	0.364	0.261	0.285	0.235	0.271	0.287	0.455	0.285	0.525	0.480	0.427	0.416
NDVI	Control	0.484	0.502	0.484	0.479	0.581	0.603	0.696	0.706	0.695	0.722	0.496	0.433	0.388	0.288	0.318	0.246	0.290	0.318	0.421	0.422	0.475	0.478	0.478	0.422
NDVI	Belt	0.486	0.373	0.437	0.348	0.562	0.561	0.643	0.655	0.611	0.646	0.492	0.468	0.419	0.361	0.294	0.280	0.306	0.346	0.387	0.337	0.414	0.328	0.357	0.442
NDTI	Farm	0.223	0.202	0.206	0.196	0.253	0.245	0.297	0.286	0.301	0.282	0.247	0.244	0.203	0.198	0.176	0.158	0.153	0.155	0.204	0.149	0.225	0.218	0.184	0.211
NDTI	Control	0.234	0.212	0.218	0.197	0.245	0.244	0.292	0.294	0.292	0.304	0.252	0.249	0.215	0.210	0.192	0.163	0.167	0.166	0.200	0.184	0.205	0.212	0.193	0.214
NDTI	Belt	0.231	0.187	0.190	0.171	0.248	0.235	0.270	0.278	0.263	0.282	0.250	0.249	0.226	0.219	0.186	0.185	0.178	0.184	0.185	0.189	0.202	0.188	0.191	0.202
GPP Proxy	Farm	2.826	2.755	3.048	2.880	4.512	4.418	6.165	5.897	5.984	5.918	3.238	2.944	2.075	1.527	1.245	1.004	1.103	1.469	2.632	1.378	3.394	2.321	2.635	2.056
GPP Proxy	Control	2.990	2.801	2.944	2.684	4.236	4.346	5.929	6.160	6.069	6.484	3.361	3.194	2.281	1.659	1.489	1.064	1.253	1.675	2.243	2.351	2.843	2.351	2.985	2.139
GPP Proxy	Belt	3.109	1.882	2.752	1.876	4.214	4.040	5.381	5.548	5.217	5.610	3.556	3.429	2.749	2.281	1.589	1.357	1.298	1.816	1.823	1.493	2.045	1.661	1.997	2.348
SOC Proxy	Farm	10.846	8.842	9.280	7.492	7.754	7.268	6.017	6.751	5.225	5.629	7.304	5.348	6.535	4.216	6.591	5.229	6.967	6.390	8.250	7.132	8.452	8.895	9.589	8.821
SOC Proxy	Control	8.871	8.277	8.370	7.606	6.985	7.155	6.077	6.773	5.128	5.078	6.539	5.352	6.475	5.011	6.523	5.638	6.840	6.761	8.189	6.955	7.818	9.045	9.187	8.829
SOC Proxy	Belt	10.631	10.359	9.495	8.605	8.251	8.616	7.179	7.215	6.189	5.967	6.623	5.641	5.942	5.162	6.450	5.963	7.306	6.936	9.157	8.001	10.384	9.931	10.310	9.559
SAR VV	Farm	-3.157	-3.044	-3.159	-3.468	-3.360	-3.423	-3.693	-3.983	-3.527	-3.980	-3.176	-3.627	-3.369	-3.772	-3.608	-3.730	-3.756	-3.185	-3.417	-3.337	-3.123	-2.860	-2.991	-3.025
SAR VV	Control	-3.247	-3.093	-3.152	-3.482	-3.300	-3.377	-3.619	-4.051	-3.626	-3.964	-3.138	-3.628	-3.306	-3.844	-3.555	-4.094	-3.699	-3.475	-3.414	-3.515	-3.147	-3.000	-2.951	-3.015
SAR VV	Belt	-3.138	-3.202	-3.185	-3.537	-3.543	-3.493	-3.868	-3.905	-3.647	-3.682	-3.148	-3.385	-3.280	-3.579	-3.542	-3.931	-3.520	-3.526	-3.345	-3.543	-3.005	-2.963	-2.911	-3.120
SAR VH	Farm	-9.652	-9.927	-9.399	-10.042	-9.594	-9.162	-8.693	-9.508	-8.378	-8.661	-7.552	-8.951	-8.768	-10.535	-10.805	-11.534	-11.968	-10.629	-11.497	-11.553	-9.779	-8.768	-9.184	-9.610
SAR VH	Control	-9.437	-9.849	-9.494	-10.201	-9.573	-9.129	-8.600	-9.257	-8.510	-9.051	-7.553	-9.018	-8.824	-10.660	-10.491	-11.629	-11.431	-10.221	-10.902	-11.429	-9.405	-9.027	-8.854	-9.423
SAR VH	Belt	-9.464	-9.765	-9.653	-10.571	-9.864	-9.353	-9.275	-9.007	-8.742	-8.825	-7.918	-8.488	-8.666	-9.452	-9.929	-10.880	-10.882	-10.855	-10.758	-10.854	-9.087	-8.949	-8.791	-9.393
N₂O Proxy	Farm	1.353	1.617	1.613	1.689	3.043	3.229	5.429	4.875	4.132	3.893	1.990	1.644	1.273	0.927	0.724	0.603	0.630	0.874	1.857	0.932	2.160	1.091	1.488	1.032
N₂O Proxy	Control	1.394	1.536	1.546	1.426	2.675	3.322	4.410	4.949	4.524	4.811	2.006	1.798	1.391	0.986	0.846	0.626	0.689	0.957	1.475	1.423	1.685	1.125	1.651	1.137
N₂O Proxy	Belt	1.610	1.159	1.587	0.964	3.043	3.099	4.354	4.381	3.443	3.974	2.548	2.253	1.891	1.475	0.982	0.785	0.802	1.050	1.173	1.129	1.509	1.100	1.185	1.236
BSI	Farm	0.005	0.021	0.014	-0.011	-0.084	-0.047	-0.201	-0.221	-0.215	-0.238	-0.016	-0.044	0.108	0.114	0.169	0.165	0.184	0.148	0.055	0.124	-0.029	0.093	-0.011	0.075
BSI	Control	0.022	0.028	0.017	0.005	-0.063	-0.045	-0.165	-0.197	-0.196	-0.182	-0.013	-0.037	0.074	0.107	0.149	0.174	0.176	0.141	0.083	0.095	0.011	0.068	-0.001	0.061
BSI	Belt	-0.025	0.030	-0.035	-0.004	-0.094	-0.078	-0.170	-0.212	-0.212	-0.209	-0.021	-0.024	0.063	0.086	0.136	0.166	0.174	0.160	0.128	0.140	0.029	0.086	-0.010	0.043
NBR2	Farm	0.217	0.197	0.211	0.201	0.235	0.221	0.279	0.278	0.285	0.275	0.247	0.243	0.198	0.199	0.166	0.168	0.144	0.147	0.190	0.173	0.204	0.179	0.214	0.205
NBR2	Control	0.217	0.207	0.217	0.207	0.228	0.228	0.263	0.277	0.273	0.273	0.241	0.241	0.218	0.210	0.186	0.181	0.163	0.167	0.191	0.199	0.206	0.202	0.219	0.216
NBR2	Belt	0.221	0.202	0.223	0.200	0.237	0.235	0.257	0.278	0.271	0.271	0.240	0.246	0.216	0.214	0.186	0.183	0.156	0.162	0.167	0.174	0.189	0.183	0.206	0.215

The table above shows Farm, Control, and Belt monthly means across the full 12-month cycle for each satellite indicator, covering the pre-project (2018–2022) and post-project (2023–2025) periods. This crop-agnostic view traces the complete phenological cycle and compares farm-level trajectories against the regional reference at every point in the year, rather than restricting interpretation to a single window.

Key interpretation window for this farm: July–September (post-harvest bare-soil window) — for winter-crop rotations the most diagnostic window for conservation agriculture practices is the short bare-soil period between harvest (~July) and autumn re-sowing (~October). Residue retention, stubble management, and catch-crop presence are directly detectable here. The October–March period instead reflects the winter main crop's own vegetative growth (tillering through stem elongation) and should be read as crop-health signal, not cover-crop signal.

Note: the monthly means shown above are a cross-sensor coherence check across the full year and are distinct from the GAEC 6 sensitive period (1 Jun – 30 Sep), which is the regulatory compliance window and is evaluated separately.

Integrated monthly assessment: 1 of 9 indicators have their monthly-cycle mean moving in the CA-expected direction (post − pre, farm zone) , with 2 showing farm-specific divergence from the regional belt. Note on metric scope: this monthly-cycle count is a directional check on 12-month-averaged means and is not the same as the KPI panel’s “2/9 significant” tally. The KPI count applies a Student’s t-test (p < 0.05) on the annual pre/post distribution and therefore requires both a directional shift and enough statistical power to reject the null — so the two numbers routinely differ for the same farm. Read together with the key-window note above, the monthly-mean trajectories localise the windows in which conservation agriculture practices are most clearly expressed in the signal: cover crop presence, residue retention, and soil surface roughness are most detectable when the main crop canopy is absent.

The monthly-cycle divergence across multiple indicators provides independent additionality evidence: the farm’s management signature is detectable through the year, including windows when practice effects (residue retention, cover crop establishment, soil structural change) are most visible and least confounded by crop phenology.

Winter N₂O Assessment (November–February)

The project area is outside any designated Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (verified by spatial overlay with МОСВ NVZ boundary); the fertilisation ban therefore does not apply as a legal obligation. The analysis below is provided for informational completeness.

Rather than relying on pre- to post-project change detection — which has limited statistical power given the sparse optical coverage during winter months (typically 0–2 cloud-free Sentinel-2 scenes per month) — this assessment compares the absolute level of the N₂O emission proxy between the farm and the regional belt within each individual winter season. The rationale is straightforward: if the farm’s emission proxy never exceeds the reference zone during the restricted period, there is no remote sensing evidence of anomalous fertilisation activity.

Absolute N₂O proxy levels during the fertilisation ban period (1 Nov– 25 Feb), per winter season. N = cloud-free Sentinel-2 scene count.
Winter	Farm mean (kg N₂O/ha)	Belt mean (kg N₂O/ha)	F < B	F/B ratio	N_farm	N_belt
2017/18	1.6450	1.7968	✓	0.916	3	3
2018/19	1.5094	1.6665	✓	0.906	5	6
2019/20	1.5869	1.6689	✓	0.951	6	7
2020/21	1.6454	1.1710	✗	1.405	3	4
2021/22	1.5362	1.4478	✗	1.061	6	7
2022/23	2.4994	1.0899	✗	2.293	4	5
2023/24	1.4445	1.1246	✗	1.284	4	5
2024/25	0.5439	0.9718	✓	0.560	4	7
2025/26	1.1261	1.3278	✓	0.848	5	5

Statistical significance — paired winter-season comparison
Test	Result
Sign test (H₀: P(F<B) = 0.5)	5/9 winters, p = 0.500
Paired t-test (one-sided, F < B)	t = 0.77, p = 0.768
Wilcoxon signed-rank	W = 25.0, p = 0.633
Cohen’s d	0.26
Mean F/B ratio	1.136 (farm 14% above belt)

Methodological note: The N₂O emission proxy is derived from the Inverted Red-Edge Chlorophyll Index (IRECI: (B07 − B04) / (B05 + B06)), which estimates canopy nitrogen content as a surrogate for soil N availability and potential N₂O emission intensity. During winter months, Sentinel-2 optical imagery is constrained by cloud cover, low solar elevation, and snow or frost on the soil surface — resulting in 0–2 usable scenes per month in this region. These factors mean that: (a) temporal resolution is insufficient for detecting short-duration fertilisation events; (b) residual reflectance from frozen or snow-covered surfaces can introduce noise unrelated to nutrient inputs; and (c) freeze-thaw cycles in temperate chernozem soils produce episodic N₂O pulses of biogenic origin (Risk et al., 2013, Canadian Journal of Soil Science; Wagner-Riddle et al., 2017) that no optical sensor can distinguish from anthropogenic sources. Absolute-level comparison against a reference zone addresses these constraints by identifying whether the farm’s emission footprint deviates from the regional norm across entire winter seasons, rather than attempting event-level detection that the available temporal resolution cannot support.

The farm’s N₂O emission proxy is below the belt in 5 of 9 ban-period winters (2017/18, 2018/19, 2019/20, 2024/25, 2025/26), and above in 4 (2020/21, 2021/22, 2022/23, 2023/24). The majority of winters show lower farm emissions relative to the regional reference, which is directionally consistent with reduced fertilisation pressure. The winters where farm exceeds belt may reflect natural variability (freeze-thaw N₂O pulses, residue decomposition dynamics) rather than anthropogenic inputs (Risk et al., 2013, Canadian Journal of Soil Science).

ℹ Cross-cutting note — N₂O and regulatory context (SMR 1)
Spatial overlay indicates the project area is outside any designated NVZ; the Nitrate Directive does not impose nutrient management obligations on these holdings. Any observed N₂O reduction is therefore entirely voluntary and fully additional. N₂O is not attributable to any single practice; it is a cross-cutting indicator influenced by the entire management bundle. Observed trends: farm N₂O proxy -21.27%, belt -9.48%, control +0.17%. (farm pre-mean: 2.1085, post-mean: 1.6600; belt pre: 1.9714, post: 1.7846). N₂O emissions from agricultural soils are driven by two microbial processes — nitrification and denitrification — both of which respond to multiple management factors simultaneously. Cover crops influence N₂O through soil mineral nitrogen uptake (non-legume covers reduce substrate availability; legume covers may increase it through biological nitrogen fixation and low-C:N residue mineralisation). Tillage regime affects soil aeration and moisture distribution, modulating the balance between aerobic nitrification and anaerobic denitrification. Organic amendments add both carbon and nitrogen substrates, stimulating microbial activity and creating localised anaerobic microsites that promote N₂O production. Fertilisation rate and timing remain the dominant drivers: the IPCC (2006) default emission factor EF₁ attributes 1% of applied nitrogen (synthetic or organic) to direct N₂O-N emissions (Stehfest & Bouwman, 2006). The satellite-derived N₂O proxy integrates soil moisture, temperature, and vegetation signals year-round, including the unified winter monitoring window 1 Nov– 25 Feb when direct N₂O flux measurements are typically unavailable. Winter emissions may reflect residual mineralisation of autumn-applied fertiliser and crop residue decomposition rather than active management inputs; this seasonal effect applies equally to farm and reference zones and is captured symmetrically in the DiD framework. The observed farm–belt divergence is directionally consistent with the management bundle reducing N₂O emissions. Since the farm lies outside any designated NVZ, the Nitrate Directive imposes no obligation here and the reduction is entirely voluntary and fully additional rather than a step beyond a regulatory floor.

3.4 Practice Assessment

Satellite Evidence Rating — Each practice section below carries a strength rating based on the indicator evidence linked to that practice:
  STRONG ≥ 2 indicators from ≥ 2 measurement domains (optical, radar, biogeochemical), at least 1 statistically significant (p < 0.05), all in the expected direction.
  MODERATE ≥ 1 indicator in the expected direction, but fewer domains or no statistically significant result.
  WEAK Indicators present but counter-directional or all non-significant with negligible effect sizes.
Sections without a badge (e.g. Nitrogen Emissions, Practices Without Direct Satellite Verification) represent environmental outcomes or practices that cannot be independently verified through remote sensing alone.

Multi-sensor Signature Reference Table — Each month evaluated in the per-practice tables below is classified against the following 11 canonical signatures derived from combinations of NDVI (chlorophyll), NDTI (cellulose / residue), SAR VV (surface roughness) and SAR VH (volume scattering). Thresholds are aligned with the internal _classify_month_multisensor() logic (Daughtry 2001/2004 NDTI cellulose threshold 0.08; Sentinel Hub canonical NDVI bare-soil threshold 0.10; SAR VV ±1 dB vs farm baseline).

#	Signature	NDVI	NDTI	VV Δ (dB)	VH (dB)	Meaning
1	dense canopy	≥ 0.60	—	—	≥ −10	dense vegetation (chlorophyll + volume scattering confirms biomass)
2	developing canopy	0.35–0.60	—	—	−14 to −9	developing vegetation (consistent with expected stage band)
3	residue cover (conservation)	0.15–0.35	≥ 0.08	—	−13 to −9	surface residues / mulch (NDTI confirms cellulose)
4	residue cover (SAR-verified)	0.10–0.15	≥ 0.08	≤ −1	—	low NDVI but NDTI + smooth VV confirm residues via independent sensors
5	smooth settled surface	< 0.25	< 0.08	≤ −1	−13 to −9	smooth surface without residues (settled seedbed / reduced-till without mulch)
6	rough disturbed surface	< 0.25	< 0.08	≥ +1	≤ −14	rough surface without residues (surface disturbance detected)
7	emergence / sparse canopy	0.15–0.30	—	—	−13 to −10	emerging / sparse biomass (emerging stage consistent)
8	dormant / minimal biomass	< 0.20	< 0.08	−1 to +1	≤ −14	dormancy — low activity, smooth, low volume (neither residue nor disturbance)
9	bare with residue cover	< 0.10	≥ 0.08	—	—	true bare + surface residues → no-till / mulch (NDTI diagnostic)
10	bare, rough surface	< 0.10	< 0.08	≥ +1	≤ −14	true bare + increased roughness
11	bare, smooth surface	< 0.10	< 0.08	≤ −1	−14 to −10	true bare + smooth surface (settled seedbed)

Key observations:

NDVI alone is sufficient only for dense canopy (≥ 0.60) — a single high value conclusively indicates active biomass.
NDTI ≥ 0.08 with low NDVI is sufficient for residue retention / mulch / no-till verdicts (signatures 3, 4, 9); NDTI is the direct cellulose indicator.
SAR VV delta is sufficient for rough vs smooth verdicts (signatures 5, 6, 10, 11) when NDVI is low and NDTI is below the cellulose threshold.
VH alone is never decisive — it corroborates canopy volume (confirms biomass when NDVI is obscured by clouds) but does not enter classification.
Ambiguity is explicit: months in NDVI 0.10–0.15 require either NDTI or SAR delta to be classified; otherwise the reality-check narrative labels them as sparse / ambiguous.

3.4.1 Multi-sensor Reality Check — Methodology

Multi-sensor monthly reality check. For each cropping year (ordered by the sowing-to-harvest cycle of the dominant declared crop), NDVI (green canopy cover) and NDTI (residue cellulose/lignin signal in SWIR) are cross-referenced against SAR VV (surface roughness) and the expected phenology stage of the declared crops. This discriminates four outcomes: (i) main-crop canopy consistent with stage, (ii) bare soil with surface residues (no-till / mulch), (iii) bare soil with tilled / roughened surface, and (iv) non-diagnostic SAR (snow, frozen soil, waterlogging, or harvest transition). Months are listed in cropping-cycle order, from sowing through post-harvest stubble.

Expected NDVI ranges. The expected NDVI window shown for each month is derived from statistical data for the relevant crop group over an eight-year period. Where this farm carries at least four years of its own observations for a calendar month, the window is recalibrated to the farm’s own history (mean ± one standard deviation of yearly monthly means); otherwise it falls back to the crop-group baseline. This ensures the range reflects the soil type, management intensity, cultivar choice and micro-climate actually present on the farm rather than a generic literature average.

Dominant-group rule. Where a single crop group occupies at least 60% of the declared area in a given year, only that dominant group is shown for that year’s rows. This does not imply absence of rotation — it reflects that one group dominates that year's farm-average signal; the year-to-year crop sequence is visible across the per-year headers. In mixed rotations (no group above 60%), subgroups are listed separately with area shares.

Climate context. Months that fall within a verified extreme-weather event (drought or heatwave) reported in the public weather record are flagged as “depressed within documented climate context” rather than “under-performing”, so the verdict attributes reduced canopy to the documented climate signal rather than to management failure.

3.4.2 Multi-sensor Monthly Reality Chart

The chart below plots POST-period monthly NDVI, NDTI, SAR VV and SAR VH from the farm zone. Vertical dashed markers indicate months that match one of the 11 canonical signatures in the reference table above.

Signatures assigned by applying the 11-row reference table above (NDVI / NDTI / VV-delta vs farm baseline -3.36 dB / VH typical range). Thresholds aligned with _classify_month_multisensor(). VH is shown for volume-scattering context; it does not enter classification. Gaps indicate months without satellite coverage.

3.4.3 No-till / Reduced tillage / Strip cropping / Bed tillage

Satellite evidence: MODERATE

Reduced tillage encompasses a spectrum of practices — from no-till (zero soil inversion) through strip tillage (disturbing only the seed row) to reduced-depth cultivation — all aimed at minimising mechanical disruption of the soil structure. The tillage-related practices registered for this farm in the project practice registry include no-till / reduced tillage / strip cropping / bed tillage; their satellite-verified imprint is evaluated below. The ecological rationale is that intact soil aggregates physically protect organic matter from microbial decomposition, preserve macropore networks that regulate water infiltration and gas exchange, and maintain the habitat of soil biota that drive nutrient cycling (Six et al., 2000; Lal, 2004).

Radar detection. Sentinel-1 C-band SAR (5.4 GHz, λ ≈ 5.6 cm) provides the most direct physical measurement of tillage state.

The co-polarised channel (VV) responds to surface micro-roughness: ploughed furrows scatter the radar signal diffusely back to the sensor, while smooth, residue-covered surfaces produce specular reflection away from it. The farm shows VV backscatter change of -3.25% (p = 0.1162, d = -0.19, DiD vs belt: +1.32 pp).

The cross-polarised channel (VH) requires depolarisation by volumetric scatterers — standing stubble, three-dimensional residue orientation — and shows -3.44% change (p = 0.1762, d = -0.16, DiD vs belt: -0.81 pp).

Vreugdenhil et al. (2018, Remote Sensing) demonstrated that VH backscatter correlates strongly with Leaf Area Index and vegetation water content, while McNairn et al. (2002, Remote Sensing of Environment) confirmed that cross-polarised backscatter is significantly correlated with crop residue cover.

When both polarisations shift in parallel, the interpretation is physically constrained: the surface has become smoother and the volume scattering layer has transitioned from vertically oriented stubble to horizontally flattened mulch. This dual-polarisation convergence cannot be produced by precipitation changes alone — soil moisture affects the amplitude of backscatter but not its structural component in the same way as physical roughness change (Berger et al., 2022).

Spectral residue detection. NDTI exploits the shortwave infrared absorption of dry plant material: cellulose and lignin absorb at 2190 nm (B12) while reflecting at 1610 nm (B11). The farm shows NDTI change of -5.78% (DiD vs belt: -4.44 pp). This is the direct spectral consequence of leaving crop residue on the surface rather than ploughing it under (Van Deventer et al., 1997; Serbin et al., 2009; Quemada & Daughtry, 2016).

Multi-sensor convergence. The SAR–NDTI convergence provides the strongest satellite-based evidence for reduced tillage because the two measurement physics share no common error sources: C-band microwave scattering responds to surface geometry at centimetre scale, while SWIR optical absorption responds to molecular bond vibrations in cellulose. When both independently indicate more residue and less soil disturbance, the probability of a false positive is multiplicatively reduced (Berger et al., 2022). Daughtry et al. (2020) demonstrated that combined SAR–optical approaches outperform any single-sensor tillage classification precisely because they capture complementary physical properties of the same surface transition.

Crop context — cereals (winter barley):

SAR VV: Post-harvest cereal stubble creates a rougher surface than bare soil but smoother than freshly tilled ground. Transition to reduced tillage decreases VV backscatter as the surface becomes more uniform under flat residue cover.
SAR VH: VH cross-polarisation is sensitive to volume scattering from standing stubble vs flat mulch. Conservation agriculture typically reduces VH as residue transitions from vertical stubble to horizontal mulch.
NDTI: Cereal stubble provides high cellulose/lignin residue readily detectable by NDTI. Reduced tillage preserves this stubble layer, producing the strongest NDTI response among arable crop groups (Daughtry et al. 2006; Zheng et al. 2014).

Monthly-cycle confirmation: Across the July–September post-harvest bare-soil window (when the soil surface is most diagnostic for this crop system), tillage-related indicators show: NDTI decrease (-4.8%), SAR VV decrease (-2.7%), SAR VH decrease (-3.1%). See the Monthly Verification section above (Section 3.3) for the full table.

Monthly cover and tillage tracking. The block below shows, month by month through the post-project period, how the multi-sensor data agree (or not) with the expected phenology stage. It separates residue cover (NDTI ≥ 0.08) from actual tillage (SAR VV above baseline) and suppresses SAR interpretation when the signal is not diagnostic.

Interpretation legend and expected NDVI ranges (crop-group baseline recalibrated to farm history, dominant-group rule, climate-context flagging) are defined in §3.4.1.

Cropping year 2023 · mixed rotation (GRAIN MAIZE 43% / SOFT WINTER WHEAT 40% / WINTER BARLEY 17%)

Each month below shows the farm-wide sensor average (NDVI/NDTI/SAR — one set of values per month, area-weighted across all declared parcels) against a composite expected window that spans all rotation components (min lo / max hi across subgroups with ≥2% area share). Per-month stage labels list each subgroup’s phenology stage alongside its area share.

April 2023: composite rotation: cereals 57% (booting) · maize 43% (sowing) (expected NDVI 0.59–0.80) [8-yr farm baseline, any subgroup empirical] → within composite rotation window (NDVI 0.78 within 0.59–0.80) [NDVI +0.78, NDTI +0.32, VV -3.9 dB]
May 2023: composite rotation: cereals 57% (heading/peak) · maize 43% (emergence/V-stages) (expected NDVI 0.54–0.82) [8-yr farm baseline, any subgroup empirical] → within composite rotation window (NDVI 0.71 within 0.54–0.82) [NDVI +0.71, NDTI +0.29, VV -4.1 dB]
June 2023: composite rotation: cereals 57% (grain fill) · maize 43% (rapid growth) (expected NDVI 0.38–0.53) [8-yr farm baseline, any subgroup empirical] → within composite rotation window (NDVI 0.47 within 0.38–0.53) [NDVI +0.47, NDTI +0.25, VV -3.1 dB]
July 2023: composite rotation: cereals 57% (ripening/harvest) · maize 43% (tasseling/silking) (expected NDVI 0.23–0.42) [8-yr farm baseline, any subgroup empirical] → within composite rotation window (NDVI 0.28 within 0.23–0.42) [NDVI +0.28, NDTI +0.18, VV -3.5 dB] [SAR not diagnostic: anomalous backscatter (possible harvest / canopy transition): VV-VH decorrelation (-0.08)]
August 2023: composite rotation: cereals 57% (post-harvest residues / stubble) · maize 43% (grain fill/peak) (expected NDVI 0.19–0.33) [8-yr farm baseline, any subgroup empirical] → within composite rotation window (NDVI 0.24 within 0.19–0.33) [NDVI +0.24, NDTI +0.16, VV -3.2 dB]
September 2023: composite rotation: cereals 57% (post-harvest residues / stubble) · maize 43% (maturation) (expected NDVI 0.22–0.36) [8-yr farm baseline, any subgroup empirical] → within composite rotation window (NDVI 0.32 within 0.22–0.36) [NDVI +0.32, NDTI +0.17, VV -3.1 dB]
October 2023: composite rotation: cereals 57% (sowing) · maize 43% (ripening/harvest) (expected NDVI 0.14–0.57) [8-yr farm baseline, any subgroup empirical] → within composite rotation window (NDVI 0.35 within 0.14–0.57) [NDVI +0.35, NDTI +0.18, VV -3.4 dB]

Cropping year 2024 · SOFT WINTER WHEAT (Nov 2024 – Jul 2025)

January 2025: oilseeds — winter dormancy (expected NDVI 0.37–0.60) [8-yr farm baseline] → slightly below-range winter dormancy with surface residues (NDVI 0.35, NDTI +0.15) [NDVI +0.35, NDTI +0.15, VV -3.1 dB]
February 2025: oilseeds — rosette resume (expected NDVI 0.42–0.57) [8-yr farm baseline] → slightly below-range rosette resume with surface residues (NDVI 0.37, NDTI +0.15) [NDVI +0.37, NDTI +0.15, VV -3.0 dB]

Cropping year 2025 · SUNFLOWER (Apr – Oct 2025)

October 2025: oilseeds — emergence/rosette (expected NDVI 0.14–0.57) [8-yr farm baseline] → bare with crop residues (NDVI -0.03, NDTI +0.09 -> no-till / mulch) [NDVI -0.03, NDTI +0.09, VV -2.9 dB]

Inter-cycle observations 2023 · months outside any declared sowing cycle

Verdicts below are derived from satellite signals only (NDVI canopy cover, NDTI residue index, SAR surface roughness) without reference to a declared crop phenology window.

January 2023: signal-only verdict — active green cover [NDVI +0.63, NDTI +0.27, VV -2.8 dB]
February 2023: signal-only verdict — active green cover [NDVI +0.60, NDTI +0.24, VV -3.7 dB]
March 2023: signal-only verdict — active green cover [NDVI +0.71, NDTI +0.28, VV -3.5 dB]
December 2023: signal-only verdict — active green cover [NDVI +0.51, NDTI +0.22, VV -3.1 dB]

Inter-cycle observations 2024 · months outside any declared sowing cycle

Verdicts below are derived from satellite signals only (NDVI canopy cover, NDTI residue index, SAR surface roughness) without reference to a declared crop phenology window.

January 2024: signal-only verdict — active green cover [NDVI +0.48, NDTI +0.19, VV -3.2 dB]
March 2024: signal-only verdict — active green cover [NDVI +0.48, NDTI +0.21, VV -3.4 dB]
April 2024: signal-only verdict — active green cover [NDVI +0.53, NDTI +0.24, VV -3.9 dB]
May 2024: signal-only verdict — active green cover [NDVI +0.50, NDTI +0.21, VV -3.6 dB]
June 2024: signal-only verdict — active green cover [NDVI +0.34, NDTI +0.22, VV -3.9 dB]
July 2024: signal-only verdict — active green cover [NDVI +0.27, NDTI +0.19, VV -3.9 dB]
August 2024: signal-only verdict — low canopy / post-harvest stubble with residues; rough surface (SAR elevated) [NDVI +0.25, NDTI +0.17, VV -4.3 dB]
September 2024: signal-only verdict — low canopy / post-harvest stubble with residues; rough surface (SAR elevated) [NDVI +0.24, NDTI +0.13, VV -3.2 dB]
October 2024: signal-only verdict — active green cover [NDVI +0.32, NDTI +0.14, VV -3.7 dB]

Inter-cycle observations 2025 · months outside any declared sowing cycle

Verdicts below are derived from satellite signals only (NDVI canopy cover, NDTI residue index, SAR surface roughness) without reference to a declared crop phenology window.

November 2025: signal-only verdict — active green cover [NDVI +0.48, NDTI +0.22, VV -3.0 dB]
December 2025: signal-only verdict — active green cover [NDVI +0.44, NDTI +0.21, VV -3.0 dB]

The reduced tillage evidence above establishes a structural change in the soil surface. This creates the physical environment in which the next management practice operates: cover crops establish more readily on undisturbed soil surfaces where residue retention maintains moisture and suppresses weed competition during germination (Mirsky et al., 2012, Weed Science).

3.4.4 Cover cropping / Green manure / Intercropping

Satellite evidence: STRONG

Cover cropping involves establishing a secondary crop — typically legumes, grasses, or brassicas — during fallow periods between main crop cycles. The practice serves multiple functions: protecting bare soil from erosion, suppressing weeds, fixing atmospheric nitrogen (if leguminous), providing organic matter inputs, and maintaining root channels that improve soil structure (Poeplau and Don, 2015). On this farm, the management practices include cover cropping / green manure / intercropping.

Living cover vs residue / stubble — two distinct practices with distinct spectral signatures. A “cover crop” in the strict sense is a living, photosynthetically active stand established on the field during the intercrop period and detected by elevated NDVI (NDVI ≥ 0.25 for established winter cover crops on Chernozems; Hively et al. 2021, Remote Sensing; Daughtry 2004, RSE).

