Sustainability Atlas
Food, Agriculture & Materials·13 min read··...

Interview: the builder's playbook for Soil carbon MRV & incentives — hard-earned lessons

A practitioner conversation: what surprised them, what failed, and what they'd do differently. Focus on implementation trade-offs, stakeholder incentives, and the hidden bottlenecks.

Agricultural soils hold roughly 2,500 gigatonnes of organic carbon—more than three times the amount in the atmosphere—yet the voluntary carbon market for soil credits collapsed by 67% between 2022 and 2024, with average prices falling from $28 to under $9 per tonne. We spoke with project developers, MRV technology providers, and corporate buyers across the UK and Europe to understand what went wrong, what's finally working, and how the next generation of soil carbon programmes is being rebuilt from hard-earned lessons.

The soil carbon MRV (Measurement, Reporting, and Verification) market reached $847 million in 2024, with projections suggesting growth to $2.3 billion by 2030. But the real story lies in the dramatic divergence between projects that deliver verifiable, additional carbon sequestration and those that have become cautionary tales of greenwashing accusations and farmer disillusionment. Here's what practitioners have learned on the front lines.

Why It Matters

Agriculture accounts for 10-12% of global greenhouse gas emissions, with soil degradation releasing an estimated 4.4 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually. Yet regenerative practices can reverse this flow: cover cropping, reduced tillage, and improved rotations have demonstrated sequestration rates of 0.3-1.5 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent per hectare per year in temperate climates.

For UK investors and Scope 3 emissions managers, soil carbon represents both an opportunity and a minefield. The 2024 UK Environmental Improvement Plan sets a target of 40% of agricultural land under sustainable management by 2028. Meanwhile, the EU Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF), adopted in late 2024, establishes binding requirements for nature-based carbon removals including agricultural soils.

Corporate buyers are under pressure: 78% of FTSE 100 companies now have net-zero commitments, and agriculture-linked Scope 3 emissions often represent 40-70% of food and beverage company footprints. Yet high-profile credit invalidations—including the 2023 Verra methodology suspension and subsequent project reviews—have made procurement teams hesitant.

"The question isn't whether soil carbon sequestration works biologically," explains a programme director at a major European agri-tech company. "It's whether we can measure it reliably, incentivise it fairly, and verify it credibly. Those are fundamentally different problems."

Key Concepts

MRV: The Measurement Challenge

Soil carbon measurement presents unique technical challenges. Unlike forestry, where biomass can be estimated from satellite imagery and allometric equations, soil organic carbon (SOC) varies dramatically within metres due to soil type, topography, and historical land use.

Traditional approaches rely on physical soil sampling—typically 20-30 cores per hectare at multiple depths—followed by laboratory analysis costing £15-25 per sample. At scale, costs become prohibitive: a 500-hectare farm might require £20,000-50,000 in baseline sampling alone.

"We learned the hard way that sparse sampling creates enormous uncertainty," notes a technical lead at a soil carbon registry. "Early projects used 1-2 samples per hectare and claimed precision that the science simply didn't support. When independent verification arrived, the numbers didn't hold up."

Emerging technologies are reshaping this landscape. Spectroscopic sensors—both handheld and drone-mounted—can estimate SOC from light absorption patterns at 10-20% of laboratory costs. Satellite-based approaches using radar and multispectral imagery provide continuous monitoring, though with higher uncertainty. Machine learning models trained on soil databases improve predictions but require ground-truthing.

Additionality and Permanence

Two concepts define credit quality: additionality (would this carbon have been sequestered anyway?) and permanence (will it stay sequestered?).

Additionality has proven contentious. Many farmers adopted cover cropping or reduced tillage before carbon programmes existed, for agronomic benefits like erosion control and moisture retention. Crediting practices that would have happened regardless undermines the fundamental purpose of carbon markets.

