Myths vs. realities: Soil carbon MRV & incentives — what the evidence actually supports
Myths vs. realities, backed by recent evidence and practitioner experience. Focus on data quality, standards alignment, and how to avoid measurement theater.
The voluntary agriculture carbon credit market generated just $36.1 million in 2024 but is projected to explode to $648.3 million by 2034—a 31.9% compound annual growth rate that represents one of the fastest-growing segments in climate finance. Yet this extraordinary growth trajectory masks fundamental challenges in measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) that determine whether soil carbon credits represent genuine climate impact or sophisticated greenwashing. For procurement professionals evaluating agricultural carbon credits as part of corporate net-zero strategies, understanding what the evidence actually supports—versus marketing claims—is essential for credible climate commitments.
Why It Matters
Soil carbon sequestration represents a potentially massive climate solution. Agricultural soils globally could sequester 1.5-5.5 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually through improved management practices, according to IPCC estimates. The broader carbon farming market was valued at $531.8-561 million in 2024, growing toward $2.17-2.34 billion by 2034 at 14.5-16% CAGR. The agriculture, forestry, and land use (AFOLU) carbon credit sector overall reached $7.51 billion in 2025 with projections of $26.35 billion by 2030.
However, soil carbon's characteristics create unique MRV challenges that other carbon removal approaches do not share:
- Spatial variability: Soil carbon concentrations vary by 20-50% within single fields, requiring intensive sampling
- Temporal variability: Carbon stocks fluctuate seasonally and annually with weather, making change detection difficult
- Permanence risk: Soil carbon can be released through tillage, drought, or management changes within years
- Measurement depth: Standard 30 cm sampling may miss 40-60% of carbon stored in deeper soil layers
These challenges have generated legitimate skepticism about credit integrity. A 2024 analysis by CarbonPlan found that some agricultural carbon credit methodologies systematically overestimated sequestration, while the ICVCM's Core Carbon Principles rated only 57% of retired credits at BB or higher in H1 2025.
Key Concepts
MRV Technology Approaches
Soil carbon MRV employs multiple measurement technologies with different cost-accuracy tradeoffs:
| Approach | Cost | Accuracy | Scalability | Best Use Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct Soil Sampling | High ($50-150/sample) | Highest | Low | Baseline establishment, verification |
| Remote Sensing + AI | Low ($1-5/hectare) | Moderate | High | Change detection, regional estimation |
| Process-Based Models | Low | Variable | High | Scenario analysis, prediction |
| Hybrid (Sampling + RS) | Moderate | High | Moderate | Credit verification at scale |
The Equivalent Soil Mass (ESM) method demonstrates 2× higher accuracy in capturing carbon stock changes compared to fixed-depth sampling, according to research published in Global Change Biology (2024). ESM accounts for bulk density changes that fixed-depth approaches miss—a methodological improvement increasingly required by rigorous protocols.
Protocol and Standards Landscape
Multiple standards govern soil carbon credit issuance, with varying stringency:
| Framework | Region | Status | Key Features |
|---|---|---|---|
| Verra VM0042 | Global | Active | Improved Agricultural Land Management methodology |
| EU CRCF | Europe | 2025-2027 | Carbon Removal Certification Framework; first methodologies 2025 |
| Canada Enhanced SOC | Canada | Development | Federal offset protocol under ECCC |
| ICVCM Core Carbon Principles | Global | 2024 | Quality rating system for carbon credits |
| SBTi FLAG / GHG Protocol LSRG | Global | Compatible | Corporate accounting alignment |
The EU's Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) Regulation represents the most significant near-term development, with first methodologies ready in 2025 for biochar and BECCS, and soil carbon certification expected by 2026-2027.
Additionality and Permanence Challenges
Two fundamental integrity questions dominate soil carbon credit evaluation:
Additionality: Would the practice change have occurred without carbon credit revenue? Many regenerative agriculture practices—cover cropping, reduced tillage, rotational grazing—provide agronomic benefits independent of carbon payments. Demonstrating that credit revenue caused the practice adoption, rather than merely rewarding pre-existing behavior, remains methodologically challenging.
Permanence: How long will sequestered carbon remain stored? Soil carbon can be released within 1-3 years through tillage resumption or land use change. Buffer pools (typically 10-25% of issued credits held in reserve), long-term monitoring requirements, and reversal liability mechanisms attempt to address this risk, but no consensus exists on adequate safeguards.
What's Working
Satellite-AI Hybrid Approaches Reduce Costs
The combination of satellite remote sensing (Sentinel-2, Landsat-8/9) with machine learning models reduces MRV costs by approximately 40% compared to sampling-intensive approaches, while maintaining acceptable accuracy for change detection at scale.