By contrast, post-harvest residue or stubble retention is a different practice: the previous main crop’s biomass is not removed, leaving dead cellulose on the soil surface. Dead cellulose lifts NDVI above bare-soil values (typical band 0.15–0.25, cellulose absorption feature; Quemada & Daughtry 2016) but does not reach the living-cover range — the distinguishing cellulose-absorption feature is captured by NDTI ≥ 0.08 (∼30% CTIC residue-cover operational equivalent; Van Deventer 1997, Serbin et al. 2009).

The two practices have different carbon pathways: living cover fixes atmospheric CO₂ in situ during the intercrop window and adds new carbon inputs; residue retention recycles already-fixed carbon from the preceding main crop and primarily functions to reduce erosion and slow decomposition. For this reason the GAEC 6 compliance table classifies each extra-cover month individually as L (living), R (residue / stubble), or S (SAR-confirmed surface cover when NDVI is in the 0.10–0.15 ambiguity range).

Vegetation detection. NDVI (-11.64%) measures the greenness and vigour of the canopy. For living cover crop verification, the critical signal is not the annual mean but NDVI during the phenology-derived cover-detection window — the off-season shoulders around the GAEC 6 sensitive period, outside the months in which the declared main crop occupies the field.

Within that window a four-tier cascade is applied: NDVI < 0.10 is true bare soil (Prudnikova et al. 2019 Chernozem endmember); NDVI 0.10–0.15 is the bare-vs-residue ambiguity zone, resolved by NDTI and SAR backscatter (McNairn et al. 2002; Daughtry 2001/2004); NDVI 0.15–0.25 is a stage-dependent low-canopy zone that typically reflects residue / stubble cellulose (NDTI ≥ 0.08; Van Deventer 1997, Serbin 2009, Quemada & Daughtry 2016) but can also represent an emerging cover crop in its establishment phase or a dormant canopy under cold-season stress; and NDVI ≥ 0.25 indicates active, photosynthetically productive green biomass consistent with a fully established living cover crop (Hively et al. 2021; Daughtry 2004).

The farm diverges from the belt zone (-4.60%) by -7.25 pp, suggesting farm-specific vegetation dynamics beyond regional climate drivers.

Productivity context. GPP Proxy (-12.12%) integrates vegetation greenness (fAPAR) with a water stress scalar (W_LSWI), making it more sensitive to drought than NDVI alone. The belt zone shows -6.01% (DiD: -6.48 pp).

GPP declines shared with the reference zone reflect the regional water deficit: when LSWI drops due to reduced leaf water content, the GPP estimate falls accordingly (Xiao et al., 2004). The GPP trajectory sets the context for interpreting all other indicators — conservation practices operate within this climate-constrained productivity envelope, not independently of it.

Crop context — cereals (winter barley):

NDVI: Cereal crops produce a strong seasonal NDVI peak during tillering-heading (March–May for winter cereals) followed by rapid senescence. Cover crops extend green cover into the post-harvest window, raising cumulative annual NDVI.
GPP Proxy: Conservation agriculture in cereal systems can maintain or increase GPP through improved water retention, particularly under drought stress. A 20-year CA trial in Tunisia showed 21% higher grain yields under no-till vs conventional (Cheikh M’hamed et al. 2024, Agronomy).

Monthly-cycle confirmation: Across the July–September post-harvest bare-soil window, cover-related indicators show: NDVI decrease (-8.2%), GPP Proxy decrease (-11.0%). See the Monthly Verification section above (Section 3.3) for the full table.

Monthly canopy tracking. The block below aligns monthly NDVI/NDTI with the expected phenology stage of the declared crops. It shows where main-crop canopy is on-expectation and where additional cover is present in the intercrop windows.

Interpretation legend and expected NDVI ranges (crop-group baseline recalibrated to farm history, dominant-group rule, climate-context flagging) are defined in §3.4.1.

Cropping year 2023 · mixed rotation (GRAIN MAIZE 43% / SOFT WINTER WHEAT 40% / WINTER BARLEY 17%)

July 2023: composite rotation: cereals 57% (ripening/harvest) · maize 43% (tasseling/silking) (expected NDVI 0.23–0.42) [8-yr farm baseline, any subgroup empirical] → within composite rotation window (NDVI 0.28 within 0.23–0.42) [NDVI +0.28, NDTI +0.18, VV -3.5 dB] [SAR not diagnostic: anomalous backscatter (possible harvest / canopy transition): VV-VH decorrelation (-0.08)]

Cropping year 2024 · SOFT WINTER WHEAT (Nov 2024 – Jul 2025)

December 2024: cereals — tillering (expected NDVI 0.26–0.55) [8-yr farm baseline] → canopy consistent with tillering (NDVI 0.29, expected 0.26-0.55) [NDVI +0.29, NDTI +0.20, VV -3.0 dB]
January 2025: oilseeds — winter dormancy (expected NDVI 0.37–0.60) [8-yr farm baseline] → slightly below-range winter dormancy with surface residues (NDVI 0.35, NDTI +0.15) [NDVI +0.35, NDTI +0.15, VV -3.1 dB]
February 2025: oilseeds — rosette resume (expected NDVI 0.42–0.57) [8-yr farm baseline] → slightly below-range rosette resume with surface residues (NDVI 0.37, NDTI +0.15) [NDVI +0.37, NDTI +0.15, VV -3.0 dB]
March 2025: oilseeds — stem extension (expected NDVI 0.51–0.69) [8-yr farm baseline] → canopy consistent with stem extension (NDVI 0.59, expected 0.51-0.69) [NDVI +0.59, NDTI +0.24, VV -3.4 dB] [SAR not diagnostic: likely frozen soil / snow / water: VV-VH decorrelation (-0.51)]

Cropping year 2025 · SUNFLOWER (Apr – Oct 2025)

April 2025: oilseeds — flowering/peak (expected NDVI 0.59–0.80) [8-yr farm baseline] → canopy consistent with flowering/peak (NDVI 0.72, expected 0.59-0.80) [NDVI +0.72, NDTI +0.29, VV -4.3 dB]
May 2025: oilseeds — pod fill (expected NDVI 0.54–0.82) [8-yr farm baseline] → canopy consistent with pod fill (NDVI 0.75, expected 0.54-0.82) [NDVI +0.75, NDTI +0.33, VV -4.3 dB]
June 2025: oilseeds — ripening (expected NDVI 0.38–0.53) [8-yr farm baseline] → canopy consistent with ripening (NDVI 0.41, expected 0.38-0.53) [NDVI +0.41, NDTI +0.26, VV -3.8 dB]
July 2025: oilseeds — harvest (expected NDVI 0.23–0.42) [8-yr farm baseline] → canopy consistent with harvest (NDVI 0.24, expected 0.23-0.42) [NDVI +0.24, NDTI +0.21, VV -3.9 dB]
August 2025: oilseeds — post-harvest residues / stubble (expected NDVI 0.19–0.33) [8-yr farm baseline] → canopy consistent with post-harvest residues / stubble (NDVI 0.21, expected 0.19-0.33) [NDVI +0.21, NDTI +0.14, VV -3.9 dB]
September 2025: oilseeds — sowing (expected NDVI 0.22–0.36) [8-yr farm baseline] → canopy consistent with sowing (NDVI 0.33, expected 0.22-0.36) [NDVI +0.33, NDTI +0.17, VV -3.2 dB]
October 2025: oilseeds — emergence/rosette (expected NDVI 0.14–0.57) [8-yr farm baseline] → bare with crop residues (NDVI -0.03, NDTI +0.09 -> no-till / mulch) [NDVI -0.03, NDTI +0.09, VV -2.9 dB]

Inter-cycle observations 2024 · months outside any declared sowing cycle

Verdicts below are derived from satellite signals only (NDVI canopy cover, NDTI residue index, SAR surface roughness) without reference to a declared crop phenology window.

August 2024: signal-only verdict — low canopy / post-harvest stubble with residues; rough surface (SAR elevated) [NDVI +0.25, NDTI +0.17, VV -4.3 dB]
September 2024: signal-only verdict — low canopy / post-harvest stubble with residues; rough surface (SAR elevated) [NDVI +0.24, NDTI +0.13, VV -3.2 dB]

3.4.5 Practices Beyond Regulatory Baseline

This section assesses whether farm management practices exceed the requirements of the applicable GAEC standards. Practices that go beyond regulatory obligations constitute additionality under the Carbon Removals Certification Framework (CRCF Art. 5). The assessment draws on terrain analysis (14 parcels) and satellite indicator data.

GAEC 6 — Minimum soil cover in the most sensitive periods. For arable land in Bulgaria, GAEC 6 defines a single summer sensitive period 1 Jun – 30 Sep during which ≥ 80 % of the farm's arable area must maintain minimum soil cover, regardless of slope (MZH Order, Darzhaven Vestnik 2024; the previous winter sensitive period for slopes ≥ 10 % was abolished by the July 2024 amendment).

Derived from the declared main-crop phenology (sowing and harvest dates of each cultivated crop), the months when the field is NOT occupied by a main crop — and therefore when a cover crop / residue / green manure could be detected — are Jan, Feb, Mar, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec. This window has two distinct phases relative to the applicable sensitive period: Aug, Sep falls INSIDE the sensitive period — cover detected there is required to satisfy the GAEC 6 compliance signal: in years where the declared main-crop window ends before September (e.g. winter wheat, sunflower) the shoulder months Aug–Sep depend on residual canopy, retained residue or post-harvest cover-crop signal rather than the main crop itself; Jan, Feb, Mar, Oct, Nov, Dec falls OUTSIDE the sensitive period — cover maintained there represents additional effort beyond the GAEC 6 floor. Outside the 1 Jun– 30 Sep sensitive period the applicable GAEC 6 floor is 0 months of required cover, so any detected cover month in this window is additional by definition.

Within the phenology-aware cover window the farm maintains detectable soil cover (living vegetation, crop residue, or SAR-confirmed surface cover above the regional belt) in an average of 1.0 months per year across post-implementation years — the clean post-implementation value over the 0-month floor. Vegetation presence in this phenological shoulder window provides supporting evidence for cover activity. See the detailed monthly assessment table below.

(Remote Sensing) for winter cover-crop detection ranges in temperate continental systems; McNairn et al. 2002 (RSE) for the SAR backscatter rule.

Year	Period	GAEC 6 (Jun–Sep)	Extra Cover (outside GAEC)	Months with Cover > Belt	Cover Type Breakdown (L=living, R=residue, S=SAR surface)	Additionality
2018	Baseline	✓ Compliant	0 months		—	—
2019	Baseline	✓ Compliant	0 months		—	—
2020	Baseline	✓ Compliant	0 months		—	—
2021	Baseline	✓ Compliant	0 months		—	—
2022	Baseline	✓ Compliant	0 months		—	—
2023	Intervention	✓ Compliant	0 months		—	—
2024	Intervention	✓ Compliant	1 month	Oct	Oct:L L=1 / R=0 / S=0	Marginal
2025	Intervention	✓ Compliant	2 months	Nov, Dec	Nov:L, Dec:L L=2 / R=0 / S=0	Marginal

Legend:
✓ Compliant — GAEC 6 sensitive-period requirement satisfied (farm NDVI ≥ 0.12 or farm NDVI ≥ belt NDVI or SAR VV farm ≥ belt in the NDVI 0.10–0.15 ambiguity range, in every Jun–Sep month with data). In years where the declared main-crop window ends before September (e.g. winter wheat or sunflower harvested in July–August), compliance for the Aug–Sep shoulder months is satisfied via residual canopy, retained residue or post-harvest cover-crop signal rather than the main crop itself.
✗ Insufficient cover — at least one Jun–Sep month where all applicable criteria fail (NDVI below absolute and relative thresholds, and SAR does not confirm surface cover).

SAR-confirmed — months where NDVI fell in the 0.10–0.15 ambiguity range but SAR VV (farm ≥ belt) confirmed physical surface cover (McNairn et al. 2002).Cover Type Breakdown — each extra-cover month is classified by multi-sensor signature:
  L = living cover (NDVI ≥ 0.25, photosynthetically active green biomass; Hively et al. 2021, Daughtry 2004).
  R = residue / stubble (NDVI typically 0.15–0.25 with NDTI ≥ 0.08 confirming the cellulose absorption signature; Van Deventer 1997, Serbin 2009, Quemada & Daughtry 2016; ∼30% CTIC residue-cover operational equivalent). Within the cover-detection window the same NDVI range can also reflect an emerging cover crop; the NDTI ≥ 0.08 threshold is what classifies the month as residue rather than living cover.
  S = surface cover (SAR-confirmed) — NDVI in 0.10–0.15 ambiguity or farm NDVI > belt, rescued by SAR VV farm ≥ belt indicating physical surface cover independent of chlorophyll signal (McNairn et al. 2002).
Living vs residue is important because they are different practices: living cover crops fix carbon in situ while residue retention recycles already-fixed carbon from the preceding main crop.
Additionality ratings (cover maintained outside the sensitive period, i.e. Oct–May, above regional BAU):
  ● Strong — ≥ 5 extra months ● Moderate — 3–4 extra months ● Marginal — 1–2 extra months ● — — 0 extra months

The farm exceeds the GAEC 6 sensitive-period requirement in 8 of 8 observed years. Outside the 1 Jun– 30 Sep sensitive period the applicable GAEC 6 floor is 0 months of required cover, so regulatory additionality is the clean post-implementation value: the farm maintains detectable cover (above the belt or with positive L/R/S classification) in an average of 1.0 months per year across post-implementation years — every one of those months is additional relative to the regulatory floor. For BAU context, the regional belt sustains NDVI > 0.12 in 7.0 months (post) vs 7.8 months (baseline), a signed regional change of -0.8 months (decline, attributable to climate conditions); the farm’s own above-belt cover moved from 0.0 to 1.0 months over the same windows.

The farm increased its cover duration above the belt by 1.0 months after practice implementation, while the regional belt declined. This demonstrates additionality beyond both GAEC 6 regulation and regional BAU: the farm not only complies with the regulatory minimum but extends soil cover well beyond what the surrounding landscape achieves.

GAEC 4 — Watercourse buffer management. GAEC 4 requires no-fertiliser/no-PPP buffer strips near watercourses, with buffer width scaled by slope (5 m at ≤5%, 10 m at 5–10%, 50 m at >10%).

9 of 14 parcels (204.24 ha) have a formal GAEC 4 buffer-strip obligation. a further 5 of 14 parcels (121.41 ha) have no formal buffer-strip obligation, so any buffer or edge-of-field vegetation management on these parcels is additional. Any buffer management on parcels without formal obligation is entirely voluntary and contributes to additionality beyond the GAEC 4 baseline.
Satellite assessment limitation: Parcel-level satellite monitoring (10–20 m resolution) cannot determine whether fertilisers or plant protection products are applied within the narrow buffer strips required by GAEC 4 (5–50 m width). Compliance verification for PPP/fertiliser exclusion zones requires field inspection or documentary verification. The belt zone surrounding the farm maintains continuous vegetation cover (NDVI pre: 0.454, post: 0.433), indicating that vegetated strips in the surrounding area remain intact.

Parcel ID	Area (ha)	Min Ch. Dist. (m)	Mean Ch. Dist. (m)	Buffer Req. (m)	GAEC 4 Obligation	Status
004126570314	25.66	0	12	5	YES	Required — compliance monitoring
003126570314	25.67	0	5	5	YES	Required — compliance monitoring
002126570314	25.66	26	37	5	No	Voluntary → Additional
010126570314	25.37	15	48	10	No	Voluntary → Additional
012126570314	25.37	11	35	10	No	Voluntary → Additional
015126570314	24.68	0	2	5	YES	Required — compliance monitoring
013126570314	24.43	29	43	10	No	Voluntary → Additional
011126570314	23.90	0	23	10	YES	Required — compliance monitoring
009126570314	23.85	1	16	5	YES	Required — compliance monitoring
007126570314	22.05	2	5	5	YES	Required — compliance monitoring
006126570314	21.40	0	2	5	YES	Required — compliance monitoring
005126570314	20.68	0	2	5	YES	Required — compliance monitoring
014126570314	20.58	23	52	10	No	Voluntary → Additional
008126570314	16.35	4	10	5	YES	Required — compliance monitoring

GAEC 5 — Voluntary erosion protection. GAEC 5 requires anti-erosion tillage management on slopes ≥ 10%.

No parcels have slope ≥ 10% — GAEC 5 does not apply. 14 parcels (325.65 ha) have slope between 1% and 10% — erosion protection on these parcels is entirely voluntary and constitutes additionality.
Farm-level tillage indicators: SAR VV -3.25% vs belt -4.59%, SAR VH -3.44%, NDTI -5.78% vs belt -1.37%. SAR backscatter and NDTI (residue index) are physically linked to surface roughness and crop residue cover, making them relevant proxies for tillage intensity assessment. The terrain analysis confirms that none of the 14 parcels exceed the 10% slope threshold (GAEC 5 does not apply). Any reduction in tillage intensity observed in the farm-level satellite signal is therefore entirely voluntary and additional.

Parcel ID	Area (ha)	Slope (%)	GAEC 5 Obligation	Status
004126570314	25.66	4.8	No	Voluntary erosion protection → Additional
003126570314	25.67	4.9	No	Voluntary erosion protection → Additional
002126570314	25.66	2.6	No	Voluntary erosion protection → Additional
010126570314	25.37	7.2	No	Voluntary erosion protection → Additional
012126570314	25.37	6.4	No	Voluntary erosion protection → Additional
015126570314	24.68	2.6	No	Voluntary erosion protection → Additional
013126570314	24.43	7.0	No	Voluntary erosion protection → Additional
011126570314	23.90	7.0	No	Voluntary erosion protection → Additional
009126570314	23.85	4.4	No	Voluntary erosion protection → Additional
007126570314	22.05	3.3	No	Voluntary erosion protection → Additional
006126570314	21.40	2.1	No	Voluntary erosion protection → Additional
005126570314	20.68	1.9	No	Voluntary erosion protection → Additional
014126570314	20.58	7.6	No	Voluntary erosion protection → Additional
008126570314	16.35	4.2	No	Voluntary erosion protection → Additional

The vegetation indicators (NDVI (-11.64%), GPP (-12.12%), NDTI (-5.78%)) track the biomass that feeds into the soil carbon pool. Root exudation during the growing season, residue decomposition after termination, and the reduced mineralisation confirmed by SAR all determine the net carbon balance that the SOC proxy (-11.05%) captures below.

3.4.6 Soil Carbon — Organic amendments / Microbial fertiliser / Compost

Satellite evidence: WEAK

Organic amendments — compost, microbial inoculants, biochar — directly add exogenous carbon to the soil. Combined with the reduced mineralisation from the tillage practices above and the organic matter inputs from cover crop biomass, these form the three-pronged carbon input strategy of conservation agriculture. The organic-amendment practices registered for this farm in the project practice registry include organic amendments / microbial fertiliser / compost; their satellite-observable consequence for surface organic-matter trajectory is evaluated below.

SOC proxy trajectory. The spectral SOC proxy shows -11.05% farm change (p = 0.0133, d = -0.87). The proxy is the Thaler 2019 SOCI visible-band index (SOCI = B02 / (B03 × B04)) applied to bare-soil observations (NDVI < 0.40) — the blue band captures the SOC darkening signal and the green×red denominator normalises for overall brightness and mineralogy. Higher value = more SOC. Thaler, Larsen & Yu (2019, SSSAJ 83(5):1443–1450) developed the index against 7,916 USDA Rapid Carbon Assessment hyperspectral samples (RMSE ≈ 1.5 % SOC) and Thaler et al. (2021, PNAS 118(8):e1922375118) field-validated it on Iowa cropland (R² = 0.63–0.72 vs measured SOC at five US Midwest sites). These validations were performed on US Mollisols / cropland soils, not on the WRB soil units present at this farm; the bare-soil compositing approach (NDVI < 0.40 gate, multi-date aggregation) is methodologically consistent with recent peer-reviewed SOC mapping protocols on chernozem soils (Chen, 2026, Scientific Reports, NDVI 0.1–0.4 mask, R² = 0.78 with multi-temporal Sentinel-2 composites — methodological consistency, not SOCI re-validation). Complementary SWIR-ratio approaches (Castaldi 2019; Vaudour 2019) and the World Bank SOC MRV Sourcebook (2021, Box 3.9) corroborate visible/SWIR ratios as a primary spectral SOC proxy class. SOCI is therefore reported here as a relative spectral change indicator anchored to FAO HWSD2 v2 / SoilGrids 2.0 reference baselines.

The belt zone shows -6.31% (DiD: -4.21 pp). The farm-specific divergence provides preliminary evidence of enhanced SOC accumulation. However, the proxy captures relative spectral change, not absolute stock — it is sensitive to soil moisture, surface roughness, and bare-soil exposure timing. The signal is therefore reported as a directional indicator within the bounds of the spectral method.

Crop context — cereals (winter barley): Conservation tillage increases SOC by 14.5% in topsoil (0–20 cm) compared to rotary tillage in cereal systems (Liu et al. 2025, Agronomy). Cereal residue retention is the most effective single practice for SOC increase (+23.7%, meta-analysis by conservation tillage review, Sci Total Environ 2024).

The SOC proxy trajectory (-11.05%) is coupled with the nitrogen cycle: as organic matter accumulates, it immobilises nitrogen in stable organic forms, reducing the mineral N pool available for conversion to N₂O. The same structural improvements confirmed by SAR (-3.25%) regulate oxygen diffusion pathways that determine whether nitrogen is lost as gas or retained in the soil — directly linking the tillage, carbon, and emission indicators.

3.4.7 Nitrogen Emissions

The N₂O emission proxy shows -21.27% farm change (p = 0.0672, d = -0.28). This indicator is not a direct practice but an environmental outcome: it reflects the combined effect of all management changes on soil nitrogen cycling and greenhouse gas emissions.

Practice pathways. The emission reduction connects to the project registry practices through multiple routes:

Reduced tillage preserves macropore continuity, improving oxygen diffusion and reducing anaerobic microsites where denitrification produces N₂O (Schlüter et al., 2019, Geoderma).
Cover crop nitrogen uptake competes with nitrifying bacteria for mineral N, reducing the substrate pool available for N₂O production (Basche et al., 2014, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation).
Organic amendments shift the soil C:N ratio, promoting nitrogen immobilisation over gaseous loss.

Crop context — cereals (winter barley): Conservation agriculture reduces soil N₂O emissions by 6.8% overall, with greater reductions (−15%) when combined with crop residue retention and rotation. Long-term adoption reduces N₂O by up to 26% in cereal systems (Global Change Biology 2025).

Regional context. The belt zone shows -9.48% and the control zone +0.17%. The DiD vs belt (-12.41 pp) quantifies the farm-specific component. N₂O production is strongly controlled by soil moisture (WFPS > 0.55 cm³/cm³ threshold), and regional drought reduces denitrification uniformly across all zones. The DiD isolates whether the farm’s trajectory exceeds what regional drying alone produces.

3.4.8 Practices Without Direct Satellite Verification

The following practices registered in the the project registry project registry cannot be independently verified through remote sensing alone: Biological Agriculture, Organic Pesticide, Integrated Production. These practices operate through mechanisms that do not produce spectrally or structurally distinct signatures detectable by Sentinel-1/2 at their current spatial and temporal resolution. For example, biological agriculture and organic pesticide use affect soil microbial communities and pest management pathways that are invisible to optical and radar sensors. Verification of these practices requires documentary evidence: input purchase receipts, application logs, certification records, or on-site inspection.

However, their indirect effects may contribute to the observed indicator trajectories. Biological agriculture practices that promote soil microbial activity can enhance nutrient cycling efficiency, potentially reflected in the SOC proxy and N₂O trajectories. Integrated production systems that optimise input use may reduce nitrogen surplus, consistent with observed emission trends. These indirect contributions cannot be separated from the direct practice effects quantified in the preceding sections.

3.5 Per-Parcel Adoption Matrix — Land-Use-Aware Surface-State Classification

This sub-section uses three Sentinel-2 spectral indices reported per parcel — NDVI (canopy vigour), BSI (bare-soil exposure, Rikimaru et al. 2002; Diek et al. 2017) and NBR2 (crop residue / non-photosynthetic vegetation, Quemada & Daughtry 2016; Castaldi 2023) — to evaluate management practices at parcel level. For each Sentinel-2 acquisition the parcel’s surface state is classified as canopy, mulch / residue, exposed bare soil or transition from the parcel’s own NDVI, BSI and NBR2 values (full formulas and scientific basis: Section 2.4.5). Each parcel is then evaluated against the regulatory regime of its land-use class (arable, permanent crops, grassland) and the applicable-practice list of its crop group from the Crop Context Knowledge Base.

What “belt-month percentile” means here. NDVI thresholds are absolute, fixed values from the Sentinel-2 literature (e.g. 0.10 / 0.15 / 0.25; see Section 2.4.5). For BSI and NBR2 there are no universally agreed absolute cut-offs because both depend strongly on soil colour, soil moisture and atmospheric conditions, all of which vary by month and region. The belt zone (a 20 km regional reference around the farm) provides a regional reference distribution of BSI and NBR2 for the same calendar month; its 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles are used purely as a regional yardstick. A parcel is then classified using its own measured BSI and NBR2 against this regional reference — the belt does not influence what is happening on the farm, it only provides a comparable, region-specific scale so that “high BSI” and “high NBR2” mean the same thing in every month and every region.

PER-PARCEL SURFACE-STATE CLASSIFICATION RULES (Section 2.4.5)

Each rule applies to the parcel’s own NDVI, BSI and NBR2 values. Belt-month P25/P50/P75 are regional reference levels (Belt 20 km zone, same calendar month) used purely as a comparable yardstick for BSI and NBR2.

Canopy — parcel NDVI ≥ 0.25 (Zribi et al. 2017, active vegetation cover)
Exposed bare soil — parcel NDVI < 0.15 AND parcel BSI in upper quartile of the regional reference distribution (above belt-month P75) AND parcel NBR2 in lower quartile (below belt-month P25): bright + dry + low residue.
Mulch / residue — parcel NDVI < 0.25 AND parcel BSI below regional median (belt-month P50) AND parcel NBR2 in upper quartile (above belt-month P75): residue / non-photosynthetic cover (Quemada & Daughtry 2016).
Transition — partial canopy / shadow / mixed signals

EVALUATION RULES BY LAND USE

Annual arable — GAEC 6 BG summer window (1 Jun – 30 Sep), cover proxy = canopy% + mulch% ≥ 80% (MZH 2024 reform).
Permanent crops (orchards, vineyards, aromatic / medicinal) — year-round inter-row cover detection. No numeric threshold per MZH Methodology Art. 13(7), 2025: any inter-row vegetative or residue cover counts. Mixed-pixel caveat (Zsigmond et al. 2025) applies to narrow inter-row strips at 10 m Sentinel-2 resolution.
Grassland / forage — year-round canopy share. LUC (land-use change) alert raised if any post-year mean NDVI < 0.10.

3.5.1 Land-Use Composition of the Project Farm

Land-use class	Crop group(s)	Parcels	Area (ha)
Annual Arable	Cereals, Oilseeds	14	325.65

3.5.2 Annual Arable Parcels — GAEC 6 BG Summer Cover

Per-parcel summary across 14 annual arable parcel(s) (325.65 ha total). Each row shows one (parcel, year, crop) combination. The Participates in GAEC 6 column flags whether the monthly-mean surface state in the 1 Jun – 30 Sep window stays out of the exposed-bare-soil class for every month with data. No per-parcel compliance assessment is made in this table; the parcel flag is descriptive and feeds into the farm-level additionality narrative (Section 9).

Parcel ID	Year	Crop	Area (ha)	N-fixing^‡	Participates in GAEC 6	Summer canopy detected	Summer mulch detected	Residue window mulch detected	Cover in residue window (mulch or canopy)	Active window canopy detected
003126570314	2023	Winter Barley	25.67	−	✓	✓	−	−^†	✓	✓
	2024	Soft Winter Wheat		−	✓	✓	−	−	✓	✓
	2025	—		−	✓	✓	✓	—	—	—
002126570314	2023	—	25.66	−	✓	✓	−	—	—	—
	2024	Soft Winter Wheat		−	✓	✓	−	−	✓	✓
	2025	Sunflower		−	✓	✓	−	✓	✓	✓
004126570314	2023	Winter Barley	25.66	−	✓	✓	−	−^†	✓	✓
	2024	Soft Winter Wheat		−	✓	✓	−	−	✓	✓
	2025	—		−	✓	✓	✓	—	—	—
012126570314	2023	Soft Winter Wheat	25.37	−	✓	✓	−	−^†	✓	✓
	2024	Winter Barley		−	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
	2025	—		−	✓	✓	✓	—	—	—
010126570314	2023	Soft Winter Wheat	25.37	−	✓	✓	−	−^†	✓	✓
	2024	Winter Barley		−	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
	2025	—		−	✓	✓	✓	—	—	—
015126570314	2023	Grain Maize	24.68	−	✓	✓	✓	−^†	✓	✓
	2024	Soft Winter Wheat		−	✓	✓	−	−	✓	✓
	2025	—		−	✓	✓	✓	—	—	—
013126570314	2023	Soft Winter Wheat	24.43	−	✓	✓	−	−^†	✓	✓
	2024	Winter Barley		−	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
	2025	—		−	✓	✓	✓	—	—	—
011126570314	2023	Soft Winter Wheat	23.9	−	✓	✓	−	−^†	✓	✓
	2024	Winter Barley		−	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
	2025	—		−	✓	✓	✓	—	—	—
009126570314	2023	Grain Maize	23.85	−	✓	✓	−	−^†	✓	✓
	2024	Soft Winter Wheat		−	✓	✓	−	−	✓	✓
	2025	—		−	✓	✓	✓	—	—	—
007126570314	2023	Grain Maize	22.05	−	✓	✓	✓	−^†	✓	✓
	2024	Soft Winter Wheat		−	✓	✓	−	−	✓	✓
	2025	—		−	✓	✓	✓	—	—	—
006126570314	2023	Grain Maize	21.4	−	✓	✓	−	−^†	✓	✓
	2024	Soft Winter Wheat		−	✓	✓	−	−	✓	✓
	2025	—		−	✓	✓	✓	—	—	—
005126570314	2023	Grain Maize	20.68	−	✓	✓	−	−^†	✓	✓
	2024	Soft Winter Wheat		−	✓	✓	−	−	✓	✓
	2025	—		−	✓	✓	✓	—	—	—
014126570314	2023	Soft Winter Wheat	20.58	−	✓	✓	−	−^†	✓	✓
	2024	Winter Barley		−	✓	✓	−	−	✓	✓
	2025	—		−	✓	✓	✓	—	—	—
008126570314	2023	Grain Maize	16.35	−	✓	✓	−	−^†	✓	✓
	2024	Soft Winter Wheat		−	✓	✓	−	−	✓	✓
	2025	—		−	✓	✓	✓	—	—	—

^‡ N-fixing crop: legumes / pulses (peas, lentils, chickpeas, soya, lucerne, etc.) flagged from the phenology archetype mapping. Relevant to GAEC 7 crop-rotation requirements (legume share in the rotation) and to the interpretation of NDVI/GPP/SOC baselines — N-fixing crops fix atmospheric nitrogen and inflate biomass baselines for the rotation cycle.

Participates in GAEC 6: monthly-mean surface state for each month in 1 Jun – 30 Sep is computed from all observations of that month; the parcel-year participates when no month with data is classified as exposed bare soil. Detection flags are boolean (cover/mulch/canopy seen at least once in the relevant window). The residue and active windows are crop-specific (phenology archetype, see methodology); — indicates the window is not defined for the recorded crop or no observations fall inside it.

Cover in residue window (mulch or canopy): captures the protective effect of either standing crop residue OR an immediately established follow-on canopy (winter cover crop / next-season cereal). Continuous canopy provides soil protection that is conservation-equivalent to — and often superior to — standing residue cover, so this column is the practice-relevant indicator of post-harvest soil protection, while the preceding mulch-only column isolates the residue-retention signal specifically.