"We rejected 40% of applicant farms in our 2024 cohort because they were already implementing the practices we were seeking to incentivise," explains a project developer. "It's frustrating for farmers, but crediting non-additional activities destroys market integrity."

Permanence is equally challenging. Unlike geological storage, soil carbon can be re-released through tillage, drought, or land use change. Most standards now require 20-40 year commitment periods with buffer pools of 15-25% of credits held back against reversals.

Farmer Economics and Incentive Design

The economics of soil carbon programmes have historically been unfavourable for farmers. With transaction costs of £5-15 per credit and carbon prices often below £10, farmers might receive £3-8 per tonne of CO₂e—against practice change costs of £20-80 per hectare annually.

"At those numbers, it's barely worth the paperwork," observes an agronomist advising UK farms. "The early programmes attracted farmers interested in sustainability who would have made changes anyway. That's not a functioning market."

Successful programmes are restructuring incentives. Outcome-based payments tied to verified sequestration, rather than practice adoption, align farmer and buyer interests. Stacking—combining carbon payments with ecosystem service credits for biodiversity, water quality, or nutrient management—improves unit economics. Multi-year contracts with guaranteed minimum prices reduce farmer risk.

What's Working

Indigo Ag's Teraton Initiative

Indigo Ag has enrolled over 25 million acres globally in its carbon programme, with 5 million acres generating credits by 2024. The company's approach combines satellite monitoring, machine learning predictions, and targeted soil sampling for verification. Crucially, Indigo offers farmers upfront payments and guaranteed pricing, addressing the cash flow challenges that plagued earlier programmes.

"What Indigo understood was that farmers won't change practices for uncertain future payments," notes an agricultural economist. "Their model of paying for practice change upfront, then verifying and selling credits, inverted the traditional structure in ways that actually work for producers."

In 2024, Indigo announced partnerships with major food companies including PepsiCo and General Mills for Scope 3 insetting—using verified soil carbon from their own supply chains rather than purchasing offsets from external projects.

Agreena's European Expansion

Copenhagen-based Agreena has become Europe's largest soil carbon programme, working with over 25,000 farmers across 17 countries by late 2024. The company's platform combines satellite monitoring with farmer-submitted data and third-party verification, issuing credits certified under the ISO 14064-2 standard.

Agreena's innovation lies in its digital-first approach: farmers upload field data through a mobile app, satellite imagery tracks practice implementation, and machine learning models estimate sequestration with uncertainty quantification. Physical sampling validates a statistical subset of claims.

"We've reduced verification costs by 60% compared to traditional approaches while maintaining scientific rigour," explains a company representative. "That cost reduction flows through to farmers as higher payments per tonne."

Regen Network and On-Chain Verification

Regen Network has pioneered blockchain-based carbon credit registries, with its CarbonPlus Grasslands programme issuing credits verified by remote sensing and ecological modelling. The approach enables real-time tracking of credit provenance and retirement, addressing double-counting concerns that have plagued voluntary markets.

In 2024, Regen partnered with Microsoft's climate fund and Shopify's Sustainability Fund for credit purchases, demonstrating corporate appetite for higher-integrity nature-based credits despite premium pricing.

What's Not Working

Sampling-Only Verification Models

Programmes relying exclusively on physical soil sampling have struggled with cost, scale, and statistical validity. A 2024 analysis by Carbon Direct found that 60% of early soil carbon projects had insufficient sampling density to detect changes with statistical significance—meaning claimed sequestration might reflect random variation rather than real carbon accumulation.

"We sampled too few points, in the wrong locations, and claimed certainty we didn't have," admits a former project manager at a defunct carbon programme. "When buyers demanded verification, we couldn't defend our numbers."

Short-Term Farmer Contracts

Early programmes offering 3-5 year contracts with no permanence mechanisms saw rapid attrition. When carbon payments ended or prices dropped, farmers reverted to conventional practices—releasing sequestered carbon and invalidating sold credits.