Example: Indigo Ag's Carbon Program Indigo Ag deployed MRV across 553,743 hectares, documenting emissions reductions of 398,408.5 tCO₂e through cover cropping and reduced tillage practices. Their methodology combines limited field sampling with satellite-based change detection, enabling cost-effective verification at scale. Catona Climate reserved 250,000 credits from Indigo in 2024—the largest single-partner reservation in the voluntary market—validating commercial demand for technology-enabled carbon credits.
Corporate Offtake Agreements Drive Market Development
Long-term corporate purchase commitments provide the revenue certainty that farmers need to adopt new practices and the capital that MRV technology providers need to scale.
Example: Microsoft's Agoro Carbon Partnership Microsoft signed a 12-year, $2.6 million agreement with Agoro Carbon Alliance in June 2025 for soil carbon removal credits. This structure—multi-year commitment, specified volume, predetermined pricing—enables farm-level investment in practice transition while providing Microsoft with verifiable carbon removal for its net-zero pathway. Agoro's methodology, developed in partnership with academic institutions, requires third-party verification and permanent monitoring.
Blockchain-Based Verification Enables Transparency
Distributed ledger technology addresses provenance and double-counting concerns that have plagued voluntary carbon markets.
Example: Yara International's African Carbon Platform Yara International launched a blockchain-based soil carbon credit certification platform in Africa in August 2024, enabling transparent tracking from farm-level sequestration through credit retirement. The platform integrates satellite verification data, soil sampling results, and practice change documentation into immutable records accessible to buyers and auditors. Early results from 50,000 enrolled hectares across Kenya and Ethiopia demonstrate approximately 1.2 tCO₂/hectare annual sequestration rates—consistent with academic estimates for cover crop adoption in semi-arid systems.
What's Not Working
Sampling Intensity Remains Inadequate
Statistical power analysis indicates that 300-1,000 samples per site are needed for reliable carbon stock change detection, yet common protocols specify far fewer. The USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program historically required only 6 samples per 10 hectares—a density that cannot detect changes within typical project confidence intervals.
Example: Failed Detection at Field Scale A peer-reviewed analysis in the Journal of Environmental Management (2024) examined 47 regenerative agriculture projects using standard sampling protocols. Only 23% achieved statistically significant carbon stock change detection despite documented practice changes. The remainder showed indeterminate results—neither confirming nor refuting sequestration—due to inadequate sampling relative to spatial variability.
Standard Depth Underestimates Deep Carbon
Most protocols specify 30 cm sampling depth, yet research indicates 40-60% of soil organic carbon resides below this threshold. Practices affecting root depth—perennial plantings, deep-rooted cover crops—may sequester substantial carbon at 30-100 cm depths that standard measurements miss. Conversely, this depth limitation may mask near-surface losses offset by deeper gains.
Reversal Events Remain Underinsured
Buffer pool allocations—credits held in reserve against future reversals—typically range from 10-25% of issued credits. Analysis of historical agricultural carbon projects suggests this may be insufficient given:
- Drought-induced carbon losses of 20-40% in single severe events
- Farmer practice reversion rates of 15-25% over 10-year monitoring periods
- Climate change increasing extreme event frequency in agricultural regions
The lack of actuarial data on reversal rates—most projects are less than 10 years old—creates pricing uncertainty that may understate true permanence risk.
Key Players
Established Leaders
- Indigo Ag: Largest agricultural carbon credit developer. 553,743 hectares enrolled. 398,408 tCO₂e documented reductions. Catona Climate partnership.
- Bayer: $200 million fund for AI-driven soil carbon verification (January 2024). Carbon Program serving 1,400+ farmers across multiple countries.
- Nutrien: Sustainable agriculture program integrating carbon credit generation with input optimization. 4 million+ acres enrolled globally.
- Cargill: Regenerative agriculture initiatives across cattle, soy, and corn supply chains. Carbon credit generation integrated with sustainability premiums.
Emerging Startups
- Regrow Agriculture: Remote sensing MRV platform. Raised $58 million Series B. Partnerships with major food companies.
- Agreena: European soil carbon platform. 3 million+ hectares enrolled. Combines carbon credits with farm analytics.
- Boomitra: AI-powered MRV for smallholder farmers. Operating in 15+ countries. Focus on global south.
- Perennial: Soil carbon modeling and prediction. USDA and EPA partnerships. Academic validation approach.
Key Investors & Funders
- USDA Climate-Smart Commodities: $7.7 billion funding for climate-smart agricultural practices (October 2024).
- Rabobank + The Nature Conservancy: $500 million soil carbon credit marketplace launch (May 2024).