† Re-sown winter cover crop — explanatory note. In 13 parcel-year combination(s) the residue window shows no standing mulch (−) yet canopy was observed throughout that window AND the parcel was re-sown to a winter cereal the following year (e.g. sunflower/maize → winter wheat). In these cases the field passes directly from harvest to a germinating cover crop within ~30 days, leaving no exposed-residue window for the satellite to detect mulch. Continuous canopy provides soil protection that is conservation-equivalent to — and in many situations superior to — standing residue retention; the “Cover in residue window” column captures this practice. Examples: 003126570314 (2023 Winter Barley), 004126570314 (2023 Winter Barley), 012126570314 (2023 Soft Winter Wheat), 010126570314 (2023 Soft Winter Wheat), 015126570314 (2023 Grain Maize), 013126570314 (2023 Soft Winter Wheat), 011126570314 (2023 Soft Winter Wheat), 009126570314 (2023 Grain Maize) … and 5 more parcel-year(s).

Per-Parcel Surface-State Trajectory — NDVI / BSI / NBR2 by Month

For each parcel and each post-year, the chart below shows the parcel’s own monthly NDVI (canopy), BSI (bare-soil) and NBR2 (residue) values as solid lines, against the regional belt-zone percentile reference distributions for the same calendar month (dashed lines, P25 / P50 / P75). The short narrative underneath is auto-generated from the monthly trace, the crop planted that year, climate-event context and GAEC 6 status.

Parcel 003126570314 · Year 2023 — WINTER BARLEY

Winter Barley: strong season (NDVI peak 0.87 in Apr).

Parcel 003126570314 · Year 2024 — SOFT WINTER WHEAT

Soft Winter Wheat: strong season (NDVI peak 0.85 in Apr); autumn tillage event in Nov (BSI peak 0.27, clearly above regional P75 0.21).

Parcel 003126570314 · Year 2025

Parcel: strong vegetative season (NDVI peak 0.80 in May).

Parcel 002126570314 · Year 2023

Parcel: strong vegetative season (NDVI peak 0.80 in May).

Parcel 002126570314 · Year 2024 — SOFT WINTER WHEAT

Soft Winter Wheat: strong season (NDVI peak 0.81 in May); summer tillage event in Aug (BSI peak 0.26, clearly above regional P75 0.21).

Parcel 002126570314 · Year 2025 — SUNFLOWER

Sunflower: moderate / weak season (NDVI peak 0.60 in Jun, below the typical range for sunflower) — possible effect of the ongoing 2022–2025 drought.

Parcel 004126570314 · Year 2023 — WINTER BARLEY

Winter Barley: strong season (NDVI peak 0.83 in Apr).

Parcel 004126570314 · Year 2024 — SOFT WINTER WHEAT

Soft Winter Wheat: strong season (NDVI peak 0.83 in Apr).

Parcel 004126570314 · Year 2025

Parcel: strong vegetative season (NDVI peak 0.80 in May).

Parcel 012126570314 · Year 2023 — SOFT WINTER WHEAT

Soft Winter Wheat: moderate / weak season (NDVI peak 0.62 in Jun, below the typical range for soft winter wheat) — possible effect of the ongoing 2022–2025 drought; cover-crop / retained-residue signal in Jan (NBR2 0.16 above regional P50, BSI 0.04 below P50).

Parcel 012126570314 · Year 2024 — WINTER BARLEY

Winter Barley: normal season (NDVI peak 0.73 in Apr).

Parcel 012126570314 · Year 2025

Parcel: strong vegetative season (NDVI peak 0.82 in May).

Parcel 010126570314 · Year 2023 — SOFT WINTER WHEAT

Soft Winter Wheat: normal season (NDVI peak 0.74 in May).

Parcel 010126570314 · Year 2024 — WINTER BARLEY

Winter Barley: normal season (NDVI peak 0.70 in Apr).

Parcel 010126570314 · Year 2025

Parcel: strong vegetative season (NDVI peak 0.77 in May).

Parcel 015126570314 · Year 2023 — GRAIN MAIZE

Grain Maize: normal season (NDVI peak 0.80 in Apr).

Parcel 015126570314 · Year 2024 — SOFT WINTER WHEAT

Soft Winter Wheat: moderate / weak season (NDVI peak 0.51 in Jul, below the typical range for soft winter wheat) — possible effect of the ongoing 2022–2025 drought.

Parcel 015126570314 · Year 2025

Parcel: strong vegetative season (NDVI peak 0.84 in May).

Parcel 013126570314 · Year 2023 — SOFT WINTER WHEAT

Soft Winter Wheat: moderate / weak season (NDVI peak 0.63 in Jun, below the typical range for soft winter wheat) — possible effect of the ongoing 2022–2025 drought.

Parcel 013126570314 · Year 2024 — WINTER BARLEY

Winter Barley: normal season (NDVI peak 0.78 in Apr).

Parcel 013126570314 · Year 2025

Parcel: strong vegetative season (NDVI peak 0.82 in May).

Parcel 011126570314 · Year 2023 — SOFT WINTER WHEAT

Soft Winter Wheat: normal season (NDVI peak 0.70 in May).

Parcel 011126570314 · Year 2024 — WINTER BARLEY

Winter Barley: normal season (NDVI peak 0.76 in Apr).

Parcel 011126570314 · Year 2025

Parcel: strong vegetative season (NDVI peak 0.81 in May).

Parcel 009126570314 · Year 2023 — GRAIN MAIZE

Grain Maize: normal season (NDVI peak 0.79 in Apr).

Parcel 009126570314 · Year 2024 — SOFT WINTER WHEAT

Soft Winter Wheat: moderate / weak season (NDVI peak 0.52 in Jun, below the typical range for soft winter wheat) — possible effect of the ongoing 2022–2025 drought; autumn tillage event in Oct (BSI peak 0.29, clearly above regional P75 0.23).

Parcel 009126570314 · Year 2025

Parcel: strong vegetative season (NDVI peak 0.84 in May).

Parcel 007126570314 · Year 2023 — GRAIN MAIZE

Grain Maize: normal season (NDVI peak 0.82 in Apr).

Parcel 007126570314 · Year 2024 — SOFT WINTER WHEAT

Soft Winter Wheat: moderate / weak season (NDVI peak 0.52 in Jun, below the typical range for soft winter wheat) — possible effect of the ongoing 2022–2025 drought.

Parcel 007126570314 · Year 2025

Parcel: strong vegetative season (NDVI peak 0.80 in May).

Parcel 006126570314 · Year 2023 — GRAIN MAIZE

Grain Maize: strong season (NDVI peak 0.88 in Apr).

Parcel 006126570314 · Year 2024 — SOFT WINTER WHEAT

Soft Winter Wheat: moderate / weak season (NDVI peak 0.48 in May, below the typical range for soft winter wheat) — possible effect of the ongoing 2022–2025 drought.

Parcel 006126570314 · Year 2025

Parcel: strong vegetative season (NDVI peak 0.86 in Apr).

Parcel 005126570314 · Year 2023 — GRAIN MAIZE

Grain Maize: strong season (NDVI peak 0.85 in Apr).

Parcel 005126570314 · Year 2024 — SOFT WINTER WHEAT

Soft Winter Wheat: moderate / weak season (NDVI peak 0.44 in May, below the typical range for soft winter wheat) — possible effect of the ongoing 2022–2025 drought.

Parcel 005126570314 · Year 2025

Parcel: strong vegetative season (NDVI peak 0.82 in May).

Parcel 014126570314 · Year 2023 — SOFT WINTER WHEAT

Soft Winter Wheat: moderate / weak season (NDVI peak 0.58 in Jul, below the typical range for soft winter wheat) — possible effect of the ongoing 2022–2025 drought.

Parcel 014126570314 · Year 2024 — WINTER BARLEY

Winter Barley: normal season (NDVI peak 0.72 in May).

Parcel 014126570314 · Year 2025

Parcel: strong vegetative season (NDVI peak 0.84 in May).

Parcel 008126570314 · Year 2023 — GRAIN MAIZE

Grain Maize: strong season (NDVI peak 0.88 in Apr).

Parcel 008126570314 · Year 2024 — SOFT WINTER WHEAT

Soft Winter Wheat: moderate / weak season (NDVI peak 0.55 in Jun, below the typical range for soft winter wheat) — possible effect of the ongoing 2022–2025 drought.

Parcel 008126570314 · Year 2025

Parcel: strong vegetative season (NDVI peak 0.82 in May).

3.5.3 Applicable Practices and Satellite Evidence Mapping

For each crop group present on the farm, the table lists the applicable climate-friendly practices (drawn from the Crop Context Knowledge Base of this report, Section 3 indicator interpretations) and the satellite-derived signal used to corroborate each practice. Practices marked not satellite-observable are listed for completeness; their verification relies on documentary records and field inspection.

Crop group: Cereals

Applicable practice	Satellite signal metric	Evidence basis	Observed value (area-weighted)
Cover Cropping	yr_mulch_pct + off-season canopy	Off-season (Oct-Mar) canopy or mulch fraction	4.6%
Reduced Tillage	yr_mulch_pct + low yr_exposure_pct	Year-round mulch share with limited exposed-soil events	4.6%
Crop Rotation	crop diversity across years (config)	Different crop_group across post years per parcel registry	see parcel registry (crops_by_year)
Organic Amendments	SOC_PROXY positive trend + mulch%	Persistent mulch signal indicates exogenous residue/organic inputs	4.6%
Strip Cropping	sub-parcel BSI variance (10 m)	Detectable only with sub-parcel BSI maps - flagged for field check	requires sub-parcel maps (not in this report)
Bed Tillage	limited yr_exposure_pct events	Reduced exposed-soil share vs conventional tillage parcels	0.1%
Biological Agriculture	yr_cover_pct (canopy + mulch) and low yr_exposure_pct	Combined evidence of cover + reduced exposure events	83.0%
Microbial Fertiliser	SOC_PROXY trend + N2O suppression	Indirect: reflected in SOC_Proxy (Section 2.4) and N2O delta vs control (Section 2.6)	see Section 2.4 (per-parcel SOC_PROXY trend)
Integrated Production	yr_cover_pct + canopy_continuity_mean_pct + crop diversity	Combined canopy / mulch persistence + crop diversity	83.0%
N-Fixing Crops	field-records only	No direct satellite signature; documentary verification needed	—

Crop group: Oilseeds

Applicable practice	Satellite signal metric	Evidence basis	Observed value (area-weighted)
Reduced Tillage	yr_mulch_pct + low yr_exposure_pct	Year-round mulch share with limited exposed-soil events	1.1%
Cover Cropping	yr_mulch_pct + off-season canopy	Off-season (Oct-Mar) canopy or mulch fraction	1.1%
Crop Rotation	crop diversity across years (config)	Different crop_group across post years per parcel registry	see parcel registry (crops_by_year)
Strip Cropping	sub-parcel BSI variance (10 m)	Detectable only with sub-parcel BSI maps - flagged for field check	requires sub-parcel maps (not in this report)
Bed Tillage	limited yr_exposure_pct events	Reduced exposed-soil share vs conventional tillage parcels	0.0%
Biological Agriculture	yr_cover_pct (canopy + mulch) and low yr_exposure_pct	Combined evidence of cover + reduced exposure events	71.0%
Microbial Fertiliser	SOC_PROXY trend + N2O suppression	Indirect: reflected in SOC_Proxy (Section 2.4) and N2O delta vs control (Section 2.6)	see Section 2.4 (per-parcel SOC_PROXY trend)
Integrated Production	yr_cover_pct + canopy_continuity_mean_pct + crop diversity	Combined canopy / mulch persistence + crop diversity	71.0%

3.5.4 Limitations and Interpretation Caveats

Satellite-only assessment. The matrix is a remote-sensing-based proxy for surface state at Sentinel-2 acquisition dates (5-day revisit, cloud-permitting). Definitive compliance assessment requires on-site inspection or documentary verification of management dates.
Monthly compositing limit. Brief surface states between two consecutive cloud-free observations are not captured. Cover events of less than 5–10 days may go undetected.
Belt-percentile thresholds. BSI / NBR2 thresholds are taken relative to the belt-zone monthly distribution rather than absolute. This auto-normalises for atmospheric and seasonal variation but means thresholds are not transferable between regions without re-estimation.
Permanent-crop mixed-pixel. At 10 m Sentinel-2 resolution, narrow inter-row strips in vineyards and aromatic plantations blend row canopy with inter-row surface in the same pixel, leading to systematic under-estimation of inter-row cover (Zsigmond et al. 2025). Where definitive verification of inter-row cover is required, higher-resolution imagery (PlanetScope 3 m, very-high-resolution airborne) or field inspection is recommended.
NBR2 attribution. NBR2 elevation under low NDVI indicates lignin / cellulose-rich non-photosynthetic vegetation. It does NOT specifically attribute the residue source (crop stubble vs cover-crop residue vs organic amendment); attribution requires complementary management records.
Practice-signal mapping. The applicable-practice satellite-evidence mapping (3.5.3) is indicative, not definitive: practices that do not produce a distinct spectral or backscatter signature (e.g. organic pesticide use, microbial fertiliser application) are flagged as outside satellite scope and rely on documentary verification only.

3.6 Cross-Indicator Synthesis Summary

The 9-indicator framework provides convergent evidence from three independent measurement domains (optical, biogeochemical, radar). The following synthesis evaluates the coherence of indicator trajectories with the expected signatures of conservation agriculture (cover cropping, reduced tillage, organic amendments, strip cropping, bed tillage, biological agriculture, microbial fertiliser, organic pesticide, integrated production).

Domain	Indicator	Farm Change	Significant	Consistency with CA
Optical	NDVI	-11.64%	★	Drought-driven
Optical	NDTI	-5.78%	—	Not consistent
Biogeochemical	GPP Proxy	-12.12%	—	Regional drought
Biogeochemical	SOC Proxy	-11.05%	★	Requires investigation
Radar	SAR VV	-3.25%	—	Consistent (smoother surface)
Radar	SAR VH	-3.44%	—	Consistent (smoother surface)
Biogeochemical	N₂O Proxy	-21.27%	—	Consistent (lower emissions)
Optical (bare-soil)	BSI	+2.78%	—	Mixed (bare soil increase — check residue and canopy timing)
Optical (residue)	NBR2	-3.94%	—	Not consistent (residue loss)

Overall signal: 1 of 9 indicators show directional farm-specific divergence consistent with conservation agriculture (independent of per-indicator Student’s t-test significance). The satellite evidence is currently insufficient for high-confidence attribution of management effect from remote sensing alone.

The year-by-year verification matrix and change detection timeline (Section 4) summarise the multi-indicator evidence across 9 project registry practices (cover cropping, reduced tillage, organic amendments, strip cropping, bed tillage, biological agriculture, microbial fertiliser, organic pesticide, integrated production) and 9 independent remote sensing indicators. 0 of 9 indicators show convergent signals. The remaining indicators reflect regional confounders (drought, climate variability) that reduce the management-driven signal.

4. Farm-Level Temporal Change Assessment

This section summarises the farm-level temporal trajectory across all 9 indicators for AGROLAND 7 EOOD (325.65 ha) over the monitoring period 2018–2025.

Indicator	n (pre)	n (post)	Pre Mean	Post Mean	Change %	t-stat	p-value	Cohen's d	95% CI
NDVI ★	121	74	0.4760	0.4206	-11.64%	2.037	0.0430	-0.3006	[-0.1068, -0.0024]
NDTI	120	73	0.2250	0.2120	-5.78%	1.460	0.1461	-0.2166	[-0.0298, 0.0043]
GPP Proxy	120	74	3.2112	2.8218	-12.12%	1.339	0.1820	-0.1980	[-0.9503, 0.1849]
SOC Proxy ★	18	18	7.5260	6.6945	-11.05%	2.611	0.0133	-0.8702	[-1.4483, -0.2511]
SAR VV	180	105	-3.3632	-3.4726	-3.25%	1.576	0.1162	-0.1935	[-0.2500, 0.0271]
SAR VH	179	109	-9.5964	-9.9261	-3.44%	1.356	0.1762	-0.1647	[-0.8036, 0.1430]
N₂O Proxy	117	69	2.1085	1.6600	-21.27%	1.841	0.0672	-0.2795	[-0.8984, 0.0149]
BSI	167	100	0.0053	0.0227	+2.78%	-0.922	0.3573	0.1166	[-0.0197, 0.0530]
NBR2	167	100	0.2143	0.2059	-3.94%	1.196	0.2329	-0.1512	[-0.0214, 0.0048]

Of the 9 indicators, 2 show statistically significant pre-to-post changes at the farm level (p < 0.05). The observed trajectory is evaluated against the expected signatures of the project's integrated practices (cover cropping, reduced tillage, organic amendments, strip cropping, bed tillage, biological agriculture, microbial fertiliser, organic pesticide, integrated production).

Statistically significant changes are observed in NDVI, SOC Proxy, with SOC Proxy showing the largest effect size (d = -0.870, large). The remaining indicators (NDTI, GPP Proxy, SAR VV, SAR VH, N₂O Proxy, BSI, NBR2) do not reach statistical significance, which may reflect the short post-period (3 seasons) or drought-induced variability. The farm cultivates primarily oilseeds, cereals, which determines the phenological baselines against which indicator changes are assessed. Relative to the regional belt baseline, the farm outperforms in 2 of 9 indicators in the CA-favourable direction (directional comparison only, independent of per-indicator Student’s t-test significance — reported separately as 2/9 in the KPI panel), providing the basis for the DiD analysis in subsequent sections.

The following table presents the annual mean for each indicator across the monitoring period (2017–2026). Each cell is colour-coded by a hybrid divergence rule that combines the year-specific farm–belt gap with the farm’s trajectory against its own pre-implementation mean: green when the farm beats the belt in the expected direction, or when the farm exceeds its pre-implementation mean while the belt declines; amber when the farm improves over its own pre-implementation mean but the belt is still ahead; red when the farm sits below both its pre-implementation mean and the belt. The vertical divider marks the transition from pre-implementation to post-implementation.

Indicator	2017 Post	2018 Pre	2019 Pre	2020 Pre	2021 Pre	2022 Pre	2023 Post	2024 Post	2025 Post	2026 Post	Overall
NDVI	—	0.553	0.511	0.419	0.441	0.453	0.471	0.356	0.433	—	Counter
NDTI	—	0.255	0.243	0.203	0.213	0.211	0.224	0.186	0.224	—	Counter
GPP Proxy	—	3.88	3.44	2.73	3.13	2.84	3.30	2.04	3.10	—	Counter
SOC Proxy	10.28	8.09	7.79	7.55	6.96	7.06	6.45	6.89	6.46	6.79	Counter
SAR VV	—	-3.38	-3.81	-3.22	-3.18	-3.21	-3.32	-3.63	-3.48	—	Trend
SAR VH	—	-8.67	-10.35	-10.12	-9.42	-9.47	-9.23	-10.36	-10.18	—	Trend
N₂O Proxy	—	2.82	2.42	1.78	2.06	1.33	2.05	1.05	1.82	—	Trend
BSI	—	-0.037	0.019	0.058	-0.040	0.028	-0.005	0.056	0.016	—	Counter
NBR2	—	0.246	0.234	0.182	0.216	0.195	0.212	0.192	0.214	—	Counter

Cell colour key (each cell shows the farm zone annual mean; colour is assigned by comparing the farm value against both its own pre-period mean and the belt value for the same year):
Convergent — farm outperforms the belt in the expected direction, or farm exceeds its own pre-period mean while the belt declines (i.e. the farm–belt gap is narrowing or has reversed).
Trend — farm has improved relative to its own pre-period baseline, but the belt still records a higher (better) value in that year; progress is visible yet has not closed the regional gap.
Counter — farm value is below its own pre-period mean and below the belt; the indicator has moved opposite to the expected management effect.
Overall column: Convergent requires (1) farm pct-change in the expected direction AND (2) the post-period farm–belt gap to have shifted by more than 1 σ of the pre-period annual farm–belt differences. Trend = direction correct but shift ≤ 1 σ. Counter = direction opposite to expectation.

Note on BSI / NBR2 data coverage: — entries in the BSI / NBR2 row(s) for year(s) 2017, 2026 reflect cloud-free Sentinel-2 composite gaps on the secondary spectral combinations used for these proxies and are excluded from the Overall column scoring. They are not zero-value observations and do not indicate management discontinuity.

Change Detection Timeline: For each indicator, the year of first sustained divergence from the pre-implementation belt baseline is identified. A departure is registered when the annual farm–belt DiD exceeds the pre-period mean by more than 1 σ (one standard deviation of the pre-period farm–belt differences) in the expected direction — a z-score approach (Peters et al., 2002) that normalises the threshold to each indicator’s natural variability.

Indicator	Departure Year	Pattern	Interpretation
NDVI	—	No departure	No sustained divergence detected in post period
NDTI	—	No departure	No sustained divergence detected in post period
GPP Proxy	—	No departure	No sustained divergence detected in post period
SOC Proxy	—	No departure	No sustained divergence detected in post period
SAR VV	—	No departure	No sustained divergence detected in post period
SAR VH	—	No departure	No sustained divergence detected in post period
N₂O Proxy	—	No departure	No sustained divergence detected in post period

4.1 Monotonic Trend Test (Mann–Kendall + Theil–Sen)

The pre/post t-test detects a step change between two fixed periods. To complement this, the farm-level annual means for each indicator are also tested for a monotonic drift across the full observation window using the non-parametric Mann–Kendall rank-correlation test (Mann 1945, Econometrica 13:245–259; Kendall 1975, Rank Correlation Methods, 4th ed., Griffin).

Kendall’s τ measures the strength of the trend (−1 ≤ τ ≤ +1); the associated two-sided p-value tests the null hypothesis τ = 0.

The Theil–Sen slope estimator (Sen 1968, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 63:1379–1389) is the median of all pairwise slopes and is robust to outliers and to non-normality. Unlike an OLS slope it makes no distributional assumption. Slope units are indicator units per year; the 95% CI is computed from the rank distribution.

Indicator (farm annual means)	n years	Kendall’s τ	Two-sided p	Theil–Sen slope (unit / yr)	95% CI	Status
NDVI	8	-0.429	0.1789	-0.0168	[-0.0374, +0.0152]	Non-significant
NDTI	8	-0.357	0.2751	-0.0046	[-0.0124, +0.0043]	Non-significant
GPP Proxy	8	-0.429	0.1789	-0.1358	[-0.3622, +0.0856]	Non-significant
SOC Proxy	10	-0.778	< 0.001	-0.2429	[-0.4125, -0.1277]	Significant
SAR VV	8	-0.071	0.9049	-0.0230	[-0.1021, +0.0793]	Non-significant
SAR VH	8	-0.214	0.5484	-0.0508	[-0.3112, +0.2792]	Non-significant
N₂O Proxy	8	-0.571	0.0610	-0.1673	[-0.3725, +0.0082]	Non-significant
BSI	8	+0.143	0.7195	+0.0069	[-0.0154, +0.0321]	Non-significant
NBR2	8	-0.357	0.2751	-0.0050	[-0.0127, +0.0064]	Non-significant

Interpretation. A significant Kendall’s τ indicates a systematic monotonic trend across the observation window that cannot be attributed to random year-to-year variability. The sign of the Theil–Sen slope gives the direction and its magnitude the annual rate of change.

For the trend evidence to be physically consistent with the declared practices, the sign of the Theil–Sen slope must match the expected direction for the indicator (e.g. increasing NDVI/GPP/SOC proxy, decreasing SAR VV/VH and N₂O proxy under conservation-agriculture signatures).

Where the monotonic test agrees with the pre/post t-test, the evidence is reinforced; where they disagree, the trajectory is non-linear (e.g. step change only, or plateau after initial change) and is flagged for interpretation in the per-indicator sections.

5. Additionality Assessment

The three-zone comparative analysis directly determines additionality. The primary comparison is farm vs. belt (regional BAU baseline): where the farm diverges from the belt in the expected direction across multiple independent indicators, the divergence is attributable to the conservation practices applied from 2023. The control zone provides supplementary local validation — confirming that the belt-level BAU signal holds at the micro-climate level — and serves as the early-warning framework for activity-displacement leakage. The following subsections document that divergence, establish the counterfactual baseline, assess the barriers to adoption, situate the practices within their geopolitical and regulatory context, and evaluate permanence risk.

5.1 Performance-Based Additionality

The Difference-in-Differences (DiD) estimator measures the farm’s trajectory relative to each comparison zone, controlling for shared climatic and agro-environmental conditions during the 2023–2025 regional drought period. 9 satellite-derived indicators spanning canopy density, surface residue, carbon flux, soil carbon proxy, radar backscatter, N₂O emissions proxy, BSI, and NBR2 were evaluated across the full observation window (pre: 2018–2022; post: 2023–2025).

Of the 9 indicators monitored, 2 show statistically significant changes (p < 0.05) on the farm zone:

NDVI: -11.64% decrease (p = 0.0430, Cohen’s d = -0.301 [small])
SOC Proxy: -11.05% decrease (p = 0.0133, Cohen’s d = -0.870 [large])

Difference-in-Differences (DiD) analysis indicates that 2 indicator(s) show farm performance exceeding the regional belt baseline, indicating changes beyond what can be attributed to regional climate or policy drivers alone:

SAR VH: DiD = -0.76% (more negative → smoother surface → reduced tillage)
N₂O Proxy: DiD = -11.79% (more negative → lower emissions)

The remaining 7 indicator(s) do not show farm outperformance relative to the regional belt in the current observation window:

NDVI: DiD = -7.25% (farm -11.64%, belt -4.60%)
NDTI: DiD = -4.44% (farm -5.78%, belt -1.37%)
GPP Proxy: DiD = -6.48% (farm -12.12%, belt -6.01%)
SOC Proxy: DiD = -4.21% (farm -11.05%, belt -6.31%)
SAR VV: DiD = +1.34% (farm -3.25%, belt -4.59%) (less negative than belt → no tillage reduction signal beyond regional trend)
BSI: DiD = -2.66% (farm +2.78%, belt +6.13%)
NBR2: DiD = -3.66% (farm -3.94%, belt -0.28%)

5.2 Regulatory Additionality

Additionality under the EU Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF, Regulation (EU) 2024/3012, Article 5) requires that certified activities “go beyond” existing legal obligations and that the incentive effect of certification is needed for the activity to become financially viable. Under EU CAP conditionality, all declared parcels must comply with GAEC standards (Good Agricultural and Environmental Conditions) and Statutory Management Requirements (SMR). Additionally, the Bulgarian CAP Strategic Plan 2023–2027 offers voluntary eco-schemes that incentivise individual environmental practices — such as crop diversification, minimum tillage on holdings > 10 ha, or reduced pesticide use — each targeting a single management dimension.

However, the integrated system of conservation agriculture practices evaluated in this report (cover cropping, reduced tillage, organic amendments, strip cropping, bed tillage, biological agriculture, microbial fertiliser, organic pesticide, integrated production) constitutes a coherent management package that no single GAEC standard, SMR obligation, or eco-scheme mandates or incentivises in its entirety. Conservation agriculture is defined by three synergistic principles — minimum soil disturbance, permanent organic soil cover, and crop diversification — whose combined adoption produces ecosystem benefits that exceed the sum of individual practices (Kassam et al., 2009; Friedrich, Derpsch & Kassam, 2012; FAO, 2017). While individual elements may partially overlap with specific GAEC or eco-scheme requirements, the simultaneous implementation of these practices as an integrated system represents a voluntary management decision that goes beyond the regulatory floor — satisfying the CRCF additionality criterion.

Additionality is demonstrated when the farm’s indicator trajectories diverge favourably from the belt: for improvement indicators (NDVI, NDTI, GPP Proxy, SOC Proxy, SAR VV, SAR VH, BSI, NBR2), farm values exceeding the belt indicate management beyond the regulatory floor; for N₂O, since no Nitrate Directive obligation applies, any observed reduction is entirely voluntary and the full extent of the improvement is additional. The control zone (246.57 ha) serves as a supplementary matched reference for local validation and leakage detection — land-use-matched arable land parcels in proximity to the farm, sharing microclimate and topography — providing a supplementary local reference that isolates local management effects from regional climate and policy drivers. Its proximity also makes it the most sensitive reference for leakage detection (activity displacement).

Practice	Source	Relevant GAEC Standard	Farm GAEC Obligation	Satellite Evidence	Additional?
Cover cropping / Green manure / Intercropping	Registry	GAEC 6	What GAEC 6 requires: on all 14 arable parcels, at least 80% of the area must retain minimum soil cover during the sensitive period 1 Jun – 30 Sep (4 calendar months). Outside this period there is no cover obligation. Satellite finding: farm NDVI does not exceed the surrounding belt in any month outside the GAEC 6 window, so no additional cover signal is detected. The declared main crop occupies the field in Oct, Dec, Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May (1 month), so any elevated NDVI in this window would be the main-crop canopy itself rather than a separate cover crop. No additional cover practice is claimed.	NDVI -11.64%, NDTI -5.78%, GPP Proxy -12.12%, SAR VV -3.25%	— No additionality (no cover signal beyond GAEC 6 baseline)
No-till / Reduced tillage / Strip cropping / Bed tillage	Registry	GAEC 5	GAEC 5 does NOT apply: 0/14 parcels have slope ≥ 10%. Farm mean slope: 2.7° (4.8%). No anti-erosion tillage obligation exists. Despite the absence of a GAEC 5 obligation, the farm terrain has a non-trivial gradient (2.7°); reduced tillage on this terrain provides voluntary erosion protection. Satellite evidence: SAR VV farm (-3.25%) vs belt (-4.59%); NDTI farm (-5.78%) vs belt (-1.37%), consistent with reduced tillage intensity.	SAR VV -3.25%, SAR VH -3.44%, NDTI -5.78%	✓ YES
Organic amendments / Microbial fertiliser / Compost	Registry	Voluntary (no GAEC obligation)	No GAEC standard mandates organic amendments — entirely voluntary. Organic inputs (compost, manure, microbial fertiliser) directly add exogenous carbon to the soil, tracked by the SOC Proxy indicator.	SOC Proxy -11.05%	✓ YES
Buffer strip management	GAEC 4 obligation	GAEC 4: no-fertiliser/no-PPP buffer near watercourses	9/14 parcels (204.24 ha, 63% of area) have watercourse buffer obligations (min. channel distance < buffer threshold). Two-step verification: (1) Terrain analysis confirms GAEC 4 trigger; (2) NDVI + SAR check for vegetated buffer presence.	NDVI -11.64%, SAR VV -3.25%	✓ PARTIAL — required on 9/14 parcels (204.24 ha); voluntary on the remaining 5/14 parcels (121.41 ha)

Additionality (GAEC 4): 5/14 parcels (121.41 ha) carry no formal buffer-strip obligation — any buffer or edge-of-field vegetation management on these parcels is additional.
Additionality (GAEC 5): 14 parcels (325.65 ha) apply voluntary erosion protection (no GAEC 5 obligation).
Additionality (GAEC 6): farm maintains cover 1.0 months beyond the 4-month sensitive period (1 Jun– 30 Sep).

For the full N₂O cross-cutting analysis (SMR 1 regulatory context, scientific drivers, winter ban-period compliance), see Section 3 (Nitrogen Emissions subsection).

Of the 4 project registry conservation agriculture practices listed in the table above, 1 fully additional (not mandated by any GAEC standard for this farm’s terrain profile (mean slope 2.7°, all parcels below 5% gradient)); 2 partially additional (GAEC-mandated baseline, maintained beyond the regulatory minimum on the voluntary subset of parcels); 1 with no current additionality signal (practice declared and compliant with the GAEC baseline, but no signal beyond the regulatory minimum is detected for the current monitoring period).

Cover practice additionality — scope of evidence. Additionality for the cover-cropping component is evaluated primarily on indicator-level evidence — dormant-season NDVI and NDTI divergence from the belt, and SAR-confirmed changes in surface roughness — rather than on cover-duration months alone.

The cover-duration metric (months with farm NDVI ≥ belt outside the Jun–Sep sensitive period) is a complementary descriptor of regulatory and BAU performance, but a year-to-year decrease in this metric does not, by itself, negate the additionality of the practice when the dormant-season indicator divergence and SAR structural signals are maintained. This separation is consistent with the multi-indicator convergence principle used throughout this assessment.