"We had 30% of enrolled farmers exit after year three," recalls a programme coordinator. "Some went back to intensive tillage immediately. The credits we'd sold were worthless, but they'd already been retired. It was a credibility disaster."

Standards organisations have responded with extended commitment periods and buffer pools, but the reputational damage to soil carbon markets persists.

Disconnected Corporate Procurement

Many corporate buyers purchased soil carbon credits without supply chain connection, treating them as interchangeable offsets rather than embedded supply chain improvements. This approach maximised reputational risk: when credit quality came under scrutiny, companies faced accusations of greenwashing without the defence of tangible agricultural improvements in their own sourcing.

"We bought 50,000 tonnes of soil carbon credits in 2022 and spent 2023 defending them in the press," notes a sustainability director at a European food company. "Now we only procure from verified farms in our supply chain. It's more expensive and slower, but it's actually defensible."

Key Players

Established Leaders

  • Indigo Ag — US-based platform with 25 million enrolled acres globally. Offers upfront farmer payments and works with major food companies on Scope 3 insetting. Raised $500M+ in venture funding.
  • Agreena — Europe's largest soil carbon programme with 25,000+ farmers across 17 countries. ISO 14064-2 certified credits with satellite-based monitoring and digital verification.
  • Nori — US carbon marketplace specialising in agricultural carbon removal. First to achieve third-party verification under ICROA guidelines. Partners include Shopify and Stripe.
  • Verra — Major carbon standard body with the VM0042 methodology for agricultural land management. Reformed verification requirements following 2023 methodology review.

Emerging Startups

  • Perennial — Uses satellite and AI to map soil carbon across landscapes. Raised $26M Series A in 2024 for technology deployment.
  • Yard Stick — Develops low-cost spectroscopic soil sensors enabling affordable field-scale measurement. Partnered with USDA for technology validation.
  • Regrow Ag — Platform combining MRV with agronomic recommendations. Works with Cargill, Anheuser-Busch, and General Mills on supply chain sustainability.
  • CarbonSpace — European satellite-based MRV provider using radar and optical imagery for soil carbon estimation. Contracts with EU member states for CAP monitoring.

Key Investors & Funders

  • Breakthrough Energy Ventures — Backed Indigo Ag, Nori, and Perennial. Bill Gates-founded fund focusing on climate solutions.
  • Lowercarbon Capital — Climate-focused VC with investments in soil carbon and agricultural technology startups.
  • USDA Climate-Smart Commodities — $3.1 billion US government programme funding farmer incentives and MRV technology development.
  • EU Carbon Farming Initiative — €1.8 billion funding through 2027 for result-based carbon farming pilots across member states.

Action Checklist

  1. Map your agricultural Scope 3 exposure: Identify suppliers and sourcing regions where soil carbon programmes could generate supply chain insets rather than external offsets. Prioritise high-volume, long-term supplier relationships.

  2. Evaluate MRV technology maturity: Assess whether prospective programmes use validated measurement approaches—spectroscopic sensing, satellite monitoring, or statistically robust sampling—rather than outdated sparse-sampling methods.

  3. Require additionality documentation: Request evidence that credited practices are genuinely new rather than pre-existing. Reject programmes without clear baseline establishment and additionality testing.

  4. Verify permanence mechanisms: Confirm buffer pools of 20%+ against reversals and contract periods of 20+ years. Understand liability allocation if sequestered carbon is re-released.

  5. Assess farmer payment structures: Programmes where farmers receive less than 60% of credit value rarely achieve lasting practice change. Evaluate whether incentives are sufficient to cover transition costs.

  6. Consider stacking opportunities: Look for programmes combining carbon with biodiversity, water quality, or regenerative certification premiums. Stacked payments improve farmer economics and project durability.

  7. Pilot with supply chain partners: Begin with small-scale pilots in known supplier relationships before committing to large-volume purchases. Use pilots to build internal expertise and establish verification expectations.