- Breakthrough Energy Ventures: Investments in agricultural carbon removal technologies.
- S2G Ventures: Food and agriculture-focused investor backing soil carbon startups.
Sector-Specific KPI Table
| KPI | Poor Performance | Average | Good Performance | Top Quartile |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sequestration Rate (tCO₂/ha/year) | <0.5 | 0.5-1.0 | 1.0-2.0 | >2.0 |
| MRV Cost ($/hectare/year) | >25 | 15-25 | 8-15 | <8 |
| Measurement Uncertainty (%) | >50% | 30-50% | 15-30% | <15% |
| Credit Rating (ICVCM) | Unrated | BB | BBB | A |
| Farmer Retention Rate | <70% | 70-85% | 85-95% | >95% |
| Verification Timeline (months) | >12 | 6-12 | 3-6 | <3 |
Action Checklist
- Establish internal criteria for agricultural carbon credit quality (additionality, permanence, MRV rigor)
- Evaluate supplier credit portfolios against ICVCM Core Carbon Principles ratings
- Assess Verra VM0042 and emerging EU CRCF alignment for credits in procurement pipeline
- Request methodology documentation including sampling intensity, depth protocols, and reversal buffers
- Develop long-term offtake agreement structures that incentivize practice permanence
- Monitor EU CRCF soil carbon methodology development for future credit sourcing
FAQ
Q: What credit price premium indicates higher-quality soil carbon credits? A: Current market data suggests quality-differentiated pricing: credits with ICVCM A-ratings or equivalent third-party validation trade at $25-50/tonne, while lower-rated or unverified credits range from $8-20/tonne. Premium credits typically feature deeper sampling (60 cm+), higher sampling density (100+ samples/site), third-party verification, and longer monitoring commitments. However, price alone does not guarantee quality—request methodology documentation regardless of pricing.
Q: How should procurement teams handle the permanence risk of soil carbon? A: Prudent approaches include: (1) purchasing credits only from programs with robust buffer pools (20%+ of issuance), (2) requiring monitoring commitments extending 10+ years beyond credit retirement, (3) diversifying agricultural carbon purchases across geographies and practice types to reduce correlated reversal risk, (4) considering tonne-year accounting approaches that discount credits based on storage duration rather than treating permanence as binary. Microsoft, Stripe, and Shopify have published procurement criteria that model rigorous approaches.
Q: Can soil carbon credits count toward SBTi-validated net-zero commitments? A: Under SBTi's Corporate Net-Zero Standard, soil carbon credits can only neutralize residual emissions after achieving science-based reduction targets (typically 90%+ reduction from baseline). They cannot substitute for direct emissions reductions. SBTi's FLAG (Forest, Land, and Agriculture) guidance specifically addresses land-based emissions accounting but maintains that removal credits complement rather than replace reduction pathways. Procurement teams should align agricultural carbon purchases with SBTi sequencing requirements.
Q: What distinguishes Verra VM0042 from earlier agricultural methodologies? A: VM0042 (Improved Agricultural Land Management) addresses previous methodology limitations through: (1) enhanced quantification approaches including biogeochemical modeling options, (2) improved additionality assessment with regional performance benchmarks, (3) specified monitoring requirements including mandatory soil sampling at project intervals, (4) leakage accounting for practice shifts outside project boundaries. Credits issued under VM0042 are generally considered higher-integrity than predecessors, though implementation quality still varies by project developer.
Sources
- Global Market Insights. (2024). Voluntary Agriculture Carbon Credit Market Report 2025-2034.
- IMARC Group. (2024). Agriculture Carbon Sequestration Market Analysis.
- IEAGHG. (2024). Measurement, Reporting and Verification for Carbon Dioxide Removal.
- Journal of Environmental Management. (2024). Solutions and Insights for Agricultural MRV.
- Verra. (2024). VM0042 Methodology for Improved Agricultural Land Management.
- CarbonPlan. (2024). Systematic Analysis of Agricultural Carbon Credit Methodologies.
Related Articles
Deep dive: Soil carbon MRV & incentives — the fastest-moving subsegments to watch
What's working, what isn't, and what's next — with the trade-offs made explicit. Focus on KPIs that matter, benchmark ranges, and what 'good' looks like in practice.
Soil carbon MRV & incentives KPIs by sector (with ranges)
The 5–8 KPIs that matter, benchmark ranges, and what the data suggests next. Focus on data quality, standards alignment, and how to avoid measurement theater.
Case study: Soil carbon MRV & incentives — a pilot that failed (and what it taught us)
A concrete implementation with numbers, lessons learned, and what to copy/avoid. Focus on implementation trade-offs, stakeholder incentives, and the hidden bottlenecks.