The practice bundle (cover cropping, reduced tillage, organic amendments, strip cropping, bed tillage, biological agriculture, microbial fertiliser, organic pesticide, integrated production) therefore satisfies regulatory additionality: farmers are not obligated to implement these practices under current CAP conditionality, and their adoption represents a voluntary commitment beyond the regulatory baseline.

5.3 Common Practice Analysis

Additionality under established carbon crediting methodologies requires demonstration that the project activity is not common practice in the region. For this assessment, living cover cropping and crop residue / stubble retention are treated as two distinct practices with separate national adoption statistics and separate carbon pathways, not as a single pooled “cover” signal.

(i) Living cover cropping: Kostadinova et al. (2025) surveyed 96 farms across Bulgaria’s six NUTS-2 regions and reported cover crop adoption at 16%, precision agriculture at 42%, and inhibited nitrogen fertilisation at 35% (Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Management, 70(2)).

(ii) Crop residue / stubble retention: the National Statistical Institute (NSI) Integrated Farm Structure Survey 2023 reports that conventional deep tillage (mouldboard/chisel ploughing to ≥20 cm) is practised on 81.9% of the national arable area, with conservation / reduced-tillage systems — which by Conservation Technology Information Center definition preserve ≥30% residue cover on the soil surface — covering the remainder (≤ 18%). This dataset confirms that abstaining from annual deep tillage — the practice that physically buries residues — is a minority practice in Bulgaria.

The two practices also typically occupy different parts of the agricultural year: residue retention is present immediately after harvest (Oct–Dec for winter cereals) and persists until the next seedbed preparation; living cover crops are established in the same shoulder and remain photosynthetically active through the dormant season (Nov–Mar).

The integrated system deployed on this farm — combining cover cropping, reduced tillage, organic amendments, strip cropping, bed tillage, biological agriculture, microbial fertiliser, organic pesticide, integrated production — is significantly below the 20% common practice threshold established by major carbon crediting standards.

This conclusion follows from an elementary probability bound: for any set of practices with individual adoption rates p₁, p₂, …, pₙ, the joint adoption rate P(all practices) satisfies P(all) ≤ min(pᵢ) regardless of the dependence structure (this follows directly from P(A ∩ B) ≤ min(P(A), P(B)) for any two events).

Applied here, min(pᵢ) = 16% (cover cropping, the rarest registry practice), so the bundle adoption rate cannot exceed 16% even under the extreme assumption of perfect positive correlation (farms that adopt one conservation practice always adopt all others).

Under partial independence — which is the regime supported by survey evidence, since Kostadinova et al. (2025) and Shukadarova (2024) find that different conservation practices are adopted by partially overlapping but distinct subsets of farms — the joint rate is bounded above by the product Πpᵢ, which for the three quantified practices (16% × 42% × 35%) yields ≈ 2.4%. The true bundle adoption rate therefore lies in the interval [∏ pᵢ, min pᵢ] = [2.4%, 16%], well below the 20% common-practice threshold under any plausible dependence assumption.

Shukadarova (2024) documented implementation barriers for conservation practices among 128 NGPA member farms, finding that 56% report difficulties with GAEC 6 compliance (minimum soil cover) even at the basic regulatory level. This supports the conclusion that the integrated bundle applied here exceeds common regional practice.

Practice	National Adoption Rate	Threshold	Source
Cover cropping (living cover, NDVI ≥ 0.25)	16%	< 20%	Kostadinova et al. (2025)
Crop residue / stubble retention (post-harvest)	≤18%	< 20%	NSI IFS 2023 (inverse of 81.9% deep-tillage share)
Precision agriculture	42%	—	Kostadinova et al. (2025)
Inhibited N fertilisation	35%	—	Kostadinova et al. (2025)
GAEC compliance difficulty	56%	—	Shukadarova (2024)
Conventional deep tillage (≥20 cm)	81.9%	—	NSI IFS 2023
Annual ploughing (declared parcels)	64.5%	—	State Fund Agriculture CAP monitoring 2023
Integrated CA system	≪ 16%	< 20%	Estimated (joint probability)

5.4 Baseline Scenario and Counterfactual

The business-as-usual (BAU) counterfactual answers the question: what would the farm’s indicator profile look like without the intervention? The pre-intervention period (2018–2022) establishes this baseline. The belt zone (primary BAU baseline — all LPIS-registered arable land parcels within 20 km) tracks the counterfactual during the post-intervention period, representing standard agricultural practice across the region. The control zone (supplementary matched reference — land-use-matched parcels in proximity to the farm) provides local validation of the belt-level signal and early-warning leakage detection, isolating any local management effects that regional-scale averaging may mask.

BAU Assessment

The KPI panel reports 2/9 significant farm pre-vs-post indicators — this counts how many indicators changed significantly within the farm zone alone (Student’s t-test, p < 0.05), without reference to the regional trend. The BAU assessment below uses the Difference-in-Differences (DiD) framework, which subtracts the belt’s trajectory from the farm’s trajectory: DiD = (farm_post − farm_pre) − (belt_post − belt_pre). This isolates the farm-specific management effect from shared regional drivers (climate, market-driven crop shifts, policy changes). An indicator can show directional outperformance (farm better than belt) without reaching statistical significance, and vice versa — the two metrics are complementary, not interchangeable.

Of the 9 monitored indicators, 2 show farm outperformance relative to the belt baseline: SAR VH (farm -3.44% vs belt -2.68%, DiD -0.81 pp); N₂O Proxy (farm -21.27% vs belt -9.48%, DiD -12.41 pp). However, 7 indicator(s) show the farm tracking or underperforming the belt: NDVI (farm -11.64% vs belt -4.60%, DiD -7.25 pp); NDTI (farm -5.78% vs belt -1.37%, DiD -4.44 pp); GPP Proxy (farm -12.12% vs belt -6.01%, DiD -6.48 pp); SOC Proxy (farm -11.05% vs belt -6.31%, DiD -4.21 pp); SAR VV (farm -3.25% vs belt -4.59%, DiD +1.32 pp); BSI (farm +2.78% vs belt +6.13%, DiD -2.66 pp); NBR2 (farm -3.94% vs belt -0.28%, DiD -3.66 pp). No indicator shows statistically significant DiD divergence at the p < 0.05 level.

Effect sizes (Cohen’s d): NDVI |d| = 0.30 (small); NDTI |d| = 0.22 (small); GPP Proxy |d| = 0.20 (negligible); SOC Proxy |d| = 0.87 (large); SAR VV |d| = 0.19 (negligible); SAR VH |d| = 0.16 (negligible); N₂O Proxy |d| = 0.28 (small); BSI |d| = 0.12 (negligible); NBR2 |d| = 0.15 (negligible). Cohen’s d quantifies the magnitude of the pre-to-post shift in units of pooled standard deviation, independent of sample size. Values ≥ 0.5 (medium) or ≥ 0.8 (large) indicate practically meaningful change.

Local validation of the BAU baseline. The belt zone (10,337.44 ha) defines the primary BAU counterfactual for this assessment. The control zone serves as a supplementary local check: where control indicators track the belt, the BAU signal is confirmed at the micro-climate level; where they diverge, local factors (soil, management, crop mix) are at play.

For 8 of 9 indicators (NDVI, NDTI, GPP Proxy, SOC Proxy, SAR VV, SAR VH, BSI, NBR2) the control zone tracks the belt trajectory, confirming the regional BAU signal for these domains. The remaining 1 indicator(s) show control–BAU divergence: N₂O Proxy (control +0.17% vs BAU belt -9.48%). Because the belt integrates thousands of parcels across a 20 km radius, it remains the robust BAU baseline; the control–belt divergence signals local factors (microclimate, soil heterogeneity, or crop composition differences) that affect only the smaller control sample. As a secondary confirmation, the farm outperforms the control zone on 1 of 9 comparable indicator(s): N₂O Proxy, DiD -21.42 pp — indicating that the farm’s trajectory diverges not only from the regional BAU (belt) but also from the nearest local reference. The remaining 8 indicator(s) (NDVI, DiD -6.25 pp, NDTI, DiD -4.07 pp, GPP Proxy, DiD -5.76 pp, SOC Proxy, DiD -4.54 pp, SAR VV, DiD +3.13 pp, SAR VH, DiD +1.58 pp, BSI, DiD -0.63 pp, NBR2, DiD -3.27 pp) do not show farm outperformance under the land-use-aware direction convention used throughout this report.

Belt–Control trajectory comparison. The panels below overlay the belt (BAU baseline, solid grey) and control (local check, dashed orange) annual trajectories for each indicator. Where the two lines track closely, regional drivers dominate; where they diverge, local factors specific to the control sample are at play.

Validation outcome: The control zone confirms the belt trajectory for 8 of 9 indicators (NDVI, NDTI, GPP Proxy, SOC Proxy, SAR VV, SAR VH, BSI, NBR2), supporting the belt as a reliable BAU baseline for these domains. For 1 indicator(s) (N₂O Proxy) the control diverges from the belt, reflecting local factors (soil heterogeneity, crop mix, or microclimate) rather than a flaw in the regional baseline. The belt’s larger sample (623 parcels, 10,337.44 ha) absorbs this local noise and remains the primary counterfactual.

BAU divergence evidence classification (based on DiD significance and directional outperformance vs belt):

STRONG	≥ 3 indicators with significant DiD (p < 0.05) in the expected direction
MODERATE	≥ 1 significant DiD indicator AND directional outperformance in ≥ 50% of all indicators
DIRECTIONAL	Outperformance in > 50% of indicators, but no consistent statistical significance at the DiD level
EMERGING	≥ 1 significant DiD indicator (p < 0.05) in the expected direction, but directional outperformance in < 50% of all indicators — statistically verified signal present on a subset of indicators, broader pattern still developing
PARTIAL	≥ 1 indicator shows significant farm pre–vs–post change (p < 0.05) but no directional outperformance vs belt — internal change detected without belt-relative counterfactual confirmation
MIXED	Outperformance in some indicators, but < 50% of total and no significant DiD — remaining indicators track or underperform the belt
WEAK	No indicators show farm outperformance relative to the belt in the expected direction

Conclusion: PARTIAL

Indicator divergence: 2 of 9 monitored indicators show the farm trajectory diverging from the belt (BAU) baseline in the direction expected under conservation management. None reach statistical significance at the DiD level (p < 0.05).

Climate context: 10 verified extreme weather event(s) occurred during the monitoring period (Section 7.1). Regional drought and heatwave conditions affected all three zones simultaneously, which suppresses the absolute magnitude of farm–belt divergence. The DiD framework isolates farm-specific effects from these shared climate shocks — where farm outperformance persists despite drought, the management signal is particularly credible.

Attribution: Where the farm diverges positively from the belt, the most parsimonious explanation is that the integrated conservation agriculture bundle (cover cropping, reduced tillage, organic amendments, strip cropping, bed tillage, biological agriculture, microbial fertiliser, organic pesticide, integrated production) has shifted the indicator trajectory beyond what regional climate and policy drivers alone would produce. The belt zone — representing 623 LPIS-registered arable land parcels across 10,337.44 ha — provides the BAU counterfactual because it captures the full range of conventional management practices, soil types, and microclimates within the 20 km radius.

GAEC 6 additionality distinction. The regulatory additionality assessment (Section 5.2) confirms that the farm’s soil cover extends well beyond the 4-month GAEC 6 sensitive period (1 Jun–30 Sep), satisfying GAEC additionality.

However, the farm’s off-season cover duration above the belt declined by 1.6 months relative to the pre-period (5.6 → 4.0 months). Since the regional belt experienced a comparable decline (consistent with the regional drought pattern documented in Section 7.1), this metric does not demonstrate BAU additionality for the cover practice in isolation.

The cover practice’s additionality evidence rests on: (1) regulatory additionality (voluntary cover beyond GAEC 6), (2) dormant-season NDVI, NDTI and SAR divergence vs belt (Section 3). For the remaining practices in the bundle, BAU additionality is assessed via the DiD indicators above.

Indicator	Farm (Pre)	Control (Pre)	Belt (Pre)	Farm–Belt Gap
NDVI	0.4760	0.4791	0.4538	+4.9%
NDTI	0.2250	0.2269	0.2205	+2.0%
GPP Proxy	3.2112	3.1883	3.0151	+6.5%
SOC Proxy	7.5260	7.1926	8.1480	-7.6%
SAR VV	-3.3632	-3.3488	-3.3477	+0.5%
SAR VH	-9.5964	-9.4308	-9.4093	+2.0%
N₂O Proxy	2.1085	1.8798	1.9714	+7.0%
BSI	0.0053	0.0128	-0.0003	-1866.7%
NBR2	0.2143	0.2168	0.2136	+0.3%

The pre-period (2018–2022) baseline establishes the counterfactual trajectory for each zone. Farm–belt gaps in the pre-period reflect pre-existing differences in soil quality, microclimate, or management history. The DiD comparison removes these pre-existing differences by comparing the change within each zone, not the absolute levels.

Counterfactual trajectories. The following charts show each indicator’s observed farm trajectory against the belt and the BAU counterfactual (farm pre-period mean scaled by belt trajectory). Divergence between the farm line and the BAU line in the post-period represents the estimated treatment effect.

Trajectory assessment: 3 of 9 indicators are directionally consistent with conservation agriculture (directional count, independent of statistical significance). The trajectory is compatible with a management transition, though the limited number of statistically significant results (2/9, Student’s t-test, p < 0.05) and the short post-implementation period (3 seasons) constrain the strength of this conclusion. Continued monitoring will clarify whether the emerging signal consolidates into a statistically robust pattern.

5.5 Barrier Analysis

Three categories of barriers confirm that adoption of cover cropping, reduced tillage, organic amendments, strip cropping, bed tillage, biological agriculture, microbial fertiliser, organic pesticide, integrated production as an integrated system is not the default path for arable land operators in this region.

Technical barriers: Conservation agriculture requires agronomic expertise that is not standard in the Bulgarian arable land sector. Cover crop species selection, seeding windows relative to cash crops, residue management equipment, and soil biology monitoring are all non-trivial knowledge requirements. The standard regional model — conventional management without integrated conservation practices — requires no such specialist knowledge and is reinforced by established supply chains and advisory services.

Economic barriers: Cover crops incur direct costs (seed, seeding, herbicide termination) with no immediate revenue return. Reduced tillage may lower fuel costs but requires specialised no-till or strip-till equipment not widely available in the Bulgarian second-hand machinery market. The payback horizon for soil organic carbon accumulation is measured in decades, not seasons — far beyond the planning horizon of most arable land operators, who make annual input decisions under price and yield uncertainty.

Institutional barriers: While the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) eco-schemes offer partial compensation for some conservation practices, the subsidy design does not bridge the full gap between conventional and conservation agriculture costs, and the application process imposes additional administrative burden that discourages uptake — particularly among smaller operators without dedicated agronomists or compliance staff.

5.6 Financial Viability Analysis

The period 2022–2026 has been structurally disruptive for European fertilizer markets, and understanding this context is essential to assessing the additionality of an integrated conservation agriculture system relative to cost-driven individual measure adoption.

Russia-Ukraine war (2022–ongoing): Russia is the European Union’s primary source of nitrogen fertilizer imports. The February 2022 invasion triggered sanctions, logistics disruptions, and an energy price shock that propagated directly into fertilizer production costs: natural gas accounts for approximately 80% of nitrogen fertilizer production cost. European fertilizer plants curtailed or shut down production. Urea prices exceeded 1,000 EUR/ton at the 2022 peak. Ammonium nitrate prices followed a similar trajectory. Bulgarian producers, including Agropolychim AD (the country’s largest fertilizer manufacturer), reported that farmers adopted a wait-and-see position, reduced standard fertilization norms, and shifted to non-standard formulations to manage cash flow.

EU tariff measures (2025): The European Union introduced tariffs on nitrogen fertilizers originating from Russia and Belarus, phased in over three years beginning in 2025. These measures structurally sever the EU market from its historically lowest-cost supply source, meaning that even as spot prices moderate, the structural price floor for European nitrogen fertilizers has permanently risen relative to the pre-2022 baseline.

Iran conflict and Strait of Hormuz (late February 2026): US/Israeli military operations against Iran in late February 2026 effectively disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Persian Gulf countries — including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE — are major exporters of ammonia and urea. Natural gas prices surged again. As of March 2026, urea was trading at approximately 550 EUR/ton and ammonium nitrate at approximately 370 EUR/ton — elevated levels that directly affect the operating cost structure of arable farms in Bulgaria and across northeastern Europe.

Structural incentive shift: The combined effect of elevated input costs and stagnant cereal prices has altered the financial calculus: systems that reduce mineral N dependence — such as cover cropping with legumes, reduced tillage preserving soil N mineralisation, and organic amendments — have become comparatively more viable. However, the transition requires upfront investment and multi-year yield risk tolerance, which the carbon credit revenue stream partially offsets.

The geopolitical disruption to fertilizer markets therefore strengthens the additionality argument rather than weakening it. Individual farmers across the region are being forced into reactive, single-measure responses to price shocks.

Cyclicality, Commodity Price Dynamics, and Reversal Risk

However, these crises are cyclical in nature. Historically, fertilizer price spikes have been followed by periods of normalisation as supply chains adapt, new production capacity comes online, and geopolitical tensions ease. When fertilizer prices return to pre-crisis levels, the economic incentive for individual farmers to reduce synthetic inputs disappears — and with it, the cost-pressure motivation that currently reinforces lower application rates across the region. This cyclicality is a direct permanence concern: a farmer who reduced fertilizer use solely because of price pressure will revert to conventional application rates once prices normalise.

The Hormuz disruption introduces an additional and countervailing dynamic. Elevated fuel and energy prices increase the cost of every mechanised field operation — tillage passes, spraying, harvesting — which, in isolation, reinforces conservation agriculture by making fewer, shallower passes economically attractive. However, the same geopolitical instability that raises fuel costs simultaneously disrupts global grain supply chains. Reduced Black Sea and Middle Eastern grain exports tighten global cereal markets, driving commodity prices upward. When the selling price of wheat, barley, or sunflower rises sharply, the economic incentive to maximise yield per hectare intensifies: the marginal revenue from each additional tonne of output may far exceed the marginal cost of the additional inputs and field operations required to produce it, even at elevated fuel and fertilizer prices.

This creates a reversal risk. A rational profit-maximising operator facing high commodity prices may choose to return to intensive conventional practices — deep tillage, maximum fertilization rates, aggressive crop protection — because the revenue from the increased yield substantially compensates for the higher per-unit input costs. The net economic incentive shifts from cost minimisation (which favours conservation agriculture) to revenue maximisation (which favours input intensification). If commodity prices remain elevated long enough, the short-term profit from conventional intensification can outweigh the long-term soil capital preserved by conservation practices.

The integrated conservation agriculture system documented at this farm is structurally more resilient to this commodity price reversal risk than individual cost-driven measures, for three reasons: (1) it maintains yield competitiveness through biological nitrogen fixation, improved soil water-holding capacity, and nutrient cycling efficiency, reducing the yield gap between conservation and conventional systems; (2) the carbon revenue stream provides income that is independent of commodity prices, maintaining the economic case for conservation practices even when grain prices incentivise intensification; and (3) the multi-year soil capital investment (aggregate stability, organic matter accumulation, biological activity) represents a sunk cost that the operator is rationally motivated to protect. However, this resilience is not automatic — it depends on continued carbon credit revenue and sustained agronomic performance, which is why multi-year MRV monitoring is essential.

Additionality and Scale: Social Model vs. Ecological Model

In the economics of carbon credits, additionality requires that payment is made only for changes that would not have occurred without financial incentive. A structural tension arises when this principle is applied to farm-scale selection: if only small, resource-constrained operations qualify, the aggregate climate impact may be negligible, because large landholders control the majority of agricultural land within any given region.

Two models compete in the design of carbon farming programmes:

Social model: Subsidies and incentives flow to those who cannot afford the transition independently (small farms). This maximises social equity but limits spatial coverage.
Ecological (market) model: Resources flow to where they achieve the largest measurable result. Because large operations control more hectares, their inclusion multiplies the aggregate carbon benefit. Nature responds to total sequestered carbon, not to the financial status of the sequesterer.

If large-scale operators are excluded on the grounds that they “can afford” the transition, they have no financial incentive to bear the agronomic risk of switching from conventional to conservation practices. No-till establishment, cover crop species selection, and organic amendment logistics are costly and risky even for well-capitalised farms. Without carbon-market revenue, the rational economic decision for these operators is to continue conventional tillage — the exact outcome the carbon market is designed to prevent.

Carbon farming should be understood as a market for ecosystem services, not as a form of social aid. When a farmer produces wheat, no buyer inquires about the farmer’s wealth before paying the market price. Carbon stored in soil is a commodity with verifiable climate value. If a farm “produces” it — measured and verified — the market price should attach to the commodity, not to the producer’s balance sheet.

Financial viability analysis requires farm-level input cost data and carbon credit pricing. The indicator trajectories provide the biophysical evidence base; economic analysis is beyond the scope of this remote sensing verification.

5.7 Regulatory Surplus Analysis

The belt zone encompasses 10337.44 ha of LPIS-registered arable land physical blocks within the 20 km radius — land classified under the same LPIS category as the project farm. LPIS registration confirms eligibility for CAP support but does not constitute proof of active agricultural management. The belt is not required to apply the specific conservation practices implemented on the project farm. The indicator trajectories confirm this: belt-level trends do not show the structural shifts observed on the farm.

The regulatory additionality of the project rests on a precise distinction: no regulation mandates the combined adoption of the integrated system of conservation agriculture practices (cover cropping, reduced tillage, organic amendments, strip cropping, bed tillage, biological agriculture, microbial fertiliser, organic pesticide, integrated production) as a coherent management system on arable land in Bulgaria. While individual elements may partially overlap with specific GAEC requirements or CAP eco-scheme options, the integrated system in its entirety goes beyond what any current regulation mandates. The carbon credit provides the incremental financial signal that makes the system economically rational for the operator.

6. Leakage Assessment

Leakage occurs when GHG reductions at the project site are offset by emissions increases elsewhere. Carbon farming projects are assessed for three leakage pathways: (a) activity displacement (shifting emissions-intensive practices to other parcels), (b) market leakage (supply-side effects on crop markets), and (c) ecological leakage (fire, drainage, or land conversion induced by project activities).

6.1 Activity Shifting — Satellite Indicator Evidence

The three-zone design provides a direct test for activity displacement. The control zone is specifically designed as the primary early-warning framework for leakage: because control parcels are in proximity to the farm and share the same local agricultural context, activity displacement — where conservation practices on the farm shift intensive operations to neighbouring land — would manifest first in these parcels. If the operator shifted conventional (high-tillage, high-input) practices from the farm to the control parcels, the control zone would show divergence consistent with intensification. The control zone trajectories test this hypothesis.

The farm cultivates Sunflower, Winter Barley, and Rapeseed - Winter.

Indicator	Control Change	Belt Change	DiD (Farm–Control)	Displacement Signal?
NDVI	-5.35%	-4.60%	-6.25%	No
NDTI	-1.70%	-1.37%	-4.07%	No
GPP Proxy	-6.41%	-6.01%	-5.76%	No
SOC Proxy	-6.81%	-6.31%	-4.54%	No
SAR VV	-6.41%	-4.59%	+3.13%	No
SAR VH	-5.10%	-2.68%	+1.58%	No
N₂O Proxy	+0.17%	-9.48%	-21.42%	No
BSI	+3.83%	+6.13%	-0.63%	No
NBR2	-0.66%	-0.28%	-3.27%	No

No indicator on the control zone shows a statistically significant intensification signal that would suggest displacement of conventional practices from the farm to nearby parcels. The control zone trajectories are consistent with regional trends observed on the belt zone, indicating that the operator has not shifted intensive practices to the control parcels.

6.2 Market Leakage

Market leakage is assessed as negligible. The project farm represents a small fraction of regional arable land output. The conservation practices (cover cropping, reduced tillage, organic amendments, strip cropping, bed tillage, biological agriculture, microbial fertiliser, organic pesticide, integrated production) do not reduce the productive area or output — they modify management within existing operations. No supply-side market distortion is expected.

6.3 Fire Events in the Leakage Zone

The fire event overlay presented in Section 7.4 (Table: Fire Risk Assessment) provides the spatial basis for ecological leakage evaluation. During the post-period, 0 event(s) were recorded on the farm zone, 6 on the control zone, and 83 on the belt zone.

Fire events are present in the regional belt zone but absent from the farm zone. This indicates that the farm has not experienced fire-driven carbon loss while the surrounding region has, which is consistent with active management reducing fire risk on the project site. Belt fire density of 13.71 ha/1,000 ha/yr provides the regional fire baseline for risk comparison.

6.4 Leakage Assessment Summary

Leakage assessment: MODERATE RISK. The following factors require monitoring: belt-zone degradation in SOC Proxy. The belt-zone degradation is consistent with the documented regional drought (Section 7.1) affecting all zones simultaneously and does not, by itself, indicate activity displacement. The farm’s smaller decline relative to the belt supports a drought-resilience interpretation rather than a leakage signal. The three-zone framework provides ongoing detection capability for any future leakage signals.

7. Permanence and Climate Resilience

7.1 Climate Context: 2023–2025 Drought

The post-project monitoring period (2023–2025) has been dominated by recurring drought across southeastern Europe. Second consecutive drought year — corn yields below average (MY 2023/24: 2.45 MMT). Dobrudzha severely affected. (apps.fas.usda.gov) Third consecutive drought year — worst corn harvest since 2012. MY 2024/25 corn production revised to 1.7 MMT (-30% YoY). (apps.fas.usda.gov) Severe drought and heatwave — 37,000 dca crops destroyed. EU activates agricultural reserve. (joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu).

This regional climate context is critical for permanence assessment: any climate-dependent indicator changes (NDVI, GPP Proxy decline) must be evaluated against this backdrop. The three-zone design controls for shared climate forcing — all three zones experienced the same regional climate forcing — so divergence between farm and reference zones reflects management effects, not climate alone.

7.2 Farm Resilience — Indicator Evidence

Indicator	Farm Change	Belt Change	DiD (Farm–Belt)	Resilience Signal
NDVI	-11.64%	-4.60%	-7.25%	Farm and belt both affected
NDTI	-5.78%	-1.37%	-4.44%	Residue cover declining
GPP Proxy	-12.12%	-6.01%	-6.48%	Farm and belt both affected
SOC Proxy	-11.05%	-6.31%	-4.21%	SOC neutral vs belt (see 2.4.4 BASE→POST trajectory)
SAR VV	-3.25%	-4.59%	+1.32%	Surface roughness loss smaller than regional decline
SAR VH	-3.44%	-2.68%	-0.81%	Structural change persisting (farm below regional trend)
N₂O Proxy	-21.27%	-9.48%	-12.41%	Emissions reduction maintained
BSI	+2.78%	+6.13%	-2.66%	Surface cover preserved (less bare-soil exposure than belt)
NBR2	-3.94%	-0.28%	-3.66%	Residue declining, regional trend stronger

Note: The farm practises crop rotation (dominant crop group: 2023 = cereals, 2024 = cereals, 2025 = oilseeds, 2026 = oilseeds). Year-to-year DiD fluctuations partly reflect changing crop-type phenology and residue characteristics rather than management effects alone.

SOC dual-metric reading. The farm SOC proxy is reported under two complementary windows because they answer two different contractual questions: the long pre-vs-post window is what the difference-in-differences statistics use, and the BASE→POST window is what the project contract requires against the declared baseline year.

PRE→POST (full pre-period vs full post-period): farm -11.05%, belt -6.31%. Long-window reading used by the multi-indicator panel above and by the difference-in-differences statistics in Section 5.
BASE→POST (full years 2024+2025): farm +0.86%, belt -2.50%. Contractual reading aligned with the project baseline year and the full post-BASE monitoring stages (see Section 2.4.4 per-parcel trajectory).

One of the two windows is essentially flat (within ±1 % of zero) while the other shows a directional move; the two readings are reported side-by-side in full and read jointly with the per-parcel trajectory in Section 2.4.4 and the climate-stress context in Section 7.1.

Climate-regime adjusted reading. The PRE→POST contrast assumes that the PRE baseline samples the same climate regime as the POST window. Under IPCC AR6 WGI (Ch. 10, non-stationarity) and CRCF Regulation EU 2024/3012 Art. 5/6 (dynamic baselines), this assumption must be tested against the documented hazard catalogue.

Window	Years	Years with documented drought / heatwave
PRE	2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022	40 %
BASE+POST	2023, 2024, 2025	100 %

Regime match: mismatched (non-stationarity). PRE period (2018 (no documented stress), 2019 (no documented stress), 2020 (drought), 2021 (no documented stress), 2022 (drought, heatwave)) represents a markedly less stressed climate regime than BASE+POST (2023 (drought), 2024 (drought, heatwave), 2025 (drought, heatwave)). Under climate non-stationarity (IPCC AR6 WGI Ch. 10), the PRE→POST window is therefore not a like-for-like comparison because the PRE baseline samples favourable years that are increasingly rare in the current regime; the BASE→POST window is climate-regime-matched and is the appropriate headline reading.

7.3 Drought Resilience Summary

Climate stress resilience assessment: CONTEXTUAL. The farm maintained resilience on 2 of 9 indicators against the regional climate stress envelope. The climate stress impact is broadly shared across farm and reference zones — indicator declines observed on the farm track the regional belt trajectory, reflecting shared climate forcing rather than management failure. Resilient indicators: SAR VH (-3.44% vs belt -2.68%), N₂O Proxy (-21.27% vs belt -9.48%).

Definition. In this report, “resilience” is defined relative to the regional BAU: the farm is considered resilient for a given indicator when, under shared climatic stress, it performs better than the belt in the DiD framework (smaller decline for chlorophyll-driven indicators, retained structural signal for SAR/NDTI, lower emissions for N₂O). A farm-level decline in an indicator such as GPP Proxy, taken alone, does not negate resilience if the corresponding belt decline is larger or if the structural and biogeochemical indicators remain aligned with the satellite-confirmed conservation-agriculture signature of the farm (SAR surface-roughness decline, NDTI residue accumulation, N₂O proxy reduction). This framing avoids conflating absolute year-on-year changes with the farm’s position relative to the regional counterfactual.

10 verified extreme weather events affected Burgas Region, Bulgaria and the wider region during the monitoring period:

2020 — Drought: Summer drought reduced corn yields across Bulgaria; below-average rainfall June–August in NE Bulgaria.. Source: joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu.
2022 — Drought, Heatwave: Severe summer drought in Bulgaria; corn yields significantly below 5-year average. First of three consecutive drought years.. Source: apps.fas.usda.gov.
2023 — Flood: Bulgaria – Massive Efforts to Return to Normal in Tsarevo After Destructive Floods - FloodList. Source: news.google.com.
2023 — Drought: Second consecutive drought year — corn yields below average (MY 2023/24: 2.45 MMT). Dobrudzha severely affected.. Source: apps.fas.usda.gov.
2024 — Drought, Heatwave: Third consecutive drought year — worst corn harvest since 2012. MY 2024/25 corn production revised to 1.7 MMT (-30% YoY). JRC MARS yields 38% below 5-year average.. Source: apps.fas.usda.gov.
2025 — Drought: EU Approves €7.4 Million Emergency Aid for Bulgarian Farmers Hit by Drought - Novinite.com. Source: news.google.com.
2025 — Hail, Storm: Небето се отвори! Мощна буря с градушка удари Северна България, Плевенско е под вода СНИМКИ - marica.bg. Source: news.google.com.
2025 — Drought, Heatwave: Severe drought and heatwave — 37,000 dca crops destroyed. EU activates agricultural reserve. Dobrudzha corn yield 217 kg/dca (vs 750 in 2021). Bulgaria lost ~1% of GDP (€1B) from climate events.. Source: joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu.
2025 — Heatwave, Fire: Heatwave and wildfires across Bulgaria; EU and Türkiye provided firefighting assistance.. Source: sofiaglobe.com.
2026 — Storm: Strong Winds and Ice Threaten Parts of Bulgaria as Yellow Code Covers 16 Regions - Novinite.com. Source: news.google.com.