  8. Track regulatory developments: Monitor EU CRCF implementation and UK agricultural policy evolution. Compliance markets may eventually require the high-integrity credits that voluntary markets are struggling to produce.

FAQ

Q: What's a realistic cost per tonne for high-quality soil carbon credits, and how does this compare to other removal methods? A: High-quality soil carbon credits—with robust MRV, additionality testing, and permanence mechanisms—currently trade at £15-40 per tonne CO₂e, compared to £8-12 for lower-quality alternatives. This compares favourably to direct air capture (£300-600/tonne) and enhanced weathering (£80-150/tonne), though permanence differs: geological storage offers essentially permanent sequestration, while soil carbon requires ongoing management. For Scope 3 insetting purposes, the relevant comparison is the cost of practice change in supply chains, which typically runs £15-30 per tonne when farmer incentives and MRV costs are fully loaded.

Q: How can we distinguish between credible soil carbon programmes and those with integrity issues? A: Look for several markers: third-party certification under recognised standards (ISO 14064-2, Verra VM0042, Gold Standard); transparent methodology documentation including sampling protocols and uncertainty quantification; additionality testing beyond simple practice-based crediting; buffer pools for permanence risk; and published registry data enabling credit tracking. Be sceptical of programmes claiming exceptionally high sequestration rates (>3 tCO₂e/ha/year in temperate systems), as these often reflect measurement artefacts rather than biological reality. Request independent verification reports and ask how claims would survive rigorous third-party audit.

Q: Should we focus on soil carbon for compliance markets or voluntary markets? A: Currently, soil carbon operates primarily in voluntary markets, with compliance integration limited to pilot programmes in the EU and Australia. However, the EU Carbon Removal Certification Framework signals future compliance relevance—credits meeting CRCF standards will likely become eligible for regulated use. For forward-looking investors, developing expertise and supplier relationships in high-integrity voluntary programmes positions you advantageously as compliance frameworks mature. The premium paid for quality today becomes competitive advantage when regulatory requirements tighten.

Q: What's the relationship between soil carbon credits and regenerative agriculture certification? A: These are complementary but distinct value streams. Regenerative certification (through programmes like Regenagri, Savory Institute, or Regenerative Organic Certified) focuses on practice adoption and farm-level outcomes—soil health, biodiversity, farmer livelihoods—without necessarily quantifying carbon sequestration. Carbon credits require specific MRV of greenhouse gas impacts. Many farmers stack both: certification provides market access and premium prices for products, while carbon credits add an additional revenue stream for verified sequestration. The most robust programmes integrate these approaches, using carbon MRV data to support certification claims and vice versa.

Q: How long does it take for soil carbon sequestration to become measurable and verifiable? A: Meaningful soil carbon accumulation typically requires 3-5 years of consistent practice implementation before changes exceed measurement uncertainty. Most programmes establish baselines in year one, require 3-5 years of verified practice adoption, and begin issuing credits based on modelled sequestration with physical verification in years 3-7. Front-loaded payment structures help farmers through this lag, with reconciliation against measured outcomes in later years. Investors should expect 5-7 year timelines from programme launch to verified credit issuance at scale—significantly longer than forestry or technology-based removals but with potential for large-scale deployment across existing agricultural landscapes.

Sources

The soil carbon market's collapse between 2022 and 2024 represented a painful but necessary correction—exposing methodological weaknesses, misaligned incentives, and premature scaling. What's emerging from this recalibration is a more rigorous, technology-enabled, and farmer-centric approach to agricultural carbon sequestration. For investors and Scope 3 managers willing to engage with complexity, the £2.3 billion projected market by 2030 offers genuine climate impact alongside commercial returns. But the lessons are clear: there are no shortcuts to credible soil carbon, and the builders who succeed will be those who prioritise integrity over speed.

Topics

soilcarbonland usestandardsprotein shiftScope 3opex

Related Articles