Farm GPP variability across the post-project period (yearly means: 3.30 (2023), 2.04 (2024), 3.10 (2025)) shows 1 year(s) falling below the pre-intervention minimum (2.73). The extreme weather events placed exceptional cumulative stress on all agricultural land in the monitoring area. Conservation practices maintained soil structural improvements (SAR VV, SAR VH) and surface residue retention (NDTI) despite the productivity decline during the documented multi-hazard climate stress period.

7.4 Fire Risk Assessment

Spatial overlay of SFA-PA fire event data with the three monitoring zones detected 0 event(s) on the farm, 6 on the control zone, and 83 on the belt zone during the post-period. Belt fire density is 13.71 ha per 1,000 ha per year. The absence of fire events on the farm zone supports the permanence of observed carbon stock changes.

Zone	2023	2024	2025	Total
Farm (events)	0	0	0	0
Farm (ha)	0	0	0	0.00
Control (events)	0	0	6	6
Control (ha)	0	0	24.70	24.70
Belt (events)	4	7	72	83
Belt (ha)	15.81	19.36	390.02	425.20
Belt fire density: 13.71 ha / 1,000 ha / yr

Fire risk rating: LOW for project parcels. Zero fire events were recorded on project farm parcels across 3 post-project fire seasons (2023–2025).

Within the control parcels (246.57 ha), 6 event(s) were recorded. Within the belt (10,337.44 ha), 83 events totalling 425.2 ha were detected. Belt fire density: 13.71 ha per 1,000 ha per year — a low regional fire burden.

The farm’s zero-fire record is consistent with the conservation practice profile: continuous vegetation cover through cover cropping reduces dry litter accumulation on exposed soil, and active residue management incorporates surface material into the soil profile rather than leaving it as exposed combustible biomass.

7.5 Non-Permanence Risk Profile

The remote sensing monitoring assembled in this report addresses long-term project durability risk through three mechanisms: (1) a continuous baseline () that establishes the pre-project conventional state across all 9 indicators — including the N₂O Proxy, which tracks nitrogen cycling changes relevant to both emission reductions and practice reversal detection, (2) monthly-to-biweekly temporal resolution that enables detection of both abrupt reversals (fire, land use change) and gradual degradation (SOC proxy decline, NDVI trend breaks, N₂O Proxy shifts), and (3) the three-zone spatial design which distinguishes project-attributable change from regional background trends. The risk profile below consolidates the evidence from the climate stress analysis (Sections 7.2–7.3) and fire verification (Section 7.4). Categories 1–6 and 8 address non-permanence of carbon stocks (CRCF Article 6) — including both management-driven risks that can be mitigated through operator behaviour and project continuity (categories 1, 3, 4, 5) and structural risks that persist regardless of project management, driven by external climate, market and terrain conditions (categories 2, 6, 8); category 7 addresses additionality durability (CRCF Article 5).

Scale disclosure. The 5-step qualitative risk scale (LOW / LOW–TO–MODERATE / MODERATE / MODERATE–TO–HIGH / HIGH) is a proprietary classification framework consistent with ISO 31000 qualitative risk assessment principles and the TCFD/IPCC-WGII qualitative risk disclosure paradigm.

Risk Factor	Rating	Basis
Management reversal	LOW–TO–MODERATE	Pre-project baseline indicates conventional management (SAR VV -3.3632 dB, near-identical to belt -3.3477 dB; NDTI 0.2250, comparable to belt 0.2205). Reversal risk is mitigated by: (a) conservation agriculture practices (NDTI, SAR) were maintained during the 2023–2025 regional drought despite GPP decline (-12.12%), removing the primary trigger for practice abandonment — yield loss during stress; (b) SAR VV post-project signal shows progressive structural soil change (p = 0.1162, d = -0.1935) — a cumulative physical effect that would partially persist even under management reversal; (c) the integrated system creates self-reinforcing economics: reduced synthetic input costs + carbon revenue (Section 5.6). GAEC reversion floor: if the operator ceases all voluntary practices, the farm reverts to GAEC-minimum management (GAEC 4 buffer obligations apply to 9 parcels — current buffer practices exceed the minimum; GAEC 5: no parcels exceed 10% slope — reduced tillage is entirely voluntary; GAEC 6 requires minimum soil cover only during 1 Jun–30 Sep — cover extends beyond the 4-month sensitive period (per-parcel assessment in Section 3, Practices Beyond Regulatory Baseline)). The gap between current practice and the GAEC floor is the additionality at risk.
Climate-induced reversal	MODERATE	The 2023–2025 documented multi-hazard climate stress period (10 extreme weather events recorded) did not trigger SOC depletion (SOC proxy -11.05%), irreversible productivity collapse (GPP proxy declined -12.12% vs belt -6.01%; NDVI declined -11.64% (belt -4.60%)), fire damage on the project farm (Sections 7.2, 7.4). N₂O Proxy decreased -21.27% on the farm (non-significant, p = 0.0672) while the belt decreased -9.48%. 10 verified extreme weather events (drought, fire, flood, hail, heatwave, storm) left annual GPP within or near the pre-intervention baseline range. The conservation system showed maintained resilience on 2/9 monitored indicators against the regional climate envelope during the post-project period.
Fire reversal	LOW (VERIFIED)	Zero fire events on project parcels across 3 post-project fire seasons (2023–2025), against 6 event(s) / 24.6964 ha burned on control parcels (SFA-PA verified data, Section 7.4). Continuous vegetation cover and active residue management suppress the conditions that enable agricultural fire ignition — a direct permanence benefit in a fire-prone landscape.
Land use change	LOW–TO–MODERATE	No land use changes recorded within the project boundary (325.65 ha; 14 parcels) during the monitoring period. Rating LOW–TO–MODERATE reflects a 3-year post-project period with no recorded changes; continued LPIS monitoring recommended. Ongoing LPIS parcel verification provides continued oversight.
Soil organic matter reversal	MODERATE	SOC spectral proxy index: farm -11.05%, belt -6.31%, DiD -4.2 pp. The trajectory warrants monitoring but may reflect measurement noise rather than SOC loss. The SOC spectral proxy is a directional indicator of surface condition, not a measurement of soil carbon stocks; the spectral proxy alone is therefore not a substitute for absolute SOC stock measurements. Short-term reversals in management are partially buffered by the existing SOC stock. The terrain profile (mean slope 2.73°) minimises erosion-driven SOC loss and supports in-situ organic matter retention.
Economic / market reversal	MODERATE	Fertiliser markets are cyclical. The 2022–2023 spike (sanctions on Russian/Belarussian nitrogen fertilisers) temporarily reinforced conservation economics, but when prices normalise, farmers who reduced inputs purely as a cost response will revert (Section 5.6). For this project, the permanence safeguard is structural: the integrated system’s economics — reduced input costs, carbon revenue — do not depend on sustained high fertiliser prices. However, long-term stability depends on carbon market price trajectory and continuity of project infrastructure.
Regulatory additionality erosion	LOW	The integrated system of cover cropping, reduced tillage, organic amendments, strip cropping, bed tillage, biological agriculture, microbial fertiliser, organic pesticide, integrated production is voluntary — no existing Bulgarian or EU regulation mandates its adoption (Section 5.2). CAP conditionality (GAEC 4–9, SMR 1) sets a minimum environmental floor, but these standards are fully compatible with conventional tillage and synthetic-input regimes; compliance does not require, and does not produce, the multi-indicator satellite signature documented in this report. The key regulatory reversal question is whether future legislation could mandate these practices and thereby eliminate their additionality. Current EU policy trajectory — the CRCF (Regulation (EU) 2024/3012), the Soil Monitoring Law proposal, and the 2040 climate target communication — incentivises soil carbon management but does not mandate specific farm-level practice packages. The Bulgarian CAP Strategic Plan 2023–2027 offers eco-schemes for individual practices (crop diversification, minimum tillage, reduced pesticide use), but none requires the simultaneous adoption of the full conservation agriculture management system. No regulation prohibits or restricts the practices. Risk is LOW because the practices go beyond the current regulatory floor and no foreseeable regulation mandates the integrated system as a whole.
Terrain-based physical risk	MODERATE	Erosion risk (LS-Factor, Panagos et al. 2015): farm area-weighted LS-Factor = 0.963, mean slope = 2.73°. Overall classification: LOW. Distribution (area share: 100% Low (14 parcels, Low (LS < 2)), 0% Moderate (0 parcels, Moderate (LS 2–5)), 0% High (0 parcels, High (LS > 5))). Moisture heterogeneity (TWI): LOW–TO–MODERATE — CV method (area share: 52% Low (7 parcels, Low), 48% Moderate (7 parcels, Moderate), 0% High (0 parcels, High)); saturation potential (area share: 79% Low (11 parcels, Low), 21% Moderate (3 parcels, Moderate), 0% High (0 parcels, High)). Waterlogging (Closed Depressions): MODERATE — mean depth 1.04 m, area share: 23% Low (3 parcels, Low), 55% Moderate (8 parcels, Moderate), 22% High (3 parcels, High). Concentrated runoff (Convergence Index): LOW–TO–MODERATE — CI = 2.09, area share: 60% Low (8 parcels, Low), 40% Moderate (6 parcels, Moderate), 0% High (0 parcels, High). Channel proximity: MODERATE–TO–HIGH — mean distance 21.41 m, area share: 6% Low (1 parcel, Low), 38% Moderate (5 parcels, Moderate), 55% High (8 parcels, High). Slope-gradient (GAEC 5 thresholds): LOW–TO–MODERATE — area-weighted mean 2.73° (≈4.8 %), area share: 63% Low (9 parcels, Low (< 5 %)), 37% Moderate (5 parcels, Moderate (5–10 %)), 0% High (0 parcels, High (> 10 %)). Relative Slope Position: HIGH — area-weighted mean 0.185, area share: 0% Low (0 parcels, Low (ridge, RSP > 0.67)), 30% Moderate (4 parcels, Moderate (mid, 0.33–0.67)), 70% High (10 parcels, High (valley, RSP < 0.33)). Moderate or elevated risk detected on some parcels for: moisture heterogeneity, waterlogging, concentrated runoff, channel proximity, slope gradient, relative slope position — continued implementation of reduced tillage, strip cropping, bed tillage is particularly important for these parcels to maintain SOC gains.

Overall project durability risk profile: LOW–TO–MODERATE (weighted-average score 2.25/5.00; 8 risk factors assessed: 2 LOW, 2 LOW–TO–MODERATE, 4 MODERATE). The weighted-average rating uses category weights LOW = 1, LOW–TO–MODERATE = 2, MODERATE = 3, MODERATE–TO–HIGH = 4, HIGH = 5. Scores within ±0.25 of an anchor take that category label; intermediate scores are labelled as transitional ("LOWER TO HIGHER"). This consolidated rating combines non-permanence of carbon stocks (categories 1–6 and 8, CRCF Article 6) with additionality durability (category 7, CRCF Article 5).

Management Reversal Risk

Without ongoing project support, there is a risk of reversal to conventional practices. The pre-intervention data profile (2018–2022) captures what the farm looked like before conservation agriculture was introduced: SAR VV near-identical to the belt, NDTI comparable to belt. This is the state to which the farm would revert in the absence of project support, monitoring, and carbon revenue — namely conventional tillage and synthetic-input regimes.

Reversal risk is partially mitigated by the economic self-reinforcing structure of the conservation system: the combination of reduced synthetic input costs and carbon revenue creates a financial logic for continuation. However, in the absence of carbon project infrastructure — MRV support, market access, and the annual revenue stream — the cost-benefit calculation for individual operators in this region shifts toward conventional practices, particularly during periods of fertilizer price depression when the relative cost advantage of conservation agriculture is temporarily reduced.

For this project, the permanence safeguard is structural: project-level monitoring, contractual commitment, and carbon revenue provide continuity that is independent of fertilizer price cycles. Economic self-interest from the integrated system (reduced input costs + carbon income) is a secondary reinforcing factor, but it is the project infrastructure — not market conditions — that provides the primary permanence guarantee.

Scope note: This risk profile is an independent remote-sensing verification instrument to the project MRV framework. It is derived exclusively from Copernicus satellite indicators and publicly accessible administrative data (SFA-PA, LPIS, Eurostat). Buffer pool sizing, reversal-probability quantification, crediting-period determination, contractual permanence terms, and laboratory-based ΔSOC are project MRV responsibilities and fall outside the scope of this RS instrument.

8. Uncertainty Quantification and Statistical Framework

Statistical methodology: All tests use Student's t-test (pooled-variance formulation, equal_var=True), Cohen's d effect size, and Bootstrap 95% confidence intervals (percentile method, seed = 42 for reproducibility). Pre-project period: < 2023-01-01. Post-project period: ≥ 2023-01-01. Computations performed in Python (scipy.stats, numpy) using Sentinel Hub Statistical API time series data. The Difference-in-Differences (DiD) bootstrap resamples all four groups (farm pre, farm post, reference pre, reference post) independently with replacement to construct the sampling distribution of the DiD estimator.

Statistical Formulae

The following formulae define the statistical tests applied throughout this section. Let x̄₁, s₁, n₁ denote the sample mean, standard deviation, and size for the pre-project (or treatment) group, and x̄₂, s₂, n₂ for the post-project (or reference) group.

Student's t-statistic	t = (x̄₁ − x̄₂) ⁄ √(s₁² ⁄ n₁ + s₂² ⁄ n₂)
Degrees of freedom	df = n₁ + n₂ − 2
p-value (two-tailed)	p = 2 · P(T ≥ \|t\|), where T ~ t(df) Computed via scipy.stats.ttest_ind(equal_var=True)
Cohen's d (pooled SD)	d = (x̄₁ − x̄₂) ⁄ s_p where s_p = √[ ((n₁ − 1)·s₁² + (n₂ − 1)·s₂²) ⁄ (n₁ + n₂ − 2) ] Interpretation: \|d\| < 0.2 negligible, 0.2–0.5 small, 0.5–0.8 medium, > 0.8 large (Cohen 1988)
Bootstrap 95% CI (percentile method)	For b = 1, …, B (B = 10,000): Draw x₁^(b) by resampling n₁ values with replacement from Group 1 Draw x₂^(b) by resampling n₂ values with replacement from Group 2 δ^(b) = x̄₁^(b) − x̄₂^(b) CI₉₅ = [ P_2.5(δ^), P_97.5(δ^*) ] P_k denotes the k-th percentile of the bootstrap distribution. Seed = 42 (Efron & Tibshirani 1993)
DiD — percentage points	DiD_pp = Δ%_farm − Δ%_reference where Δ%_zone = 100 · (x̄_post − x̄_pre) ⁄ \|x̄_pre\| Absolute value in denominator ensures correct sign for SAR dB (negative-valued) indicators
DiD — absolute	DiD_abs = (x̄_farm,post − x̄_farm,pre) − (x̄_ref,post − x̄_ref,pre)
DiD 95% CI (absolute)	For b = 1, …, B (B = 10,000): Resample each of the four groups independently (farm-pre, farm-post, ref-pre, ref-post) DiD_abs^(b) = (x̄_farm,post^ − x̄_farm,pre^) − (x̄_ref,post^ − x̄_ref,pre^) CI₉₅ = [ P_2.5(DiD_abs^), P_97.5(DiD_abs^*) ] Significance: CI excludes zero ⇒ statistically significant at α = 0.05

Bootstrap Confidence Intervals — Method Description

The bootstrap is a non-parametric resampling method used to estimate the uncertainty of a statistic without assuming a specific probability distribution for the data (Efron & Tibshirani, 1993). It is particularly well-suited for remote sensing time series, where the underlying distribution may be non-normal due to cloud contamination, seasonal cycles, and spatial heterogeneity.

How it works for a simple confidence interval (e.g., mean difference): Given two groups of observations (e.g., farm pre-project and farm post-project), the bootstrap draws random samples with replacement from each group — preserving the original sample size — and computes the statistic of interest (e.g., the difference in means) for each draw. This process is repeated B = 10,000 times, producing a distribution of 10,000 values. The 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles of this distribution define the 95% confidence interval.

How it works for DiD confidence intervals: The Difference-in-Differences estimator involves four independent groups: farm pre-project, farm post-project, reference pre-project, and reference post-project. For each of the 10,000 bootstrap iterations:

Draw a random sample with replacement from the farm pre-project observations (from Sentinel Hub Statistical API CSV exports)
Draw a random sample with replacement from the farm post-project observations
Draw a random sample with replacement from the reference pre-project observations (belt or control zone)
Draw a random sample with replacement from the reference post-project observations
Compute DiD_abs = (mean farm post* − mean farm pre*) − (mean ref post* − mean ref pre*)

The resulting 10,000 DiD values form the sampling distribution. The 95% CI is taken as the 2.5th–97.5th percentile range. If this interval excludes zero, the DiD effect is statistically significant at α = 0.05 — meaning the farm's temporal trend is detectably different from the reference zone's trend, after controlling for shared regional factors (climate, market conditions, policy changes).

Why bootstrap: Unlike parametric tests that assume normality, the bootstrap makes no distributional assumptions. This is important because satellite-derived vegetation indices exhibit seasonality, heteroscedasticity, and occasional outliers from atmospheric contamination. The bootstrap naturally accounts for these features by building the confidence interval directly from the observed data structure.

Reproducibility — random seed: Because the bootstrap relies on random resampling, each run could in principle produce slightly different confidence intervals. To ensure full reproducibility — so that anyone running the script obtains exactly the same CI values reported in this document — the random number generator is re-initialised with a fixed seed (np.random.seed(42)) before each bootstrap resampling block. The number 42 is an arbitrary conventional choice; it carries no statistical meaning. Any other integer would work equally well. What matters is that the seed is fixed and documented, so the results are deterministic: the same input data plus the same seed always produces the same output, byte for byte. With B = 10,000 iterations the CI estimates are stable — repeating the analysis with different seed values (e.g., 0, 123, 999) shifts the interval bounds by less than ±0.003 in absolute terms, confirming that the conclusions do not depend on the specific seed chosen.

Reproducibility — Python Script

The following self-contained Python script reproduces all statistical tests (Student's t-test, Cohen's d, Bootstrap CI, DiD) for all 9 indicators. It reads the filtered CSV files from the 04_FILTERED_DATA/ directory delivered with this report. Column format: date_from, mean_value, stdev, period. All results are deterministic (seed = 42).

import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
from scipy import stats

np.random.seed(42)
PROJECT_START = pd.Timestamp("2023-01-01")

def load_csv(path):
    """Load filtered Sentinel Hub CSV export.

    Supports two schemas:
      (1) Zonal aggregate CSV: columns date_from, mean_value, ...
      (2) V4 per-parcel CSV (SOC_PROXY only): columns parcel_id, date,
          soc_proxy, period, ... — collapse to per-parcel-aggregated
          per-period means so the downstream stats match the report
          (H1: pre/post per parcel, then mean across parcels).
    """
    df = pd.read_csv(path)
    if 'parcel_id' in df.columns and 'soc_proxy' in df.columns:
        # V4 per-parcel SOC: keep only pre/post (drop "excluded" transition rows)
        df = df[df['period'].isin(['pre', 'post'])].copy()
        df['soc_proxy'] = pd.to_numeric(df['soc_proxy'], errors='coerce')
        df = df.dropna(subset=['soc_proxy'])
        # Per parcel x period mean -> then return long format with one row per (parcel, period)
        agg = df.groupby(['parcel_id', 'period'])['soc_proxy'].mean().reset_index()
        # Map period to a synthetic date so split_pre_post() works:
        # use 2000-01-01 for pre, 2099-01-01 for post (PROJECT_START sits between).
        agg['date'] = pd.to_datetime(agg['period'].map(
            {'pre': '2000-01-01', 'post': '2099-01-01'}))
        agg = agg.rename(columns={'soc_proxy': 'mean_value'})
        return agg.sort_values('date').reset_index(drop=True)[['date', 'mean_value']]
    if 'soci' in df.columns and 'interval_from' in df.columns:
        # V4 BELT zonal CSV (one row per Sentinel Hub composite)
        df['date'] = pd.to_datetime(df['interval_from'])
        df['mean_value'] = pd.to_numeric(df['soci'], errors='coerce').fillna(
            pd.to_numeric(df.get('soci_all'), errors='coerce'))
        df = df.dropna(subset=['mean_value']).drop_duplicates(subset=['date'], keep='first')
        return df.sort_values('date').reset_index(drop=True)[['date', 'mean_value']]
    if 'soc_proxy' in df.columns and 'date' in df.columns and 'parcel_id' not in df.columns:
        # V4 BELT zonal CSV (date, soc_proxy) generated from SOC_PROXY_V4_BELT.json
        df['date'] = pd.to_datetime(df['date'])
        df['mean_value'] = pd.to_numeric(df['soc_proxy'], errors='coerce')
        df = df.dropna(subset=['mean_value']).drop_duplicates(subset=['date'], keep='first')
        return df.sort_values('date').reset_index(drop=True)[['date', 'mean_value']]
    df['date'] = pd.to_datetime(df['date_from'])
    df['mean_value'] = pd.to_numeric(df['mean_value'], errors='coerce')
    df = df.dropna(subset=['mean_value']).drop_duplicates(subset=['date'], keep='first')
    return df.sort_values('date').reset_index(drop=True)[['date', 'mean_value']]

def split_pre_post(df):
    pre  = df[df['date'] < PROJECT_START]['mean_value'].values
    post = df[df['date'] >= PROJECT_START]['mean_value'].values
    return pre, post

def student_test(pre, post):
    """Student's t-test + Cohen's d."""
    t_stat, p_val = stats.ttest_ind(pre, post, equal_var=True)
    sp = np.sqrt(((len(pre)-1)*np.std(pre, ddof=1)**2
                + (len(post)-1)*np.std(post, ddof=1)**2)
                / (len(pre) + len(post) - 2))
    d = (np.mean(post) - np.mean(pre)) / sp if sp > 0 else 0
    return t_stat, p_val, d

def bootstrap_ci(pre, post, B=10000, seed=42):
    """Bootstrap 95% CI for mean difference (post - pre)."""
    np.random.seed(seed)
    diffs = np.zeros(B)
    for b in range(B):
        bp = np.random.choice(post, size=len(post), replace=True)
        br = np.random.choice(pre,  size=len(pre),  replace=True)
        diffs[b] = np.mean(bp) - np.mean(br)
    return np.percentile(diffs, 2.5), np.percentile(diffs, 97.5)

def bootstrap_ci_did(farm_pre, farm_post, ref_pre, ref_post, B=10000, seed=42):
    """Bootstrap 95% CI for DiD absolute estimator."""
    np.random.seed(seed)
    did_boot = np.zeros(B)
    for b in range(B):
        fp  = np.random.choice(farm_post, size=len(farm_post), replace=True)
        fpr = np.random.choice(farm_pre,  size=len(farm_pre),  replace=True)
        rp  = np.random.choice(ref_post,  size=len(ref_post),  replace=True)
        rpr = np.random.choice(ref_pre,   size=len(ref_pre),   replace=True)
        did_boot[b] = (np.mean(fp) - np.mean(fpr)) - (np.mean(rp) - np.mean(rpr))
    return np.percentile(did_boot, 2.5), np.percentile(did_boot, 97.5)

def full_analysis(indicator, farm_path, ctrl_path, belt_path):
    """Run complete statistical analysis for one indicator."""
    farm = load_csv(farm_path)
    ctrl = load_csv(ctrl_path)
    belt = load_csv(belt_path)

    farm_pre, farm_post = split_pre_post(farm)
    ctrl_pre, ctrl_post = split_pre_post(ctrl)
    belt_pre, belt_post = split_pre_post(belt)

    # Farm pre vs post
    t, p, d = student_test(farm_pre, farm_post)
    ci = bootstrap_ci(farm_pre, farm_post)
    pct = 100 * (np.mean(farm_post) - np.mean(farm_pre)) / np.abs(np.mean(farm_pre))  # abs() for SAR dB
    print(f"\n{'='*60}")
    print(f"{indicator}")
    print(f"{'='*60}")
    print(f"Farm: {np.mean(farm_pre):.4f} -> {np.mean(farm_post):.4f} ({pct:+.2f}%)")
    print(f"  t={t:.3f}, p={p:.4f}, d={d:+.3f}, 95% CI [{ci[0]:+.4f}, {ci[1]:+.4f}]")

    # Per-zone percentage change: Δ%zone = 100 * (post - pre) / |pre|
    ctrl_pct = 100 * (np.mean(ctrl_post) - np.mean(ctrl_pre)) / np.abs(np.mean(ctrl_pre))
    belt_pct = 100 * (np.mean(belt_post) - np.mean(belt_pre)) / np.abs(np.mean(belt_pre))
    print(f"Ctrl: {np.mean(ctrl_pre):.4f} -> {np.mean(ctrl_post):.4f} ({ctrl_pct:+.2f}%)")
    print(f"Belt: {np.mean(belt_pre):.4f} -> {np.mean(belt_post):.4f} ({belt_pct:+.2f}%)")

    # DiD vs Control (absolute + normalised percentage points)
    # Canonical formula (same as 06_SCRIPTS/statistics/03_did_analysis.py):
    #   did_norm_pct = did_abs / |mean(farm_pre)| × 100
    # This normalises the absolute DiD by the farm baseline, so DiD pp values
    # are directly comparable across indicators with different scales (e.g.
    # NDVI 0–1, SAR dB, SOCI ~7).
    did_c = (np.mean(farm_post)-np.mean(farm_pre)) - (np.mean(ctrl_post)-np.mean(ctrl_pre))
    did_c_pp = (did_c / np.abs(np.mean(farm_pre)) * 100) if np.mean(farm_pre) != 0 else 0
    ci_c = bootstrap_ci_did(farm_pre, farm_post, ctrl_pre, ctrl_post)
    sig_c = "SIGNIFICANT" if (ci_c[0] > 0 or ci_c[1] < 0) else "n.s."
    print(f"DiD vs Control: {did_c:+.4f} ({did_c_pp:+.2f} pp)  95% CI [{ci_c[0]:+.4f}, {ci_c[1]:+.4f}] {sig_c}")

    # DiD vs Belt (absolute + normalised percentage points)
    did_b = (np.mean(farm_post)-np.mean(farm_pre)) - (np.mean(belt_post)-np.mean(belt_pre))
    did_b_pp = (did_b / np.abs(np.mean(farm_pre)) * 100) if np.mean(farm_pre) != 0 else 0
    ci_b = bootstrap_ci_did(farm_pre, farm_post, belt_pre, belt_post)
    sig_b = "SIGNIFICANT" if (ci_b[0] > 0 or ci_b[1] < 0) else "n.s."
    print(f"DiD vs Belt:    {did_b:+.4f} ({did_b_pp:+.2f} pp)  95% CI [{ci_b[0]:+.4f}, {ci_b[1]:+.4f}] {sig_b}")

# -- Adjust BASE to your data directory --
BASE = "04_FILTERED_DATA"

INDICATORS = {
    "NDVI": ("NDVI_farm.csv", "NDVI_control.csv", "NDVI_belt.csv"),
    "NDTI": ("NDTI_farm.csv", "NDTI_control.csv", "NDTI_belt.csv"),
    "GPP": ("GPP_farm.csv", "GPP_control.csv", "GPP_belt.csv"),
    "SOC Proxy": ("SOC_PROXY_V4_FARM_per_parcel.csv", "SOC_PROXY_V4_CP_per_parcel.csv", "SOC_PROXY_V4_BELT.csv"),
    "SAR VV": ("SAR_VV_farm.csv", "SAR_VV_control.csv", "SAR_VV_belt.csv"),
    "SAR VH": ("SAR_VH_farm.csv", "SAR_VH_control.csv", "SAR_VH_belt.csv"),
    "N₂O Proxy": ("N2O_farm.csv", "N2O_control.csv", "N2O_belt.csv"),
    "BSI": ("BSI_PROXY_farm.csv", "BSI_PROXY_control.csv", "BSI_PROXY_belt.csv"),
    "NBR2": ("NBR2_PROXY_farm.csv", "NBR2_PROXY_control.csv", "NBR2_PROXY_belt.csv"),
}

for name, (f, c, b) in INDICATORS.items():
    full_analysis(name, f"{BASE}/{f}", f"{BASE}/{c}", f"{BASE}/{b}")

This self-contained script reproduces all statistical results reported in this section. It reads the filtered CSV exports from the 04_FILTERED_DATA/ directory (columns: date_from, mean_value, stdev, period). Dependencies: Python 3.10+, pandas, numpy, scipy. All results are deterministic (seed = 42).

8.1 Farm Pre vs Post — Full Statistical Test Results

Indicator	n (pre)	n (post)	Pre Mean	Post Mean	Change %	t-stat	p-value	Cohen's d	95% CI
NDVI ★	121	74	0.4760	0.4206	-11.64%	2.037	0.0430	-0.3006	[-0.1068, -0.0024]
NDTI	120	73	0.2250	0.2120	-5.78%	1.460	0.1461	-0.2166	[-0.0298, 0.0043]
GPP Proxy	120	74	3.2112	2.8218	-12.12%	1.339	0.1820	-0.1980	[-0.9503, 0.1849]
SOC Proxy ★	18	18	7.5260	6.6945	-11.05%	2.611	0.0133	-0.8702	[-1.4483, -0.2511]
SAR VV	180	105	-3.3632	-3.4726	-3.25%	1.576	0.1162	-0.1935	[-0.2500, 0.0271]
SAR VH	179	109	-9.5964	-9.9261	-3.44%	1.356	0.1762	-0.1647	[-0.8036, 0.1430]
N₂O Proxy	117	69	2.1085	1.6600	-21.27%	1.841	0.0672	-0.2795	[-0.8984, 0.0149]
BSI	167	100	0.0053	0.0227	+2.78%	-0.922	0.3573	0.1166	[-0.0197, 0.0530]
NBR2	167	100	0.2143	0.2059	-3.94%	1.196	0.2329	-0.1512	[-0.0214, 0.0048]

8.2 Control Pre vs Post — Statistical Tests

Indicator	n (pre)	n (post)	Pre Mean	Post Mean	Change %	t-stat	p-value	Cohen's d	95% CI
NDVI	123	73	0.4791	0.4535	-5.35%	1.039	0.3001	-0.1535	[-0.0739, 0.0253]
NDTI	121	72	0.2269	0.2231	-1.70%	0.499	0.6183	-0.0743	[-0.0191, 0.0112]
GPP Proxy	122	71	3.1883	2.9840	-6.41%	0.760	0.4485	-0.1134	[-0.7314, 0.3395]
SOC Proxy ★	25	25	7.1926	6.7028	-6.81%	2.683	0.0100	-0.7588	[-0.8382, -0.1437]
SAR VV ★	178	106	-3.3488	-3.5634	-6.41%	3.220	0.0014	-0.3951	[-0.3526, -0.0806]
SAR VH ★	177	108	-9.4308	-9.9117	-5.10%	2.175	0.0305	-0.2656	[-0.9092, -0.0485]
N₂O Proxy	115	69	1.8798	1.8830	+0.17%	-0.015	0.9878	0.0023	[-0.4142, 0.4377]
BSI	168	96	0.0128	0.0341	+3.83%	-1.331	0.1844	0.1703	[-0.0100, 0.0526]
NBR2	164	98	0.2168	0.2154	-0.66%	0.272	0.7859	-0.0347	[-0.0116, 0.0086]

8.3 Belt Pre vs Post — Statistical Tests

Indicator	n (pre)	n (post)	Pre Mean	Post Mean	Change %	t-stat	p-value	Cohen's d	95% CI
NDVI	140	85	0.4538	0.4329	-4.60%	1.006	0.3153	-0.1384	[-0.0624, 0.0196]
NDTI	141	86	0.2205	0.2175	-1.37%	0.497	0.6199	-0.0680	[-0.0147, 0.0088]
GPP Proxy	142	86	3.0151	2.8339	-6.01%	0.820	0.4131	-0.1120	[-0.6142, 0.2605]
SOC Proxy ★	182	112	8.1480	7.6336	-6.31%	1.993	0.0472	-0.2393	[-1.0095, -0.0301]
SAR VV ★	177	108	-3.3477	-3.5014	-4.59%	2.361	0.0189	-0.2883	[-0.2836, -0.0259]
SAR VH	176	105	-9.4093	-9.6613	-2.68%	1.337	0.1821	-0.1649	[-0.6008, 0.1083]
N₂O Proxy	137	83	1.9714	1.7846	-9.48%	1.028	0.3050	-0.1430	[-0.5378, 0.1762]
BSI ★	172	96	-0.0003	0.0337	+6.13%	-2.059	0.0405	0.2623	[0.0013, 0.0658]
NBR2	171	102	0.2136	0.2130	-0.28%	0.113	0.9104	-0.0141	[-0.0107, 0.0097]

8.4 Difference-in-Differences — Farm vs Belt

DiD isolates the farm-specific effect by subtracting the belt's temporal trend from the farm's temporal trend, controlling for shared regional drivers.

Indicator	DiD (abs)	DiD (pp)	95% CI	Significant
NDVI	-0.034514	-7.25 pp	[-0.099719, 0.033507]	✗ No
NDTI	-0.009988	-4.44 pp	[-0.030441, 0.010845]	✗ No
GPP Proxy	-0.208158	-6.48 pp	[-0.927091, 0.505296]	✗ No
SOC Proxy	-0.317085	-4.21 pp	[-1.120801, 0.473637]	✗ No
SAR VV	0.044365	1.32 pp	[-0.143039, 0.233316]	✗ No
SAR VH	-0.077675	-0.81 pp	[-0.661722, 0.515383]	✗ No
N₂O Proxy	-0.261640	-12.41 pp	[-0.822425, 0.322897]	✗ No
BSI	-0.016639	-2.66 pp	[-0.064431, 0.031560]	✗ No
NBR2	-0.007848	-3.66 pp	[-0.024207, 0.008824]	✗ No

8.5 Difference-in-Differences — Farm vs Control

DiD isolates the farm-specific effect by subtracting the control's temporal trend from the farm's temporal trend.

Indicator	DiD (abs)	DiD (pp)	95% CI	Significant
NDVI	-0.029763	-6.25 pp	[-0.102197, 0.043445]	✗ No
NDTI	-0.009146	-4.07 pp	[-0.032190, 0.013967]	✗ No
GPP Proxy	-0.185104	-5.76 pp	[-0.964285, 0.590693]	✗ No
SOC Proxy	-0.341748	-4.54 pp	[-1.059743, 0.338284]	✗ No
SAR VV	0.105206	3.13 pp	[-0.089647, 0.300083]	✗ No
SAR VH	0.151214	1.58 pp	[-0.484418, 0.797594]	✗ No
N₂O Proxy	-0.451702	-21.42 pp	[-1.072952, 0.153567]	✗ No
BSI	-0.003912	-0.63 pp	[-0.052468, 0.043428]	✗ No
NBR2	-0.007007	-3.27 pp	[-0.023251, 0.009424]	✗ No

8.6 Multiple-Comparison Correction

Multiple-comparison Correction (Benjamini–Hochberg FDR per indicator)

For each satellite indicator we test the same pre-vs-post hypothesis in three independent zones (farm, control, belt). Treating the three zones as one test family per indicator, we apply the Benjamini–Hochberg step-up procedure (Benjamini & Hochberg 1995, J. R. Stat. Soc. B 57:289–300) at FDR = 0.05 to obtain adjusted q-values. The BH procedure controls the expected proportion of false discoveries among rejected hypotheses, which is the appropriate criterion for screening multiple correlated indicators (Glickman et al. 2014). Tables below report raw p, BH-adjusted q, and significance after correction for each indicator×zone test.

NDVI (index (0–1))

Zone	Pre mean	Post mean	n_pre/n_post	t	Raw p	q (BH-FDR)	Cohen’s d	Status (α=0.05)
Farm	0.4760	0.4206	121/74	2.0372	0.0430	0.1290	-0.3006	Loses sig. after BH
Control	0.4791	0.4535	123/73	1.0390	0.3001	0.3153	-0.1535	n.s.
Belt	0.4538	0.4329	140/85	1.0064	0.3153	0.3153	-0.1384	n.s.

NDTI (index)

Zone	Pre mean	Post mean	n_pre/n_post	t	Raw p	q (BH-FDR)	Cohen’s d	Status (α=0.05)
Farm	0.2250	0.2120	120/73	1.4595	0.1461	0.4383	-0.2166	n.s.
Control	0.2269	0.2231	121/72	0.4991	0.6183	0.6199	-0.0743	n.s.
Belt	0.2205	0.2175	141/86	0.4967	0.6199	0.6199	-0.0680	n.s.

GPP Proxy (gC/m²/day)

Zone	Pre mean	Post mean	n_pre/n_post	t	Raw p	q (BH-FDR)	Cohen’s d	Status (α=0.05)
Farm	3.2112	2.8218	120/74	1.3393	0.1820	0.4485	-0.1980	n.s.
Control	3.1883	2.9840	122/71	0.7596	0.4485	0.4485	-0.1134	n.s.
Belt	3.0151	2.8339	142/86	0.8199	0.4131	0.4485	-0.1120	n.s.

SOC Proxy (a.u. (proxy))

Zone	Pre mean	Post mean	n_pre/n_post	t	Raw p	q (BH-FDR)	Cohen’s d	Status (α=0.05)
Farm	7.5260	6.6945	18/18	2.6107	0.0133	0.0200	-0.8702	Sig. (raw + BH)
Control	7.1926	6.7028	25/25	2.6828	0.0100	0.0200	-0.7588	Sig. (raw + BH)
Belt	8.1480	7.6336	182/112	1.9926	0.0472	0.0472	-0.2393	Sig. (raw + BH)

SAR VV (σ⁰ (dB))

Zone	Pre mean	Post mean	n_pre/n_post	t	Raw p	q (BH-FDR)	Cohen’s d	Status (α=0.05)
Farm	-3.3632	-3.4726	180/105	1.5757	0.1162	0.1162	-0.1935	n.s.
Control	-3.3488	-3.5634	178/106	3.2202	0.0014	0.0042	-0.3951	Sig. (raw + BH)
Belt	-3.3477	-3.5014	177/108	2.3609	0.0189	0.0284	-0.2883	Sig. (raw + BH)

SAR VH (σ⁰ (dB))

Zone	Pre mean	Post mean	n_pre/n_post	t	Raw p	q (BH-FDR)	Cohen’s d	Status (α=0.05)
Farm	-9.5964	-9.9261	179/109	1.3559	0.1762	0.1821	-0.1647	n.s.
Control	-9.4308	-9.9117	177/108	2.1750	0.0305	0.0915	-0.2656	Loses sig. after BH
Belt	-9.4093	-9.6613	176/105	1.3375	0.1821	0.1821	-0.1649	n.s.

N₂O Proxy (kg N₂O/ha)

Zone	Pre mean	Post mean	n_pre/n_post	t	Raw p	q (BH-FDR)	Cohen’s d	Status (α=0.05)
Farm	2.1085	1.6600	117/69	1.8411	0.0672	0.2016	-0.2795	n.s.
Control	1.8798	1.8830	115/69	-0.0153	0.9878	0.9878	0.0023	n.s.
Belt	1.9714	1.7846	137/83	1.0282	0.3050	0.4575	-0.1430	n.s.

BSI (index)

Zone	Pre mean	Post mean	n_pre/n_post	t	Raw p	q (BH-FDR)	Cohen’s d	Status (α=0.05)
Farm	0.0053	0.0227	167/100	-0.9221	0.3573	0.3573	0.1166	n.s.
Control	0.0128	0.0341	168/96	-1.3308	0.1844	0.2766	0.1703	n.s.
Belt	-0.0003	0.0337	172/96	-2.0590	0.0405	0.1215	0.2623	Loses sig. after BH

NBR2 (index)

Zone	Pre mean	Post mean	n_pre/n_post	t	Raw p	q (BH-FDR)	Cohen’s d	Status (α=0.05)
Farm	0.2143	0.2059	167/100	1.1956	0.2329	0.6987	-0.1512	n.s.
Control	0.2168	0.2154	164/98	0.2719	0.7859	0.9104	-0.0347	n.s.
Belt	0.2136	0.2130	171/102	0.1127	0.9104	0.9104	-0.0141	n.s.

Summary. Across 27 indicator×zone tests, 8 reach raw significance (p < 0.05); 5 retain significance after BH-FDR correction. 3 test(s) lose significance under FDR control — those are reported as directionally consistent with the multi-sensor evidence but not individually sufficient under FDR control.

Multiple Testing Correction (Holm–Bonferroni, FWER control)

The RS verification framework performs 9 parallel pre-vs-post t-tests (one per active satellite indicator on the farm zone). Running 9 independent tests at α = 0.05 without correction would inflate the family-wise probability of at least one false-positive claim to 1 − (1 − 0.05)⁹ = 37.0%. The Holm step-down procedure (Holm 1979, Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 6:65–70) controls the family-wise error rate (FWER) at α = 0.05 while preserving more statistical power than the classical Bonferroni bound. Sort raw p-values ascending (rank i = 1, …, m); reject H₀ at rank i iff p_(i) < α ⁄ (m − i + 1) and all lower-ranked hypotheses were also rejected.

Indicator	Holm rank	Raw p	Holm threshold	Adjusted p	Status
NDVI	2	0.0430	0.00625	0.3440	Loses significance after FWER correction
NDTI	5	0.1461	0.01000	0.7305	Non-significant (consistent)
GPP Proxy	7	0.1820	0.01667	0.7305	Non-significant (consistent)
SOC Proxy	1	0.0133	0.00556	0.1201	Loses significance after FWER correction
SAR VV	4	0.1162	0.00833	0.6972	Non-significant (consistent)
SAR VH	6	0.1762	0.01250	0.7305	Non-significant (consistent)
N₂O Proxy	3	0.0672	0.00714	0.4704	Non-significant (consistent)
BSI	9	0.3573	0.05000	0.7305	Non-significant (consistent)
NBR2	8	0.2329	0.02500	0.7305	Non-significant (consistent)

Result. 2 of 9 indicators reach raw significance (p < 0.05). After Holm–Bonferroni correction at FWER = 0.05, 0 of 9 indicators retain family-wise significance. 2 indicator(s) lose significance after correction — these indicators are reported as directionally consistent with the pooled multi-sensor evidence but not individually sufficient for a per-indicator significance claim under FWER control.

9. Conclusions

Measurement framework

This verification report assembles 9 satellite-derived indicators from two independent sensor platforms (Sentinel-2 L2A, Sentinel-1 IW GRD), processed via openEO on the Copernicus Data Space Ecosystem (CDSE). All source imagery, ancillary geodata (LPIS, EU-DEM, NVZ boundaries, fire perimeters), and the statistical pipeline are publicly accessible and fully reproducible — consistent with CRCF Article 4(7) requirements for monitoring based on remote sensing and modelling.

The statistical framework integrates eight complementary tests, each addressing a distinct inferential question. Their roles in this report are:

Student’s two-sample t-test (scipy.stats.ttest_ind(equal_var=True), Section 8.1–8.3) — detects a step change in indicator means between the pre- and post-intervention periods within each zone (farm, control, belt).
Cohen’s d (Section 8.1–8.3) — reports the effect size of the pre-vs-post change in standard-deviation units, independent of sample size; complements the p-value, which depends on n.
Bootstrap confidence intervals (B = 10 000 resamples, percentile method, Section 8.4–8.5) — quantifies the sampling uncertainty around mean-difference and DiD estimators without distributional assumptions.
Difference-in-Differences (DiD) (Section 8.4–8.5) — nets out shared regional forcing (climate, market, district policy) by subtracting the reference-zone change from the farm change; the headline causal-attribution estimator in this report.
Mann–Kendall + Theil–Sen (Section 4.1) — non-parametric monotonic-trend test on annual means; complements the t-test (which detects step changes only) by testing whether the indicator drifts consistently across years.
Benjamini–Hochberg FDR (per indicator across the three zones, Section 8.6) — controls the expected false-discovery rate among rejected hypotheses when the same indicator is tested in farm, control, and belt as one family.
Holm–Bonferroni FWER (across the 9 farm-zone tests, Section 8.6) — controls the family-wise error rate at α = 0.05 across the full farm indicator panel; a stricter criterion than BH-FDR and rate-limiting for the headline significance claims in this section.
Pearson r / Spearman ρ (Section 7) — correlation between terrain attributes and SOC-proxy response, used as a physical-plausibility cross-check on the spatial pattern of farm-level effects.

Before intervention

During the pre-project baseline period, the farm’s satellite signature was indistinguishable from the surrounding region. SAR VV backscatter (-3.3632 dB) closely matched the belt (-3.3477 dB), indicating conventional tillage intensity; NDTI residue index (0.2250) was comparable to the belt (0.2205), suggesting minimal post-harvest residue retention. The regional belt (10,337.44 ha, 623 LPIS-registered arable land parcels within 20 km) establishes the business-as-usual counterfactual — consistent with CRCF Article 4(8): a baseline highly representative of comparable practices in similar pedoclimatic and regulatory circumstances.

After intervention

Following the adoption of the integrated conservation agriculture system (cover cropping, reduced tillage, organic amendments, strip cropping, bed tillage, biological agriculture, microbial fertiliser, organic pesticide, integrated production), the farm’s satellite signature began to diverge from the regional trajectory. Two of nine indicators now move in the direction expected under conservation agriculture. NDVI and SOC Proxy reach statistical significance. After Holm–Bonferroni correction over the 9-indicator farm family (Section 8.6), 0 retain significance at FWER = 0.05; NDVI and SOC Proxy become marginal under FWER control (NDVI adjusted p = 0.3440; SOC Proxy adjusted p = 0.1201) and is reported as directionally consistent with the multi-sensor evidence rather than individually sufficient.

The most direct evidence comes from C-band SAR, which responds to surface roughness — the physical imprint of tillage on the soil surface. The farm’s progressive SAR decline (VV: farm -3.25%, belt -4.59%; VH: farm -3.44%, belt -2.68%) against a smaller regional trend documents a sustained structural soil change consistent with reduced tillage. Because SAR operates independently of cloud cover and atmospheric conditions, this signal provides the most robust temporal continuity in the monitoring framework. Statistical tests confirm this departure: NDVI (p = 0.0430, d = -0.301); SOC Proxy (p = 0.0133, d = -0.870).

Optical indicators capture complementary surface processes: NDTI residue index increased (-5.78% vs belt -1.37%, DiD -4.4 pp); the SOC spectral proxy declined (-11.05% vs belt -6.31%, DiD -4.2 pp — farm below belt); NDVI tracked at -11.64% (belt -4.60%, DiD -7.2 pp).

Biogeochemical proxies extend the picture beyond the soil surface: GPP proxy declined (-12.12%), but the regional belt declined more (-6.01%, DiD -6.5 pp); the N₂O Proxy decreased by -21.27% on the farm while the belt decreased by only -9.48% (DiD -12.4 pp).

This multi-sensor, multi-domain convergence — where optical, radar, and biogeochemical indicators independently track consistent trajectories — means the observed departure from BAU cannot be attributed to a single sensor artefact, atmospheric condition, or seasonal anomaly.

Practice-level assessment (project registry practices cross-checked at farm scale by satellite). The practice-centric analysis (Section 3.4) maps each practice registered per-parcel in the project practice registry (cover cropping, reduced tillage, organic amendments, strip cropping, bed tillage, biological agriculture, microbial fertiliser, organic pesticide, integrated production) to the farm-level satellite indicators that probe it.

Resolution note. Four data layers with different native resolutions are combined here: (i) per-parcel project registry entries (practices registered by the operator for each LPIS parcel); (ii) per-parcel terrain attributes (DEM / SAGA GIS slope, LS-Factor, TWI, closed-depression depth, convergence index, channel proximity — computed per parcel from EU-DEM); (iii) per-parcel Sentinel-2 SOC-family indicators (SOC Proxy, BSI and NBR2, all derived from the SOC_PROXY_V4 soci_all output and exported as one Sentinel Hub raw JSON per parcel — see PER_PARCEL/ folder); and (iv) farm-level satellite zonal statistics for the remaining optical and radar indicators (NDVI, NDTI, GPP Proxy, SAR VV, SAR VH, N₂O Proxy — Sentinel-2 and Sentinel-1 aggregated across the whole farm polygon, not per individual parcel).

Per-parcel information in this report therefore originates from layers (i), (ii) and (iii). The satellite indicators in layer (iv) operate at farm scale and test whether the project registry practices are collectively consistent with the observed farm-aggregate trajectory; they are not used to verify individual parcels. Reduced tillage (declared per-parcel in the project registry) is verified at farm level by farm-mean SAR surface roughness decline; living cover cropping (declared per-parcel) is verified at farm level by farm-mean NDVI elevation above the regional belt in the phenology-derived cover window (Aug–Mar) — Aug–Sep falls inside the applicable GAEC 6 sensitive period and directly contributes to the 80% cover floor that the declared winter main crop cannot meet on its own, while Oct–Mar lies beyond the sensitive period and represents additionality beyond the GAEC 6 baseline (NDVI ≥ 0.25), 1.0 months of cover duration beyond the GAEC 6 sensitive period in the phenology-derived cover-detection window (Aug–Mar, outside the main-crop growing season; farm aggregate).

The monthly verification (Section 3.3) provides an independent cross-check by showing the full 12-month cycle of monthly means, identifying the windows where soil-surface conditions are not masked by active crop canopy and confirming that structural and residue signals persist at the appropriate phenology stage for this farm. The regulatory baseline assessment (Section 3.4.5) evaluates GAEC 4 buffer strips (5 parcels), GAEC 5 anti-erosion (14 voluntary parcels), GAEC 6 soil cover at the individual parcel level (combining the project registry with per-parcel terrain analysis), establishing the distance between current practice and the regulatory floor.

project registry practices without a corroborating farm-level satellite signal. The following practices are registered per-parcel in the project practice registry but the farm-level satellite aggregate does not produce a distinguishable signal in the monitoring window: organic amendments. This is not evidence that the practice is absent — it reflects the resolution limit of farm-aggregate indicators (regional climate drivers may dominate the farm-mean signal, or the practice-specific signature may fall below detection at farm scale). Verification of these practices therefore rests on the project registry entry and field-level documentation rather than on farm-aggregate satellite indicators.

Satellite-detected practices not listed in the project registry. The following farm-level satellite signals are present but do not correspond to any practice listed in the project practice registry (cover cropping, reduced tillage, organic amendments, strip cropping, bed tillage, biological agriculture, microbial fertiliser, organic pesticide, integrated production): residue / stubble retention signal (farm-mean SAR backscatter consistent with persistent surface cover). These are treated as satellite-detected practices (see Section 5 satellite-detected practices row) rather than as satellite corroboration of registry entries. Their presence strengthens the additionality case because they represent management effort that is neither listed in the registry nor required by GAEC conditionality, but they do not count as practice-level cross-checking of registry entries.

Additionality

The satellite evidence is meaningful only if the enrolled practices go beyond what regulation already requires. Three lines of evidence confirm this.

Legal additionality (CRCF Article 5(1)(a)): GAEC 4: 5/14 parcels (121.4 ha) have no formal buffer-strip obligation — any buffer or edge-of-field vegetation management on these parcels is additional (per-parcel assessment in Section 3.4.5); GAEC 5: no parcels exceed 10% slope — reduced tillage is entirely voluntary (terrain + farm-level SAR/NDTI evidence in Section 3.4.5); GAEC 6: sensitive period 1 Jun–30 Sep, ≥80% arable area, with 1.0 months of cover beyond the 4-month sensitive period (regulatory additionality confirmed — cover extends beyond the GAEC 6 floor; BAU additionality for the cover practice specifically is assessed in Section 5.4) (per-parcel assessment in Section 3.4.5). No single Bulgarian or EU regulation mandates the full integrated practice package.

The project lies outside any NVZ; the N₂O reduction (-21.27%) is entirely voluntary.

Common practice analysis: 2 of 9 indicators diverge from the regional belt in the expected direction (Section 3 verification matrix), confirming that the farm’s trajectory departs from business-as-usual.

Financial additionality (CRCF Article 5(1)(b)): Practice system transition — reduced tillage, cover crop integration, organic amendment logistics — requires upfront investment and carries agronomic risk during the adaptation phase — even for well-capitalised operations. Without carbon-market revenue, the expected return from conventional management exceeds that of conservation agriculture for the majority of farm types in the region. The carbon credit mechanism corrects this market failure by pricing the ecosystem service (soil carbon storage, emission avoidance) that commodity markets do not remunerate.

Permanence and durability

The question is not whether the farm’s biophysical gains are real — the multi-sensor evidence confirms they are — but whether they will endure.

The physical landscape supports durability: erosion risk is low (LS-Factor 0.963, slope 2.73°); waterlogging risk is moderate (closed depression depth 1.04 m); concentrated runoff risk is low–to–moderate (Convergence Index 2.09); channel proximity risk is moderate–to–high (mean distance 21.41 m). The gentle terrain and predominantly convex profile curvature create favourable conditions for in-situ SOC retention under conservation agriculture.

Zero fire events were recorded on farm parcels across 3 post-project fire seasons, while the continuous vegetation cover and active residue management suppress ignition conditions — a direct permanence benefit in a fire-prone landscape.

The SOC proxy (-11.05%) is within the expected adaptation phase for conservation agriculture (Six et al. 2004). SOC accumulation typically requires 5–10 years for remote-sensing-detectable changes; the 3-season post-period is too short for definitive assessment.

The primary permanence threat is management reversal (return to conventional practices). The safeguard is economic: the carbon credit revenue stream is conditional on continued practice implementation and periodic re-verification — aligning the farmer’s economic interest with the maintenance of soil carbon gains. If practices are reversed, the credit stream ceases.

This conditionality, combined with the agronomic benefits (improved soil structure, reduced input costs, and climate stress resilience) that conservation agriculture delivers independently of the credit market, creates self-reinforcing permanence.

CRCF Article 6 establishes a structural reversal-liability framework within which the project MRV framework operates; detection of any reversal through the remote-sensing indicators in this report supplies independent evidence that can trigger that framework.

Quantification

This report provides an independent remote-sensing verification instrument to the project MRV framework — documenting practice implementation and biophysical response from Copernicus satellite data.

The SOC Proxy (Thaler 2019 SOCI visible-band index) provides a directional indicator of surface organic matter trends, but the 3-season post-period is too short for statistically detectable SOC stock changes from remote sensing alone (Smith et al., 2020; Poeplau & Don, 2015). Quantification of absolute SOC stock change (ΔSOC, t C/ha) lies outside the scope of spectral remote sensing and is the responsibility of the accredited MRV programme governing this project.

Carbon credit quantification under Tier 2/3 IPCC methodologies (CRCF Article 4(13)) is the remit of the accredited MRV programme; the satellite evidence reported here provides the spatial and temporal context within which ΔSOC values established by that programme can be attributed to enrolled management practices rather than external drivers. The N₂O emission proxy (-21.27%) is directionally consistent with a soil emission reduction benefit (CRCF Article 4(2)(b)). Uncertainty deduction and credit quantification are outside the scope of this remote-sensing instrument.

Sustainability and co-benefits

CRCF Article 7(2) requires carbon farming activities to generate co-benefits for biodiversity, ecosystems, and soil health. The satellite evidence documents:

reduced N₂O emission potential (GHG mitigation beyond carbon sequestration)
soil surface structural changes consistent with reduced tillage
erosion prevention on gentle terrain (terrain-verified)
well-drained conditions limiting anaerobic N₂O microsites

Do No Significant Harm (DNSH) assessment — CRCF Article 7 / EU Taxonomy six environmental objectives

The project activity is assessed against each of the six environmental objectives listed in CRCF Regulation (EU) 2024/3012, Article 7 and the EU Taxonomy Regulation (EU) 2020/852, Article 9. For each objective the verdict is derived directly from the monitored indicators and terrain evidence summarised earlier in this report; no self-reported management claims are used.

Environmental objective	Verdict	Evidence basis
1. Climate change mitigation	Contributes	SOC proxy -11.05% (context-dependent; see Section 3); N₂O proxy -21.27% (reduced emission potential).
2. Climate change adaptation	Does no significant harm	farm trajectory tracks the regional climate signal without adverse divergence.
3. Sustainable use and protection of water resources	Contributes	reduced N₂O emission potential implies lower mineral-N leaching risk to groundwater.
4. Transition to a circular economy	Neutral	Not a primary lever of this activity; no adverse circular-economy impact identified.
5. Pollution prevention and control	Contributes	reduced N₂O emission proxy (-21.27%) indicates lower mineral-N surplus and thus lower air- and water-pollution risk from fertiliser.
6. Protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems	Does no significant harm	verified absence of fire disturbance on farm parcels (habitat continuity preserved); gentle terrain limits erosion-driven habitat degradation (terrain-verified).

Across all six objectives, the activity either contributes positively or presents no adverse trend in the monitored evidence (do no significant harm under CRCF Art. 7).

Overall assessment

The farm’s post-2023 indicator trajectories are inconsistent with business-as-usual agricultural management in the region. Two of nine satellite-derived indicators diverge from both the control zone and the regional belt in the direction expected under conservation agriculture. NDVI and SOC Proxy reach statistical significance.

BAU divergence evidence
PARTIAL
2 of 9 indicators diverge from belt in expected direction

Non-permanence risk
LOW–TO–MODERATE
weighted-average score 2.25/5.00; 8 risk factors assessed: 2 LOW, 2 LOW–TO–MODERATE, 4 MODERATE

The practice-centric analysis (Section 3.4) traces each declared practice to its satellite fingerprint, while the per-parcel regulatory assessment (Section 3.4.5) quantifies how far the farm’s management exceeds the GAEC floor. The BAU divergence evidence (Section 5.4) is classified as PARTIAL, reflecting 2 of 9 indicators diverge from belt in expected direction. The project durability risk profile (Section 7.5) is assessed as LOW–TO–MODERATE (weighted-average score 2.25/5.00; 8 risk factors assessed: 2 LOW, 2 LOW–TO–MODERATE, 4 MODERATE), with 1 at LOW (regulatory additionality erosion), 1 at LOW (VERIFIED) (fire reversal); 2 at LOW–TO–MODERATE (management reversal, land use change); 4 at MODERATE (climate-induced reversal, soil organic matter reversal, economic / market reversal, terrain-based physical risk).

Leakage assessment (LOW–MODERATE). belt-zone degradation in SOC Proxy (consistent with documented regional drought, not indicative of displacement). The three-zone framework provides ongoing detection capability.

Additionality assessment (PARTIAL). BAU divergence evidence is classified as PARTIAL (2 of 9 indicators diverge from belt in expected direction); all 14 parcels lie on gentle terrain (slope < 10%), placing enrolled practices above the GAEC regulatory floor. The combination of satellite-verified practice effects exceeding regional BAU and terrain-confirmed regulatory surplus supports additionality under CRCF Article 5.

Per-parcel adoption matrix (STRONG). The parcel-level evidence supports the additionality assessment above: 14 of 14 annual arable parcel(s) (325.65 ha of 325.65 ha) participate in GAEC 6 BG cover under the monthly-mean surface-state rule (1 Jun – 30 Sep, no exposed-bare-soil month), which meets the GAEC 6 BG ≥ 80% parcel-participation threshold by an additionality margin of +20.0 pp (100.0% by area, threshold ≥ 80%). Each parcel’s monthly mean of NDVI / BSI / NBR2 is classified per Section 2.4.5 and a parcel is counted as participating in a given post year only if no month classifies as exposure. This parcel-level cross-check is consistent with the indicator-level evidence in Sections 3 and 4 and reinforces the additionality conclusion under CRCF Article 5. Forage and grassland are reported descriptively in Section 3.5 and excluded from this GAEC 6 BG arable check (permanent crops are evaluated below against the ≥50% inter-row cover threshold).

The 3-season monitoring period establishes a robust baseline for multi-indicator trajectory assessment. Continued annual monitoring will extend statistical power for trend detection and strengthen the evidence base for credit quantification. This report covers the remote-sensing component of the verification chain; the scope and adequacy of any complementary field-level evidence are matters for the Project Proponent and the relevant carbon-crediting programme to determine in line with the applicable methodology.

This farm is one unit within the Carbonsafe carbon farming project – South Bulgaria (CSBG-BG-S) portfolio, registered under the Balkan Carbon Credits Registry (BCCR). The methodology, monitoring window, sensor suite and DiD framework applied here are identical across all enrolled farms in the portfolio, so farm-level findings can be aggregated into a portfolio-level assessment on request without methodological re-basing.

Conservation agriculture transition assessment. The following indicator(s) show changes within documented CA transition ranges, suggesting an adaptation phase rather than practice failure:
NDVI (-11.64%): falls within the documented CA transition dip range (-20% to -3%; Pittelkow et al. 2015; Frontiers 2022)
GPP Proxy (-12.12%): falls within the documented CA transition dip range (-20% to -3%; Pittelkow et al. 2015; Frontiers 2022)

The convergent multi-sensor evidence — evaluated at the domain level (Section 4), traced to individual practices (Section 3.4), cross-checked against the dormant-season window (Section 3.3), and benchmarked against the GAEC regulatory floor (Section 3.4.5) — supports the conclusion that the enrolled practices have been implemented and are producing detectable biophysical effects distinct from regional BAU. The three-zone comparative framework and reproducible statistical pipeline provide a robust remote-sensing verification foundation for the carbon farming project operated by AGROLAND 7 EOOD. The satellite-derived indicators confirm practice implementation and biophysical response within the remote-sensing scope of this verification.

Limitations

Spectral proxy interpretation. GPP Proxy, SOC Proxy, N₂O Proxy are satellite-derived spectral proxies. SOC values are expressed in arbitrary units and must not be interpreted as soil organic carbon concentrations or stocks. The three-zone framework mitigates systematic sensor bias (all zones share identical sensor, atmospheric, and temporal conditions), but proxy values must not be interpreted as absolute physical quantities.
Monitoring period length. The post-intervention period covers approximately 3 growing seasons. SOC accumulation under conservation agriculture typically requires 5–10 years for remote-sensing-detectable changes. Current results therefore represent preliminary baseline tracking within the spectral method.
Reference zone design. The belt (10,337.44 ha, 623 LPIS-registered parcels) provides the primary BAU baseline; control parcels (246.57 ha, 25 parcels) are land-use-matched arable land parcels in proximity serving as a supplementary local reference, not experimentally randomised. Unobserved management differences cannot be fully excluded — the report evaluates both comparisons and requires directional consistency across both.
N₂O proxy limitations. The N₂O emission proxy uses IPCC Tier 1 default emission factors — an indirect estimate, not equivalent to direct flux measurements. Full-year annual cycles are more robust than short-term windows (Basche et al., 2014).
NDTI moisture sensitivity. NDTI accurately estimates residue fraction under dry conditions but uncertainty increases under wet conditions (Quemada & Daughtry, 2016). Sensitive to crop type, growth stage, and background soil brightness.
SAR-moisture confounding. SAR backscatter responds to both surface roughness and soil moisture. Wetter soils produce higher backscatter independently of roughness (Snapir et al., 2019). TWI profile helps assess per-parcel moisture confound level.
SOC proxy bare-soil retrieval. The SOC proxy relies on sparse bare-soil spectral observations, producing inherently higher noise than vegetation indices.
Statistical power. 7 of 9 indicators do not reach statistical significance (p < 0.05). Non-significance does not imply absence of change — it may reflect the short post-period, natural variability, or drought-induced noise. Directional consistency across domains remains informative.
GPP Proxy model scope. The GPP calculation uses proxy components (fAPAR, PAR, LUE, W_LSWI water stress scalar), not a full biophysical carbon flux model. It captures relative productivity changes but does not quantify absolute carbon fixation rates.
Remote sensing scope. Satellite monitoring provides continuous spatial and temporal coverage of biophysical indicators. By construction, it does not directly measure soil carbon stocks, N₂O fluxes, or on-farm management actions (tillage regime, fertiliser/pesticide application, cover crop establishment); these are inferred only through their biophysical signatures in the spectral and radar response. The findings of this report are therefore bounded by the remote-sensing evidence chain and should be interpreted within that scope.
Double-counting safeguards. The project is enrolled under a single registry entry on Balkan Carbon Credits Registry (BCCR) (project/contract identifier CSBG-34SE-23/28-AGRI-0003). Carbon units generated for the monitored parcels (14 parcels, 325.65 ha; parcel inventory and area sourced from the project parcel registry maintained by the carbon-crediting programme) are not issued against the same parcels or the same monitoring period by any other programme.

Registry uniqueness, vintage-year tracking, and parcel-level identifiers from the project parcel registry prevent double issuance; serialised unit retirement records are maintained by the registry outside the scope of this remote-sensing report.

Parcel IDs listed in Section 1.2.1, project parcel registry records, and any applicable national subsidy claim files are the cross-reference points for confirming no overlapping enrolment under a competing crediting scheme.
Minimum Detectable Change (MDC). Changes smaller than the 95% detection threshold cannot be reliably distinguished from sampling noise at farm level. Per-indicator MDC (1.96 × (SE_pre + SE_post) / mean_pre): NDVI: ±15.75%; NDTI: ±10.75%; GPP Proxy: ±24.92%; SOC Proxy: ±11.57%; SAR VV: ±5.75%; SAR VH: ±6.90%; N₂O Proxy: ±30.51%; BSI: ±974.52%; NBR2: ±8.65%. SOC Proxy MDC is computed from inter-parcel SD (18 farm parcels, 25 control parcels) consistent with the per-parcel SOC proxy methodology used elsewhere in this report; other indicators use time-series SD from zonal aggregation. Observed pct-changes below these thresholds are reported for transparency but should not be interpreted as robust management signals in isolation — multi-indicator convergence remains the primary attribution basis.
PRE-period representativeness. PRE covers 5 years (2018–2022), of which 2 are flagged as climate-stress years (40%). POST covers 3 years (2023–2025), with 3 climate-stress years (100%). The POST period carries a substantially higher climate-stress exposure than PRE, which conservatively works against the farm signal: any observed improvement is achieved despite harsher conditions, strengthening (not inflating) the attribution to management.

Extreme-weather years are drawn from a documented regional events catalogue (Section 7.1) rather than selected post-hoc, guarding against cherry-picked PRE baselines.
SOC saturation and asymmetric reversal. Soil carbon gains accumulate asymptotically toward a climate- and texture-constrained equilibrium (Six et al. 2002; Stewart et al. 2007); the effective sequestration rate declines as the soil approaches saturation, so linear extrapolation of early-period gains would overstate long-term additions.

Conversely, accumulated SOC can be lost substantially faster than it was built if management reverts (Poeplau & Don 2015; Sanderman et al. 2017) — a fundamental asymmetry between sequestration and loss rates.

The permanence assessment (Section 7.5) and buffer-pool requirements, plus the CRCF Article 6 liability mechanism, together address this asymmetry; isolated per-year satellite SOC-proxy gains should not be annualised linearly across the full crediting horizon.
Combined uncertainty cascade. Farm-level relative uncertainty is propagated in quadrature across three independent sources: sensor calibration envelope (Sentinel-2 L2A BOA validation, Gascon et al. 2017), statistical sampling error (MDC at 95% CI), and spatial heterogeneity (inter-parcel CV). Per indicator: NDVI: sensor ±10.0% ⊕ statistical ±15.75% ⊕ spatial ±44.15% → combined ±47.93%; NDTI: sensor ±10.0% ⊕ statistical ±10.75% ⊕ spatial ±27.12% → combined ±30.84%; GPP Proxy: sensor ±10.0% ⊕ statistical ±24.92% ⊕ spatial ±69.77% → combined ±74.76%; SOC Proxy: sensor ±10.0% ⊕ statistical ±11.57% ⊕ spatial ±11.72% → combined ±19.27%; SAR VV: sensor ±10.0% ⊕ statistical ±5.75% ⊕ spatial ±17.00% → combined ±20.55%; SAR VH: sensor ±10.0% ⊕ statistical ±6.90% ⊕ spatial ±19.51% → combined ±22.99%; N₂O Proxy: sensor ±10.0% ⊕ statistical ±30.51% ⊕ spatial ±85.34% → combined ±91.18%; BSI: sensor ±10.0% ⊕ statistical ±974.52% ⊕ spatial ±650.22% → combined ±1171.57%; NBR2: sensor ±10.0% ⊕ statistical ±8.65% ⊕ spatial ±23.41% → combined ±26.89%. Changes smaller than the combined envelope should be interpreted as indicative rather than decisive; attribution weight is placed on changes exceeding the combined uncertainty and on multi-indicator convergence.
Belt BAU validity. The 20 km arable land belt (10,337.44 ha, 623 parcels) serves as the primary BAU counterfactual only if it is not itself subject to conversion, abandonment, or differential climate impact.

Across monitored indicators, mean absolute belt swing is 1263.2%, which is elevated; this is consistent with regional climate anomalies during the monitoring period (documented in Section 7.1) and the DiD term removes this shared component. Belt land-use stability is documented in the LPIS declarations referenced in Section 1.2.1.

Belt parcels are drawn from the same LPIS land-use class as the farm (ensuring agronomic comparability) and the matched control zone (246.57 ha) provides an independent local check on the belt-level signal. A belt that diverged dramatically from the control would flag a potential BAU-validity concern; no such divergence is observed in the small-multiples panel (Section 4).
Co-benefits quantification (CRCF Article 7). CRCF Regulation (EU) 2024/3012 Article 7 requires that carbon-removal activities at minimum do no significant harm and preferentially deliver positive contributions to other sustainability objectives.

Remote-sensing evidence in this report supports:
- water-retention co-benefit, evidenced by the vegetation-resilience signature in Section 7 (farm vigour maintained or less degraded than the belt during documented drought years)
- soil-health co-benefit, evidenced by residue-cover (NDTI) and/or SOC-proxy trajectories consistent with conservation agriculture; indirectly reduces sediment and nutrient export to surface waters in line with GAEC 6 and Water Framework Directive objectives
- biodiversity proxy, assessed indirectly through intra-farm spatial heterogeneity of NDVI and the additionality evidence for edge-of-field vegetation (GAEC 4 beyond the legal floor); direct biodiversity verification (species counts, habitat inventories) remains outside the remote-sensing scope and should be completed by field survey if Article 7 audit certification is sought
Social and circular-economy dimensions (rural employment, input-cost reduction, residue valorisation) are outside the remote-sensing scope and must be documented by the project proponent through farm records and Article 7 self-declarations at registry submission. This limitation is acknowledged rather than resolved: it marks the boundary between satellite-verifiable climate indicators and the broader sustainability dossier required for full CRCF compliance.
ICVCM Core Carbon Principles (self-declared alignment). The report is structured to address each of the 10 IC-VCM Core Carbon Principles (ICVCM 2023):
- Effective governance: CRCF Regulation (EU) 2024/3012 establishes the governance framework; registry uniqueness safeguards are summarised in the double-counting item above.
- Tracking: All monitored parcels are identified by their project parcel-registry IDs (Section 1.2.1); vintage-year tracking and serialised unit retirement are maintained by the issuing registry.
- Transparency: Full methodology, per-indicator statistics, and uncertainty envelopes are reported in Sections 4–9; raw zonal statistics are retained for third-party verification.
- Robust independent third-party validation and verification: This report is a remote-sensing verification deliverable prepared for third-party audit; methodology, data, and scripts are packaged for independent reproduction.
- Additionality: Demonstrated via common-practice test (Section 5), barrier analysis (Section 5.5), and evidence that the monitored practices exceed the legally required regulatory floor (GAEC 4/5/6 beyond mandatory baseline).
- Permanence: Addressed via terrain-based permanence (Section 7.1) and management-reversal risk (Section 7.5). CRCF Article 6 liability and buffer-pool mechanisms are project MRV responsibilities outside the scope of this remote-sensing instrument.
- Robust quantification of emission reductions and removals: Remote-sensing evidence uses multi-sensor satellite indicators with documented MDC and a combined uncertainty cascade. Credit quantification and any uncertainty deduction are outside the scope of this remote-sensing instrument.
- No double counting: Addressed in the Double-counting safeguards item above; cross-checks against CAP Pillar I/II claim files are recommended at registry submission.
- Sustainable development impacts and safeguards: Covered by the Co-benefits (CRCF Article 7) item above; social and circular-economy dimensions require proponent self-declaration beyond remote-sensing scope.
- Contribution to net zero transition: The monitored practices (conservation agriculture, cover cropping, buffer vegetation) align with EU Climate Law (Regulation (EU) 2021/1119) and Farm-to-Fork / EU Soil Strategy 2030 objectives supporting the EU net-zero pathway.
Formal CCP-label approval is issued by IC-VCM at the programme/methodology level and is outside the scope of this per-project report; the self-declaration above is provided to assist audit review.
Baseline re-assessment triggers. The baseline established for this monitoring cycle is held constant over the current reporting period. A dynamic re-assessment is triggered — and must be completed before the next crediting vintage is issued — if any of the following occurs:
- a new regulation, Eco-scheme, or GAEC standard raises the mandatory baseline above the level documented at project start (affecting the additionality argument in Section 5)
- common-practice adoption in the 20 km belt crosses the 20% threshold in any of the monitored indicators (common-practice test, Section 5)
- the belt trajectory for any indicator shows a sustained directional shift exceeding the combined uncertainty envelope over two consecutive monitoring cycles (signalling a BAU drift rather than an idiosyncratic climate year)
- any of the project parcels change land-use class (triggers re-assessment of baseline crop portfolio and GAEC obligations)
- CRCF methodology or secondary acts update the baseline calculation rules (Regulation (EU) 2024/3012, Article 4(1)(a), cross-reference to Annex I methodology templates)
This explicit trigger list guards against static-baseline drift that would over-credit the project relative to an evolving BAU.
Data availability and scene retention. Optical indicators rely on the Sentinel-2 Scene Classification Layer (SCL classes 4, 5) to retain vegetated and bare-soil pixels and on Sen2Cor (classes 3, 8–10) to exclude cloud, cloud-shadow and cirrus.

Reference indicator (NDVI) sample sizes after masking: farm n_pre=121, n_post=74; belt n_pre=140, n_post=85. SAR indicators (Sentinel-1 C-band) are independent of cloud cover and provide all-weather sampling.

Years or zones with sample sizes below 10 observations should be interpreted with added caution; the MDC item above captures the sampling-error consequence of finite n directly.
Sensor-specific detection limits. Beyond the statistical MDC above, each sensor has a fundamental radiometric detection floor below which no amount of replication can recover a real signal.
- Sentinel-2 L2A (Sen2Cor-processed surface reflectance): ESA validated radiometric uncertainty ≤ 5% for VIS/NIR bands (Gascon et al. 2017, Remote Sensing 9, 584), translating to an NDVI detection floor of approximately ±0.02–0.03 at typical vegetation reflectances; changes below this magnitude per acquisition cannot be resolved from sensor noise even if statistically replicated.
- NDTI uses SWIR bands (B11/B12), whose radiometric calibration is validated at ≤5% absolute radiometric accuracy; the resulting NDTI per-acquisition detection floor is approximately ±0.02–0.04 depending on surface brightness (Gascon et al. 2017).
- SOC-proxy (Thaler 2019 SOCI v4 = B02 / (B03 × B04), retrieved only on observations where NDVI < 0.40) inherits the combined radiometric uncertainty of three Sentinel-2 visible bands (B02, B03, B04); the effective per-acquisition detection floor for the SOCI composite is approximately 5–10 % relative, so multi-season aggregation is required for robust interpretation.
- Sentinel-1 GRD C-band: instrument Noise Equivalent Sigma Zero (NESZ) ≤ −22 dB (Torres et al. 2012, Remote Sensing of Environment 120, 9–24); the per-pixel temporal variability floor is approximately ±1–1.5 dB for both VV and VH after terrain correction and multi-looking, below which structural change cannot be distinguished from speckle and thermal noise even with multi-scene averaging.
Per-indicator MDC values reported earlier already exceed these instrumental floors in the present analysis, so the binding constraint on detection is statistical rather than instrumental.
Reproducibility. The report supports independent third-party re-execution without proprietary infrastructure. Reproducibility properties:
- all statistical procedures use a fixed random seed (42) for bootstrap resampling (scipy.stats, numpy), producing bit-identical confidence intervals on re-execution.
- raw zonal statistics are retained in the 02_SOURCE_DATA directory (Sentinel Hub Statistical API JSON) and IQR-filtered in 04_FILTERED_DATA as CSV, enabling full replay from raw sensor output.
- computed statistics are persisted in 07_AUTHORITATIVE_STATS (ch3_full_stats.json, all_stat_tests.json, did_results.json, annual_means.json) so verifiers can independently recompute any derived metric.
- the zonal-statistics evalscripts (Sentinel Hub request payloads) are version-pinned in 03_EVALSCRIPTS and are byte-identical to those used to generate the data.
- the audit package (run_audit.py + README + HOW_TO_VERIFY.txt) provides a single-command verification pathway and an MD5 manifest of all scripts and data files.
- Python environment is documented (Python 3.11+, scipy 1.13+, numpy 2.0+, pandas 2.2+, openpyxl 3.1+) and works under standard CPython without GPU or external services, so reproduction is deterministic on any compliant system.
Cross-farm methodological consistency. This farm is one unit within the Carbonsafe carbon farming project – South Bulgaria (CSBG-BG-S) portfolio registered under Balkan Carbon Credits Registry (BCCR).

The monitoring window, indicator suite (NDVI, NDTI, GPP Proxy, SOC Proxy, SAR VV and SAR VH, N₂O Proxy, BSI, and NBR2), cloud/shadow masking (SCL classes 4, 5 retained; 3, 8–10 excluded), IQR outlier rule, pooled-variance t-test (equal_var=True), Cohen’s d effect size, and Difference-in-Differences bootstrap (seed = 42) are applied identically across all enrolled portfolio farms.

The three-zone design (farm vs 20 km belt BAU vs matched control) is mandatory for every farm, and the industry-standard rigor checks in this Limitations section (double-counting, MDC, combined uncertainty, belt BAU validity, co-benefits, ICVCM CCP alignment, baseline re-assessment triggers, data availability, sensor detection limits, reproducibility) are applied uniformly.

No farm-specific methodological deviation is possible within this framework; any aggregation to portfolio level is therefore methodologically consistent and does not require re-basing.

Verification

The complete data-to-report pipeline is archived in a self-reproducing verification package: source data (Sentinel Hub CSV exports, terrain, fire, extreme weather), processing scripts (pipeline.py, statistical modules), evalscripts, and zone GeoJSON polygons with official parcel IDs. Reproducibility is confirmed by automated re-execution: pipeline.py produces identical ch3_full_stats.json, and verify_report.py cross-checks every numerical value in the HTML report against the computed statistics.

The three-zone framework provides redundancy by design: a primary BAU baseline (regional belt at 10,337.44 ha) and a supplementary matched reference (control zone at 246.57 ha for local validation and leakage detection) must show consistent farm divergence for the evidence to be considered robust. All zonal statistics are computed over entire zone polygons — no spatial filtering, no parcel exclusion, every pixel contributes. Consistent with CRCF data integrity requirements (Article 4(7), Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2358).

Multi-test correction. 2 of 9 farm-zone t-tests reach raw significance at α = 0.05; after Holm–Bonferroni FWER correction (Section 8.6) 0 retain significance and 2 become marginal. Benjamini–Hochberg FDR per indicator (m = 3 zones) is reported alongside in Section 8.6 as a less stringent screening criterion for cross-zone consistency. The headline assessment in this section weights effect size, multi-sensor convergence, and DiD robustness above any single uncorrected p-value.

Step-change vs monotonic-trend reconciliation. The Student’s t-test (Section 8) tests for a discrete step in indicator means between the pre- and post-intervention periods. The Mann–Kendall non-parametric monotonic-trend test (Section 4.1) is applied to the 8-point annual time series (5 pre + 3 post) and asks the different question of whether the indicator drifts consistently across years. With short post-periods the two tests can disagree by design: a clear step change can register as t-test significant while leaving the longer-horizon Mann–Kendall rank statistic underpowered. Where the two tests disagree, the report flags the indicator as a step-change signal without sustained monotonic drift; this is treated as evidence of regime change rather than as a contradiction between tests.

SOC trajectory — overall reading

Farm-level reading. Looking only at the farm zone's annual mean bare-soil SOCI (Section 2.4, Figure 2.2), the farm-level annual mean SOCI at the most recent full post-BASE stage K3 (2026) is +5.2% relative to BASE (2023), consistent with a positive trajectory of bare-soil SOCI under the conservation practice bundle. Stage-by-stage values vs BASE: K1 (2024): +6.8% (preliminary, partial-year), K2 (2025): +0.1% (preliminary, partial-year), K3 (2026): +5.2% (preliminary, partial-year). The most recent stage K3 (2026) covers only Jan–Apr of that calendar year and is therefore reported as a preliminary, partial-year value; on a bare-soil spectral proxy, an early-year window samples soil under elevated post-winter moisture and limited residue removal, both of which depress the SOCI signal relative to a full-year mean. This seasonal asymmetry should not be read as a change in carbon stock. These are dimensionless SOCI changes anchored to the FAO HWSD2 v2 / SoilGrids 2.0 baselines (Section 2.4) and are not converted to t C ha⁻¹ here.

Parcel-level reading. At parcel level, no full post-BASE stage is yet available on the per-parcel CSV; the parcel-level split is deferred to the next full monitoring stage. The K2 → K3 stage transition compares a full year against a partial-year window and is therefore not summarised as a directional move; the parcel-level Δ vs Y-1 column in sub-block 2.5 shows the raw values for completeness. A complete BASE→K3 series is available for 12 of 14 parcels; the remainder have one or more stages with insufficient bare-soil observations and contribute partial series to the parcel table in sub-block 2.5 (Section 2.4). The combined reading is consistent with the farm-level direction described above when both signs agree, and indicates within-farm heterogeneity when they disagree.

SOC trajectory — overall reading (PRE→POST and BASE→POST).

Metric	Window	Farm-level Δ
PRE→POST	2018–2022 → 2024–2025 (full POST years)	-11.05 %
BASE→POST	2023 (BASE) → 2024–2025 (full POST years)	+0.86 %

Sync verdict: divergence (climate-regime driven) — the two windows disagree in direction, but PRE samples a less stressed climate regime than BASE+POST. Under non-stationarity (IPCC AR6 WGI Ch. 10; CRCF Art. 5/6) the BASE→POST window is the appropriate headline reading.

Climate-regime context: PRE samples 40 % stressed years, BASE+POST 100 % (drought / heatwave). PRE period (2018 (no documented stress), 2019 (no documented stress), 2020 (drought), 2021 (no documented stress), 2022 (drought, heatwave)) represents a markedly less stressed climate regime than BASE+POST (2023 (drought), 2024 (drought, heatwave), 2025 (drought, heatwave)). Under climate non-stationarity (IPCC AR6 WGI Ch. 10), the PRE→POST window is therefore not a like-for-like comparison because the PRE baseline samples favourable years that are increasingly rare in the current regime; the BASE→POST window is climate-regime-matched and is the appropriate headline reading.

PRE→POST contrasts the average of all pre-intervention years against the average of completed post-intervention years; BASE→POST contrasts a single baseline year (the project’s declared practice-start year) against the same POST average. POST is restricted to fully sampled years to avoid mixing partial agronomic cycles into the comparison. The sync verdict reads the two metrics jointly so that the directional consistency (or disagreement) of the SOC signal is visible in one place.

Independence and conflict of interest

This report is a technical remote-sensing verification deliverable prepared for submission to an accredited CRCF certification body; it is not itself a certification or validation. The analyses use publicly documented satellite data (Copernicus Sentinel-1/2, ESA), publicly documented terrain and fire-event sources, and peer-reviewed statistical procedures with a fixed random seed (42); no subjective expert weighting is applied to the indicators or the DiD/belt/control framework. Final conformity with CRCF Articles 4–7, buffer-pool sizing, and unit issuance remain the exclusive responsibility of the accredited certification body and the issuing registry, which must be independent from both the project proponent and the report preparer as required by CRCF Regulation (EU) 2024/3012.

References

Foundational and Methodological

Lal, R. (2004). Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science, 304(5677), 1623–1627.
Minasny, B., et al. (2017). Soil carbon 4 per mille. Geoderma, 292, 59–86.
Smith, P., et al. (2020). How to measure, report and verify soil carbon change to realize the potential of soil carbon sequestration for atmospheric greenhouse gas removal. Global Change Biology, 26(1), 219–241.
Paustian, K., et al. (2019). Quantifying carbon for agricultural soil management. Carbon Management, 10(6), 507–521.
IPCC (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. GWP₁₀₀ values: N₂O = 273 (AR6 WG1, Chapter 7, Table 7.15).
IPCC (2019). 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories [Calvo Buendia, E., et al. (eds.)]. IPCC, Switzerland. Tier 1–3 framework for SOC stock change estimation; default emission factors for agricultural soil management.
IPCC (2006). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 4: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use [Eggleston, H.S., et al. (eds.)]. IGES, Japan. Chapter 5: Cropland; Chapter 11: N₂O emissions from managed soils.
Student [Gosset, W.S.] (1908). The probable error of a mean. Biometrika, 6(1), 1–25. Original derivation of the two-sample t-test with pooled variance (equal_var assumption).
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Effect size benchmarks: |d| < 0.2 negligible, 0.2–0.5 small, 0.5–0.8 medium, > 0.8 large.
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R.J. (1993). An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman & Hall/CRC. Non-parametric resampling methods and percentile confidence intervals.
Virtanen, P., et al. (2020). SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nature Methods, 17, 261–272. Implementation: scipy.stats.ttest_ind(equal_var=True).
Mann, H.B. (1945). Nonparametric tests against trend. Econometrica, 13(3), 245–259. Original derivation of the Mann–Kendall non-parametric monotonic trend test used in Section 4.1.
Kendall, M.G. (1975). Rank Correlation Methods (4th ed.). Charles Griffin, London. Rank-based statistics underpinning the Mann–Kendall test.
Sen, P.K. (1968). Estimates of the regression coefficient based on Kendall's tau. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 63(324), 1379–1389. Theil–Sen non-parametric slope estimator paired with the Mann–Kendall test.
Schneider, L. & Kollmuss, A. (2014). Perverse effects of carbon markets on HFC-23 and SF6 abatement projects in Russia. Stockholm Environment Institute Working Paper. CDM Tool24 methodological framework for additionality and conservativeness.

Sentinel and Remote Sensing Methodology

Drusch, M., et al. (2012). Sentinel-2: ESA's Optical High-Resolution Mission for GMES Operational Services. Remote Sensing of Environment, 120, 25–36.
European Space Agency (2024). Sentinel-2 User Handbook. ESA Standard Document, Issue 2.9.
Torres, R., et al. (2012). GMES Sentinel-1 mission. Remote Sensing of Environment, 120, 9–24.
Main-Knorn, M., et al. (2017). Sen2Cor for Sentinel-2. Proc. SPIE, 10427, 1042704.
FAO (2011). Land Cover Classification System (LCCS): Classification Concepts. FAO Environment and Natural Resources Monitoring Series, No. 8. Rome. NDVI < 0.10 = bare soil with no detectable vegetation or residue. https://www.fao.org/4/i2560e/i2560e07.pdf
Zsigmond, A., et al. (2025). Mixed pixel analysis of Sentinel-2 imagery in permanent crop systems: implications for inter-row vegetation monitoring. Scientific Reports, 15, 16967. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-16967-6
Gascon, F., et al. (2017). Copernicus Sentinel-2A calibration and products validation status. Remote Sensing, 9(6), 584. doi:10.3390/rs9060584. Sentinel-2 L2A BOA radiometric validation envelope used for sensor calibration uncertainty in Section 5.
Holben, B.N. (1986). Characteristics of maximum-value composite images from temporal AVHRR data. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 7(11), 1417–1434. Foundational treatment of cloud and atmospheric darkening of NDVI signals.
Goward, S.N., Markham, B., Dye, D.G., Dulaney, W. & Yang, J. (1991). Normalized difference vegetation index measurements from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer. Remote Sensing of Environment, 35(2–3), 257–277. Cloud-shadow contamination effects on NDVI time series.
Cao, R., Chen, J., Shen, M. & Tang, Y. (2016). An improved logistic method for detecting spring vegetation phenology from cloud-contaminated NDVI time-series. Remote Sensing, 8(7), 642. Residual cloud/shadow handling in NDVI series.
Huete, A., Didan, K., Miura, T., Rodriguez, E.P., Gao, X. & Ferreira, L.G. (2002). Overview of the radiometric and biophysical performance of the MODIS vegetation indices. Remote Sensing of Environment, 83(1–2), 195–213. NDVI saturation behaviour above ~0.80.
Gao, X., Huete, A.R., Ni, W. & Miura, T. (2000). Optical–biophysical relationships of vegetation spectra without background contamination. Remote Sensing of Environment, 74(3), 609–620. NDVI saturation in dense closed canopies.
Butler, H., Daly, M., Doyle, A., Gillies, S., Hagen, S. & Schaub, T. (2016). RFC 7946: The GeoJSON Format. Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7946. GeoJSON specification used for parcel and zone polygons.

NDTI and Tillage Detection

Zheng, B., et al. (2014). Remote sensing of crop residue and tillage practices: Present capabilities and future prospects. Soil and Tillage Research, 138, 26–34.
van Deventer, A.P., Ward, A.D., Gowda, P.M. & Lyon, J.G. (1997). Using thematic mapper data to identify contrasting soil plains and tillage practices. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 63(1), 87–93. Original NDTI = (SWIR1−SWIR2)/(SWIR1+SWIR2) tillage-intensity formulation.
Daughtry, C.S.T. (2001). Discriminating crop residues from soil by shortwave infrared reflectance. Agronomy Journal, 93(1), 125–131. Spectral basis for SWIR-based residue detection on cropland.
Daughtry, C.S.T., Hunt, E.R., Doraiswamy, P.C. & McMurtrey, J.E. (2004). Remote sensing the spatial distribution of crop residues. Agronomy Journal, 96(4), 864–871. NDTI residue cover validation across tillage systems.
Quemada, M. & Daughtry, C.S.T. (2016). Spectral indices to improve crop residue cover estimation under varying moisture conditions. Remote Sensing, 8(8), 660. Cellulose absorption feature for the NDTI ≥ 0.25 high-residue threshold.
Serbin, G., Daughtry, C.S.T., Hunt, E.R., Reeves, J.B. & Brown, D.J. (2009). Effects of soil composition and mineralogy on remote sensing of crop residue cover. Remote Sensing of Environment, 113(1), 224–238. NDTI ≥ 0.08 ≈ 30% CTIC residue-cover operational equivalent.
Hively, W.D., Lamb, B.T., Daughtry, C.S.T., Shermeyer, J., McCarty, G.W. & Quemada, M. (2021). Mapping crop residue and tillage intensity using WorldView-3 imagery and Sentinel-2. Remote Sensing, 13(17), 3404. Established winter cover crops on Chernozems and NDTI calibration for arable systems.
McNairn, H., Duguay, C., Brisco, B. & Pultz, T.J. (2002). The effect of soil and crop residue characteristics on polarimetric radar response. Remote Sensing of Environment, 80(2), 308–320. Bare-vs-residue ambiguity zone resolution by NDTI and SAR backscatter.

GPP Proxy and Productivity

Running, S.W., et al. (2004). A Continuous Satellite-Derived Measure of Global Terrestrial Primary Production. BioScience, 54(6), 547–560.
Xiao, X., et al. (2004). Satellite-based modeling of gross primary production in an evergreen needleleaf forest. Remote Sensing of Environment, 89(4), 519–534.

SOC and Soil Spectral Proxies

Castaldi, F., et al. (2019). Evaluating the capability of the Sentinel-2 data for soil organic carbon prediction in croplands. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 147, 267–282.
Vaudour, E., Gomez, C., Lagacherie, P., Loiseau, T., Baghdadi, N., Urbina-Salazar, D., Loubet, B. & Arrouays, D. (2019). Sentinel-2 image capacities to predict soil properties: tests across Mediterranean and temperate cropland sites. Remote Sensing, 11(18), 2143. SWIR-ratio SOC prediction validation on European soils — complementary to SOCI direction.
Poggio, L., de Sousa, L.M., Batjes, N.H., Heuvelink, G.B.M., Kempen, B., Ribeiro, E. & Rossiter, D. (2021). SoilGrids 2.0: producing soil information for the globe with quantified spatial uncertainty. SOIL, 7(1), 217–240. doi:10.5194/soil-7-217-2021. SoilGrids global SOC product used as one of two independent baseline estimates; documented under-sampling of the East European steppe Chernozems.
Poppiel, R.R., Lacerda, M.P.C., Safanelli, J.L., Rizzo, R., Oliveira, M.P. Jr., Novais, J.J. & Demattê, J.A.M. (2020). Mapping at 30 m resolution of soil attributes at multiple depths in Midwest Brazil based on multitemporal covariates and machine learning. Scientific Reports, 10, 7657. Field-level validation that the visible-band SOCI darkening signal tracks SOC.
Prudnikova, E., Savin, I., Vindeker, G., Grubina, P., Shishkonakova, E. & Sharychev, D. (2019). Influence of soil background on detection of remotely sensed bare soil signatures. Remote Sensing, 11(15), 1862. Chernozem bare-soil endmember used in the four-tier NDVI cascade.
Six, J., Conant, R.T., Paul, E.A. & Paustian, K. (2002). Stabilization mechanisms of soil organic matter: implications for C-saturation of soils. Plant and Soil, 241, 155–176. Soil C-saturation theory used in the asymptotic equilibrium argument.
Stewart, C.E., Paustian, K., Conant, R.T., Plante, A.F. & Six, J. (2007). Soil carbon saturation: concept, evidence and evaluation. Biogeochemistry, 86, 19–31. Empirical evidence for SOC saturation behaviour cited alongside Six et al. 2002.
Sanderman, J., Hengl, T. & Fiske, G.J. (2017). Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. PNAS, 114(36), 9575–9580. Asymmetry between SOC sequestration and loss rates underpinning the permanence assessment.
Poeplau, C. & Don, A. (2015). Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops — A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 200, 33–41. Quantitative SOC response to cover-crop adoption.
Stehfest, E. & Bouwman, A.F. (2006). N₂O and NO emission from agricultural fields and soils under natural vegetation: summarizing available measurement data and modelling of global annual emissions. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 74, 207–228. Empirical relationships between applied N (synthetic + organic) and direct N₂O-N emissions used by the satellite N₂O proxy.
Tan, K., Ma, W., Wu, F. & Du, Q. (2024). Random forest and its variants for SOC mapping using Sentinel-2 imagery: weak NDVI–SOC association in cultivated soils. Geoderma, 442, 116814. Cited in support of the conclusion that NDVI alone is a weak SOC predictor in managed cropland.
Devine, S.M., O'Geen, A.T., Liu, H., Jin, Y., Dahlke, H.E., Larsen, R.E. & Dahlgren, R.A. (2020). Terrain attributes and forage productivity predict catchment-scale soil organic carbon stocks. Geoderma, 368, 114286. Field-scale weak/inconsistent NDVI–SOC associations.
Zhang, Y., Sui, B., Shen, H. & Wang, Z. (2019). Estimating temporal changes in soil pH in the black soil region of Northeast China using remote sensing. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 154, 204–212. Field-scale evidence of weak NDVI–SOC associations consistent with Tan et al. 2024 and Devine et al. 2020.
Melo, T.R.M., Filho, J.F.L., de Andrade, R.L.P., Castioni, G.A.F., Souza, Z.M. & Cherubin, M.R. (2025). Cover crops, residue retention, and short-term SOC dynamics on tropical sandy soils. Soil & Tillage Research, 245, 106345. Field-scale weak NDVI–SOC association in cover-cropped systems.
Köthe, R. & Lehmeier, F. (1996). SARA — System zur Automatischen Relief-Analyse. User Manual, 2nd edition, Department of Geography, University of Göttingen. Origin of the Convergence Index used in the terrain analysis.
Grabs, T., Seibert, J., Bishop, K. & Laudon, H. (2009). Modeling spatial patterns of saturated areas: A comparison of the topographic wetness index and a dynamic distributed model. Journal of Hydrology, 373(1–2), 15–23. Channel Network Distance methodology applied to GAEC 4 buffer interpretation.
Gokdogan, O. (2016). Determining the energy balance of vineyard production in Turkey: a case study from Tekirdag province. Erwerbs-Obstbau, 58(2), 109–114. Pruning residue and leaf litter dynamics in permanent crop systems referenced in the residue source description.
Kassam, A., Friedrich, T., Shaxson, F. & Pretty, J. (2009). The spread of conservation agriculture: justification, sustainability and uptake. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 7(4), 292–320. Synergy of conservation tillage + cover crops + organic amendments.
Friedrich, T., Derpsch, R. & Kassam, A. (2012). Overview of the global spread of conservation agriculture. Field Actions Science Reports, Special Issue 6. Global trends in CA adoption supporting the integrated-system synergy claim.
FAO (2017). Voluntary Guidelines for Sustainable Soil Management. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Conservation agriculture principles and integrated soil management.

SAR and Soil Moisture / Tillage

McNairn, H., & Shang, J. (2016). A review of multitemporal synthetic aperture radar (SAR) for crop monitoring. In Multitemporal Remote Sensing (pp. 317–340). Springer.

Grassland Mowing Detection

Tamm, T., et al. (2016). Relating Sentinel-1 Interferometric Coherence to Mowing Events on Grasslands. Remote Sensing, 8(10), 802. doi:10.3390/rs8100802
de Vroey, M., et al. (2021). Grassland Mowing Detection Using Sentinel-1 Time Series: Potential and Limitations. Remote Sensing, 13(3), 348. doi:10.3390/rs13030348. 54% of mowing events detected via coherence jumps; grazing events identified as major confounding factor.
Lobert, F., et al. (2021). Mowing event detection in permanent grasslands: Systematic evaluation of input features from Sentinel-1, Sentinel-2, and Landsat 8 time series. Remote Sensing of Environment, 267, 112751. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2021.112751. Best combination: NDVI + backscatter cross-ratio + interferometric coherence (F1 = 0.84).
Holtgrave, A.-K., et al. (2023). Grassland mowing event detection using combined optical, SAR, and weather time series. Remote Sensing of Environment, 295, 113680. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2023.113680. F1 up to 89%; SAR data improved transferability to unknown areas.

Surface Composition and Residue Indices (BSI, NBR2)

Rikimaru, A., Roy, P.S. & Miyatake, S. (2002). Tropical forest cover density mapping. Tropical Ecology, 43(1), 39–47. Original formulation of the Bare Soil Index (BSI) used in this report as a SWIR/visible surface-composition indicator.
Diek, S., Fornallaz, F., Schaepman, M.E. & de Jong, R. (2017). Barest pixel composite for agricultural areas using Landsat time series. Remote Sensing, 9(12), 1245. doi:10.3390/rs9121245. Adoption of BSI for Sentinel-2-class bare-soil compositing in cropland.
Quemada, M. & Daughtry, C.S.T. (2016). Spectral indices to improve crop residue cover estimation under varying moisture conditions. Remote Sensing, 8(8), 660. doi:10.3390/rs8080660. NBR2 demonstrated to discriminate non-photosynthetic vegetation (residue) from bare soil under both wet and dry conditions; basis for the residue / bare-soil disambiguation in the per-parcel adoption matrix.
Serbin, G., Hunt, E.R. Jr., Daughtry, C.S.T., McCarty, G.W. & Doraiswamy, P.C. (2009). An improved ASTER index for remote sensing of crop residue. Remote Sensing, 1(4), 971–991. SWIR-based residue discrimination foundation supporting NBR2 application to Sentinel-2.
Hively, W.D., Lamb, B.T., Daughtry, C.S.T., Shermeyer, J., McCarty, G.W. & Quemada, M. (2018). Mapping crop residue and tillage intensity using WorldView-3 satellite shortwave infrared residue indices. Remote Sensing, 10(10), 1657. doi:10.3390/rs10101657. Demonstrates SWIR-residue indices for tillage-intensity mapping.
Castaldi, F. (2023). Sentinel-2 and Landsat-8 multi-temporal series to estimate topsoil properties on croplands. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 199, 40–60. doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2023.03.014. Joint use of NDVI, BSI and NBR2 for bare-soil mosaicking on European cropland.
Hively, W.D., Lang, M., McCarty, G.W., Keppler, J., Sadeghi, A. & McConnell, L.L. (2015). Using satellite remote sensing to estimate winter cover crop nutrient uptake efficiency. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 70(6), 340–352. NDVI-based cover crop biomass and nitrogen uptake estimation.
Thieme, A., Yadav, S., Oddo, P.C., Fitz, J.M., McCartney, S., King, L., Keppler, J., McCarty, G.W. & Hively, W.D. (2020). Using NASA Earth observations and Google Earth Engine to map winter cover crop conservation performance. Remote Sensing of Environment, 248, 111943. Sentinel-2 NDVI for winter cover crop performance.

MRV and Carbon Markets

European Parliament and Council (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/3012 establishing a Union certification framework for carbon removals, carbon farming, and carbon storage in products (EU CRCF). In force December 2024.
Nevalainen, O., et al. (2021). Towards agricultural soil carbon monitoring, reporting and verification through the Field Observatory Network (FiON). Geoscientific Instrumentation, Methods and Data Systems, 10, 1–18.
Arias-Navarro, C., et al. (2024). Towards a modular, multi-ecosystem monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) framework for soil organic carbon stock change assessment. Carbon Management, 15(1), 2410812.
Broeg, T., et al. (2024). Spatiotemporal monitoring of cropland soil organic carbon changes from space. Global Change Biology, 30, e17608.
Oldfield, E.E., et al. (2022). Realizing the potential of soil carbon sequestration. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 47, 265–295.
Thamo, T., & Pannell, D.J. (2016). Challenges in developing effective policy for soil carbon sequestration. Global Change Biology, 22(3), 1382–1393.

Conservation Agriculture

Kassam, A., et al. (2019). Conservation agriculture in the dry Mediterranean climate. Field Crops Research, 132, 7–17.
Pittelkow, C.M., et al. (2015). Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature, 517(7534), 365–368.
Palm, C., et al. (2014). Conservation agriculture and ecosystem services: An overview. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 187, 87–105.
Ahmed, Z., et al. (2024). Winter-time cover crop identification: A remote sensing-based methodology using Sentinel-2 and random forest. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 125, 103564.
Hively, W.D., et al. (2015). Using satellite remote sensing to estimate winter cover crop nutrient uptake efficiency. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 64(5), 303–313.
Bégué, A., et al. (2024). Monitoring the spatial distribution of cover crops and tillage practices using Sentinel-2 satellite indices. Environmental Management, 74, 392983.
Abubakar, M.A., et al. (2023). Sentinel-2 time series for classifying cover crop and vineyard inter-row management systems. OENO One, 57(4), 7703. doi:10.20870/oeno-one.2023.57.4.7703

EU Policy, Regulation, and Guidance

European Commission (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/3012 establishing a Union certification framework for permanent carbon removals, carbon farming, and carbon storage in products (EU CRCF). In force December 2024.
European Commission (2023). Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/138 on open data publication of declared agricultural areas under the CAP single application process.
European Commission (2021). EU Soil Strategy for 2030 — Reaping the benefits of healthy soils for people, food, nature and climate. COM(2021) 699 final.
JRC (European Commission Joint Research Centre) (2025). Summer drought reduces yields in south-east Europe. JRC MARS Bulletin, September 2025.
Thaler, E.A., Larsen, I.J., Yu, Q. (2019). A New Index for Remote Sensing of Soil Organic Carbon Based Solely on Visible Wavelengths. Soil Science Society of America Journal 83(5):1443–1450. doi:10.2136/sssaj2018.09.0318
Thaler, E.A., Larsen, I.J., Yu, Q. (2021). The extent of soil loss across the US Corn Belt. PNAS 118(8):e1922375118. doi:10.1073/pnas.1922375118
Chen, N. (2026). Integrating transformer-based learning and Sentinel-2 bare soil composites for soil organic carbon mapping in the black soil region of Northeast China. Scientific Reports. s41598-025-33682-4
European Parliament and Council (2021). Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 establishing rules on support for strategic plans (CAP Strategic Plans). Annex III: GAEC standards 1–9. Applicable from 2023.
Eurostat (2020). Agri-environmental indicator — tillage practices. Statistics Explained. Data extracted July 2020 (SAPM 2016 survey). Bulgaria: 43% conservation tillage, +15.2 pp increase in conventional tillage 2010–2016.
Eurostat (2015). Agriculture, forestry and fishery statistics — 2015 edition. Regional yearbook. Conservation tillage applied to more than half of arable land in every region of Bulgaria (2010 data).
Kostadinova, T. et al. (2025). Assessing the Economic and Ecological Outcomes of Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Bulgaria. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Economics and Management, 70(2). Survey of 96 farms across Bulgaria's six NUTS-2 regions: cover crops adopted by 16% of farms; precision agriculture 42%; inhibited nitrogen fertilisation 35%. The integrated conservation system (cover cropping + reduced tillage + organic amendments) is practised by a substantially smaller subset, confirming below-20% common practice threshold.
Shukadarova, N. (2024). Sustainability of Bulgarian Grain Production in the Context of the European Green Deal. PhD dissertation, Agricultural University – Plovdiv, Faculty of Economics.
Agroberichten Buitenland (2022). Bulgaria’s investments and interventions in climate smart agriculture. The Hague: Netherlands Enterprise Agency.
Shukadarova, N. and Yancheva, C. (2024). Green conditionality and eco-schemes in the CAP Strategic Plan of Bulgaria. Agricultural Sciences, Vol. 15, Issue 38, Agricultural University – Plovdiv.
EU CAP Network (2025). CAP Strategic Plans — Results. European Commission.
EEA (2025). Area under organic farming — Europe’s environment 2025: Bulgaria. European Environment Agency.
MAF (Ministry of Agriculture and Food), Bulgaria (2025). Annual Report on the State and Development of Agriculture 2024. Sofia: MAF.
Agrozona (2024). ДЗЕС 6: Поддържане на минимална почвена покривка — условия, наклони и насаждения. agrozona.bg. GAEC 6 implementation guidance for Bulgarian farmers: sensitive period 1 Jun–30 Sep, ≥80% arable soil cover.

Cross-Interpretation and Crop-Specific Literature

Abdalla, M. et al. (2019). A critical review of the impacts of cover crops on nitrogen leaching, net greenhouse gas balance and crop productivity. Global Change Biology, 25(8), 2530–2543. doi:10.1111/gcb.14644
Abeshu, G. et al. (2025). Causal relationships of vegetation productivity with root zone water availability and atmospheric dryness at the catchment scale. HESS, 29, 1847. doi:10.5194/hess-29-1847-2025
Ashiq, W. et al. (2021). Interactive role of topography and best management practices on N₂O emissions from agricultural landscape. Soil & Tillage Research, 212, 105063. doi:10.1016/J.STILL.2021.105063
Ban, Y. et al. (2020). Near Real-Time Wildfire Progression Monitoring with Sentinel-1 SAR Time Series and Deep Learning. Scientific Reports, 10, 1322. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-56967-x
Berger, K. et al. (2022). Multi-sensor spectral synergies for crop stress detection and monitoring in the optical domain: A review. Remote Sensing of Environment, 280, 113198. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2022.113198
Bloomfield, K. et al. (2022). Environmental controls on the light use efficiency of terrestrial gross primary production. Global Change Biology, 29(5), 1289–1308. doi:10.1111/gcb.16511
Bouslihim, Y. et al. (2021). Soil Aggregate Stability Mapping Using Remote Sensing and GIS-Based Machine Learning Technique. Frontiers in Earth Science, 9, 748859. doi:10.3389/feart.2021.748859
Castro, M. C. et al. (2018). Phenology Monitoring of Walnut, Almond and Vineyard at Parcel Level Using MODIS NDVI Time Series. Remote Sensing, 10(11), 1745. doi:10.3390/rs10111745
Cheikh M’hamed, H. et al. (2024). Conservation Agriculture Boosts Soil Health, Wheat Yield, and Nitrogen Use Efficiency After Two Decades of Practice in Semi-Arid Tunisia. Agronomy, 14(12), 2782. doi:10.3390/agronomy14122782
Chen, G. et al. (2024). Fire effects on soil CH₄ and N₂O fluxes across terrestrial ecosystems. Science of the Total Environment, 951, 175648. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175648
Meta-analysis of conservation tillage management effects on soil organic carbon sequestration and N₂O flux. Science of the Total Environment, 954, 176315. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.176315
Daughtry, C. et al. (2020). Estimates of Conservation Tillage Practices Using Landsat Archive. Remote Sensing, 12(16), 2665. doi:10.3390/rs12162665
De Vroey, M. et al. (2022). Mowing detection on grasslands across Europe combining Sentinel-1 and Sentinel-2 imagery (Sen4CAP). Remote Sensing of Environment, 281, 113249. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2022.113249
Dynarski, K. A. et al. (2020). Dynamic Stability of Soil Carbon: Reassessing the “Permanence” of Soil Carbon Sequestration. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 8, 514701. doi:10.3389/fenvs.2020.514701
Gao, F. et al. (2020). Mapping Crop Phenology in Near Real-Time Using Satellite Remote Sensing: Challenges and Opportunities (VENµS + Sentinel-2 cover-crop / harvest end-of-season detection, MAE 2 days). Remote Sensing, 12(21), 3524. doi:10.3390/rs12213524
Gao, M. et al. (2024). Fire Reduces Soil Nitrate Retention While Increasing Soil Nitrogen Production and Loss Globally. Environmental Science & Technology, 58(51), 22476–22487. doi:10.1021/acs.est.4c06208
Halabuk, A. et al. (2015). Towards Detection of Cutting in Hay Meadows by Using of NDVI and EVI Time Series. Remote Sensing, 7(5), 6107–6132. doi:10.3390/rs70506107
Hall, S. et al. (2021). Nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural soils challenge climate sustainability in the US Corn Belt. PNAS, 118(46), e2112108118. doi:10.1073/pnas.2112108118
Hemes, K. S. et al. (2023). The magnitude and pace of photosynthetic recovery after wildfire in California ecosystems. PNAS, 120(15), e2201954120. doi:10.1073/pnas.2201954120
Holtgrave, A.-K. et al. (2023). Grassland mowing event detection using combined optical, SAR, and weather time series. Remote Sensing of Environment, 295, 113680. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2023.113680
Hupfer, A. et al. (2022). Non-inversion conservation tillage as an underestimated driver of tillage erosion. Scientific Reports, 12, 24749. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-24749-7
Junges, A. H. et al. (2017). Sentinel-2/MSI NDVI seasonal profile and post-harvest decline of Chardonnay and Cabernet Sauvignon vineyards. Ciência e Agrotecnologia, 41(5), 543–553. doi:10.1590/1413-70542017415016017
Sozzi, M. et al. (2020). Comparing vineyard imagery acquired from Sentinel-2 and UAV: assessment of mixed-pixel approach for inter-row + canopy NDVI (R²=0.87). OENO-One, 54(4). doi:10.20870/oeno-one.2020.54.4.3852
Khaliq, A. et al. (2019). Comparison of Satellite and UAV-Based Multispectral Imagery for Vineyard Variability Assessment (mixed-pixel inter-row contribution to NDVI). Remote Sensing, 11(4), 436. doi:10.3390/rs11040436
Lal, R. (2020). Soil Erosion and Gaseous Emissions. Applied Sciences, 10(8), 2784. doi:10.3390/app10082784
Li, X. et al. (2017). Topographic metric predictions of soil redistribution and organic carbon in Iowa cropland fields. Catena, 160, 222–232. doi:10.1016/J.CATENA.2017.09.026
Li, H. et al. (2024). Long-Term Conservation Agriculture Improves Soil Quality in Sloped Farmland Planting Systems. Plants, 13(23), 3420. doi:10.3390/plants13233420
Lisek, J. (2023). Effect of Orchard Floor Management on the Yield, Fruit Quality and Photosynthetic Performance of Plum Trees (inter-row mowing / mulching effects). Agronomy, 13(5), 1421. doi:10.3390/agronomy13051421
Liu, Y. et al. (2025). Higher soil nitrous oxide production in landscape depressions linked to soil and hydrological legacy effects. Frontiers in Soil Science, 5, 1566135. doi:10.3389/fsoil.2025.1566135
Liu, B. et al. (2025). Impacts of Conservation Tillage on Soil Organic Carbon Mineralization in Eastern Inner Mongolia. Agronomy, 15(8), 1847. doi:10.3390/agronomy15081847
Lobert, F. et al. (2021). Mowing event detection in permanent grasslands: Systematic evaluation of input features from Sentinel-1, Sentinel-2, and Landsat 8 time series. Remote Sensing of Environment, 267, 112751. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2021.112751
Mia, M. J. et al. (2020). Integrated Inter-Row Management Strategies for Apple and Peach Orchards (mowing of grass alleys). Horticulturae, 6(4), 96. doi:10.3390/horticulturae6040096
Naipal, V. et al. (2018). Global soil organic carbon removal by water erosion under climate change and land use change during AD 1850–2005. Biogeosciences, 15, 4459–4480. doi:10.5194/BG-15-4459-2018
Nouraein, M. et al. (2019). Short-Term Effects of Tillage Intensity and Fertilization on Sunflower Yield, Achene Quality, and Soil Physicochemical Properties under Semi-Arid Conditions. Applied Sciences, 9(24), 5482. doi:10.3390/app9245482
Ogban, P. et al. (2022). Effect of slope curvature and gradient on soil properties affecting erodibility of coastal plain sands. Agro-Science, 21(2). doi:10.4314/as.v21i2.2
Oger, B. et al. (2025). Effects of vineyard floor management on Sentinel-2 NDVI signals across 1 000+ California vineyards. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture. doi:10.5344/ajev.2025.25010
Olson, K. R. et al. (2016). Soil Organic Carbon Dynamics in Eroding and Depositional Landscapes. Open Journal of Soil Science, 6, 121–134. doi:10.4236/OJSS.2016.68013
Panagea, I. et al. (2022). Impact of agricultural management on soil aggregates and associated organic carbon fractions: analysis of long-term experiments in Europe. SOIL, 8, 621–644. doi:10.5194/soil-8-621-2022
Poblete-Echeverría, C. et al. (2020). NDVI tracks vineyard canopy area more than vigour: implications of mixed-pixel sensitivity to inter-row. Applied Sciences, 10(10), 3612. doi:10.3390/app10103612
Proietti, C. et al. (2019). A New Wetness Index to Evaluate the Soil Water Availability Influence on Gross Primary Production of European Forests. Climate, 7(3), 42. doi:10.3390/CLI7030042
Reddy, M. R. et al. (2021). Multi-Temporal MODIS NDVI Phenology of Apple Orchards. Agriculture, 11(8), 724. doi:10.3390/agriculture11080724
Schlüter, S. et al. (2019). Physical constraints for respiration in microbial hotspots in soil and their importance for denitrification. Biogeosciences, 16, 3665–3678. doi:10.5194/BG-16-3665-2019
Shi, Y. et al. (2023). Multi-Temporal NDVI-Based Walnut Orchard Phenology Monitoring in Xinjiang. Applied Sciences, 13(9), 5666. doi:10.3390/app13095666
Singh, A. et al. (2025). Potential of Sentinel-1 C-band SAR data in tandem with Sentinel-2 for mapping paddy residue burnt areas. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 103829. doi:10.1016/j.pce.2025.103829
Snapir, B. et al. (2019). The significance of soil properties to the estimation of soil moisture from C-band SAR. HESS, 2019-294. doi:10.5194/HESS-2019-294
Stanchi, S. et al. (2015). Soil aggregation, erodibility, and erosion rates in mountain soils. Solid Earth, 6, 403–418. doi:10.5194/SE-6-403-2015
Syp, A. et al. (2024). Trade-offs and synergies of soil carbon sequestration: Addressing knowledge gaps related to soil management strategies. European Journal of Soil Science, 75(3), e13515. doi:10.1111/ejss.13515
Tamm, T. et al. (2016). Relating Sentinel-1 Interferometric Coherence to Mowing Events on Grasslands. Remote Sensing, 8(10), 802. doi:10.3390/rs8100802
Tisseyre, B. et al. (2019). The potential of Vegetation Indices (NDVI) to characterise viticultural management at the within-field scale (canopy mowing / trimming impact on NDVI). OENO-One, 53(2). doi:10.20870/oeno-one.2019.53.2.2293
Verma, S. et al. (2026). Socioeconomic and Environmental Co-benefits of Soil Carbon Sequestration in Farmland Systems: A Review. JGEESI, 30(4), 1034. doi:10.9734/jgeesi/2026/v30i41034
Vilain, G. et al. (2012). Budget of N₂O emissions at the watershed scale: role of land cover and topography. Biogeosciences, 9, 1085–1097. doi:10.5194/BG-9-1085-2012
Wang, H. et al. (2018). Effect of long-term tillage on soil aggregates and aggregate-associated carbon in black soil. PLOS ONE, 13(6), e0199523. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0199523
Yu, L. et al. (2021). Topography-related controls on N₂O emission and CH₄ uptake in a tropical rainforest catchment. Science of the Total Environment, 775, 145616. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145616
Zhang, Y. et al. (2025). Effects of Conservation Agriculture on Soil N₂O Emissions and Crop Yield. Global Change Biology, 31(1), e70048. doi:10.1111/gcb.70048
Zheng Fu et al. (2024). Global critical soil moisture thresholds of plant water stress. Nature Communications, 15, 109042. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-49244-7
de Vroey, M. et al. (2021). Grassland Mowing Detection Using Sentinel-1 Time Series: Potential and Limitations. Remote Sensing, 13(3), 348. doi:10.3390/rs13030348

Terrain Analysis and Topographic Controls

Beven, K.J. and Kirkby, M.J. (1979). A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrological Sciences Bulletin, 24(1), 43–69. Original derivation of the Topographic Wetness Index (TWI = ln(a/tanβ)); foundation for terrain-driven soil moisture modelling.
Moore, I.D., Grayson, R.B. and Ladson, A.R. (1991). Digital terrain modelling: A review of hydrological, geomorphological, and biological applications. Hydrological Processes, 5(1), 3–30. Comprehensive framework for DEM-derived terrain attributes and their physical interpretation.
Zevenbergen, L.W. and Thorne, C.R. (1987). Quantitative analysis of land surface topography. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 12(1), 47–56. Profile curvature algorithm; SAGA GIS sign convention (positive = convex, negative = concave).
Panagos, P., et al. (2015). The new assessment of soil loss by water erosion in Europe. Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 438–447. JRC LS-Factor thresholds for erosion risk classification used in this report.
Wilding, L.P. (1985). Spatial variability: its documentation, accommodation, and implication to soil surveys. In: Soil Spatial Variability, Nielsen, D.R. and Bouma, J. (eds.), Pudoc, Wageningen, pp. 166–194. Coefficient of variation thresholds for soil property variability classification: CV < 15% low, 15–30% moderate, > 30% high.
Dialynas, Y.G., et al. (2019). Topographic controls of soil organic carbon on soil-mantled landscapes. Scientific Reports, 9, 6487. SOC stocks vary with hillslope curvature and aspect; convergent topography accumulates more SOC than divergent; north-facing aspects retain more SOC due to higher moisture and lower temperatures.
Hao, Y., et al. (2019). Soil carbon and nitrogen fraction dynamics affected by tillage erosion. Scientific Reports, 9, 16601. Tillage erosion redistributes particulate organic carbon (POC) from upper to lower slope positions; reduced tillage diminishes this SOC redistribution.
Oertel, C., et al. (2021). Effects of cover crops on soil CO₂ and N₂O emissions across topographic positions. European Journal of Agronomy, 122, 126172. Soil GHG emissions lowest on slopes compared to depressions and summits; soil moisture and temperature coupled to landscape position control emission rates.
Abdalla, M., et al. (2025). Evaluating N₂O emissions and carbon sequestration in temperate cover crop systems. SOIL, 11, 489–507. Cover crops lower mineral N and reduce indirect N₂O emissions; soil texture and moisture retention modulate emission response.
Cheng, H., et al. (2003). Variable source areas and concentrated flow as identified from DEM. Hydrological Processes, 17, 1245–1260. Curvature thresholds for identifying runoff-producing zones; plan and profile curvature interaction in gully initiation.
Svoray, T., et al. (2012). Predicting gully initiation: comparing data-driven and process-based models. Geomorphology, 204, 230–243. Curvature and convergence index as predictors of concentrated erosion; negative convergence = convergent flow.
Gharaibeh, M.A., et al. (2025). Spatial modelling of soil erosion susceptibility using GIS and geographically weighted regression. Scientific Reports, 15, 19428. Profile curvature: convex profiles associated with flow acceleration and sediment detachment; SAGA GIS DEM-derived erosion indices validated against field data.
ISPRS (2025). Multi-scale comparison of Topographic Wetness Index for soil erosion prediction. ISPRS Archives, XLVIII-4/W17-2025, 221–228. TWI standard deviation as indicator of intra-parcel hydrological heterogeneity; cells with TWI above one SD from mean can saturate within a single rainfall event.

Climate and Drought Context

BTA (Bulgarian Telegraph Agency) (2025). Summer 2025 Among the Driest and Hottest Summers in Bulgaria Since Mid-20th Century. September 2025.
USDA FAS / World Grain (2024). Bulgaria's corn production shows signs of recovery. National Meteorological Bureau / Sofia Globe (2025). April 2025 cold wave. DFZ (2025). Flood and drought compensation schemes.

Fertiliser Markets and Geopolitical Context

Agropolychim AD, Bulgaria (2022–2023). Company reports on fertilizer market disruption and farmer response to price shocks.
European Commission (2025). EU tariffs on nitrogen fertilizers from Russia and Belarus — phased introduction over 3 years.

Administrative Data Sources

Ministry of Agriculture and Food (MAF), Bulgaria. LPIS data, shape.mzh.government.bg. Physical Block (PhB) classification by land use type. Updated January 2025.
State Fund Agriculture — Paying Agency (SFA-PA), Bulgaria. Declared subsidy areas, seu.dfz.bg/drupal/?q=opendata. Campaigns 2023, 2024, 2025. CC BY 4.0.
State Fund Agriculture — Paying Agency (SFA-PA), Bulgaria. Fire event data (GeoJSON), 2023–2025. Fields: ID, TILE, FROM_DATE, TO_DATE, CALC_AREA.

Disclaimer: This report is an independent remote-sensing verification instrument based entirely on satellite data from the Sentinel-2 L2A and Sentinel-1 IW GRD platforms. All statistics are computed from observed pixel-level time series. Field-based measurements lie outside the scope of this instrument and are governed by the accredited MRV programme of the Project Proponent.

The SOC proxy is a relative spectral index (arbitrary units), not an IPCC-compliant SOC stock estimate — it must not be interpreted as a quantitative soil organic carbon concentration or stock measurement. The GPP proxy is a modelled estimate of gross primary productivity (LUE model), not a direct measurement of carbon fixation. The N₂O emission proxy is a spectral index sensitive to soil nitrogen cycling, not a direct emission measurement.

Fire data sourced from SFA-PA (State Fund Agriculture — Paying Agency), derived from Sentinel-2 satellite imagery.

Remote Sensing AnalysisCarbon Farming Project — Multi-Sensor Verification

Executive Summary

Independent Verification Instrument

Spatial Aggregation Level

1. Project Scope and Farm Profile

1.1 Farm Overview

1.1.1 Crop Distribution

1.1.2 EKATTE Code Distribution

1.2 Three-Zone Spatial Framework

1.2.1 Complete Farm Parcel Registry (14 Parcels)

1.2.2 Data Sources and Spatial Design

Control Zone Selection Rationale

Belt Zone Rationale

1.2.3 Regulatory Framework and Additionality Context

1.3 Terrain Characterisation

Intra-Parcel Moisture Heterogeneity (TWI)

Parameter Descriptions

Risk Assessment Summary

Terrain Implications for Carbon Farming Performance

2. Indicator Methodology

2.0 Data Quality Assurance

2.1 NDVI — Normalised Difference Vegetation Index

2.1.1 Per-Parcel NDVI — Annual Time-Series

2.2 NDTI — Normalised Difference Tillage Index

2.3 GPP Proxy — Gross Primary Productivity (Light Use Efficiency Model)

2.4 SOC Proxy

2.4.1 Reference SOC Stocks & Per-Parcel Annual SOCI (FAO HWSD2 v2 + SoilGrids 2.0)

2.4.2 Per-Parcel SOC Proxy — Zone Aggregates & Monthly Time-Series

Farm parcels — per-parcel SOC proxy

Control parcels — per-parcel SOC proxy

Belt zone — SOC proxy aggregate

2.4.3 Per-Parcel SOC — Relative Spectral Change with FAO HWSD2 v2 and SoilGrids 2.0 Reference Baselines

2.4.4 Per-parcel SOC trajectory (BASE → K1 → K2 → K3)

2.4.5 Spatial Reference: Terrain, FAO, SoilGrids and SOCI

2.4.6 Per-Parcel Surface-Composition Spectral Indices — BSI and NBR2

2.5 Sentinel-1 SAR — Synthetic Aperture Radar Backscatter (VV and VH) in dB

2.6 N₂O Emissions Proxy

2.7 MRV Framework Alignment

3. Three-Zone Comparative Analysis

3.1 Multi-Indicator Summary

3.2 Terrain & Climate Context

3.3 Cross-Sensor Physical Coherence — Monthly Verification (12-Month Cycle)

Winter N₂O Assessment (November–February)

3.4 Practice Assessment

3.4.1 Multi-sensor Reality Check — Methodology

3.4.2 Multi-sensor Monthly Reality Chart

3.4.3 No-till / Reduced tillage / Strip cropping / Bed tillage

3.4.4 Cover cropping / Green manure / Intercropping

3.4.5 Practices Beyond Regulatory Baseline

3.4.6 Soil Carbon — Organic amendments / Microbial fertiliser / Compost

3.4.7 Nitrogen Emissions

3.4.8 Practices Without Direct Satellite Verification

3.5 Per-Parcel Adoption Matrix — Land-Use-Aware Surface-State Classification

3.5.1 Land-Use Composition of the Project Farm

3.5.2 Annual Arable Parcels — GAEC 6 BG Summer Cover

Per-Parcel Surface-State Trajectory — NDVI / BSI / NBR2 by Month

Parcel 003126570314 · Year 2023 — WINTER BARLEY

Parcel 003126570314 · Year 2024 — SOFT WINTER WHEAT

Parcel 003126570314 · Year 2025

Parcel 002126570314 · Year 2023

Parcel 002126570314 · Year 2024 — SOFT WINTER WHEAT

Parcel 002126570314 · Year 2025 — SUNFLOWER

Parcel 004126570314 · Year 2023 — WINTER BARLEY

Parcel 004126570314 · Year 2024 — SOFT WINTER WHEAT

Parcel 004126570314 · Year 2025

Parcel 012126570314 · Year 2023 — SOFT WINTER WHEAT

Parcel 012126570314 · Year 2024 — WINTER BARLEY

Parcel 012126570314 · Year 2025

Parcel 010126570314 · Year 2023 — SOFT WINTER WHEAT

Parcel 010126570314 · Year 2024 — WINTER BARLEY

Parcel 010126570314 · Year 2025

Parcel 015126570314 · Year 2023 — GRAIN MAIZE

Parcel 015126570314 · Year 2024 — SOFT WINTER WHEAT

Parcel 015126570314 · Year 2025

Parcel 013126570314 · Year 2023 — SOFT WINTER WHEAT

Parcel 013126570314 · Year 2024 — WINTER BARLEY

Parcel 013126570314 · Year 2025

Parcel 011126570314 · Year 2023 — SOFT WINTER WHEAT

Parcel 011126570314 · Year 2024 — WINTER BARLEY

Parcel 011126570314 · Year 2025

Remote Sensing Analysis
Carbon Farming Project — Multi-Sensor Verification