Carbon farming is emerging as a key pillar of efforts to reduce agricultural emissions, but experts warn its credibility depends on stricter regulation and scientific verification. As governments tighten climate rules and expand carbon markets, concerns are growing over whether soil-based carbon sequestration can deliver permanent and measurable emissions reductions.
Carbon storage in agriculture has rapidly risen up the policy agenda as governments seek ways to reduce emissions in line with net-zero targets by 2050.
“Carbon farming is a recently developed term which refers to the incorporation of enhanced carbon sequestration and storage in agricultural and land management practices,” explains Dr Helena Wright, Executive Director of the Climate Policy Monitor at the University of Oxford.
Many countries involved in the Climate Policy Monitor programme are already trading — or preparing to trade — carbon credits generated through agricultural practices. However, standards governing agricultural carbon sequestration vary significantly between jurisdictions.
You might be interested
This inconsistency has created opportunities for greenwashing, as organisations use carbon credits of questionable integrity to meet their obligations under emissions trading schemes.
At the heart of the debate lies a scientific and regulatory challenge: ensuring carbon removals are both real and permanent.
Carbon farming as a tool to reach net zero
Bhavya Gupta, a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Oxford, studies carbon farming projects worldwide, with a particular focus on permanence — the extent to which sequestered carbon remains stored over time. “Carbon farming will have to address the issue of reversal risk, in other words the risk that the carbon reduction is not permanent.” Dr Gupta says.
The Climate Policy Monitor’s 2025 report found that only a minority of the 37 jurisdictions analysed adequately address permanence risks in their carbon credit systems. Australia currently operates one of the most developed regulatory frameworks there is. Its carbon farming scheme applies discount factors to credits based on how long carbon is expected to remain stored, helping account for uncertainty.
Carbon farming will have to address the issue of reversal risk, in other words the risk that the carbon reduction is not permanent. — Bhavya Gupta, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Oxford
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change identifies agriculture as one of the key sectors with potential to contribute to emissions reductions and carbon removal. However, Dr Gupta emphasises limits to this potential.
“The issue is how much can realistically be done,” she says.
Meanwhile, poorly designed policies can also create trade-offs with other priorities, including biodiversity protection and food security, Helena Wright warns.
Permanence and integrity under scrutiny
Permanence is not the only concern. The Climate Policy Monitor report also highlights the risk that low-integrity credits contribute to greenwashing, particularly in voluntary carbon markets where standards are less stringent. “Our biggest concern is about permanence,” Dr Gupta explains.
Technological carbon removal options, such as direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS) and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), generally offer greater permanence than land-based sequestration. However, these technologies remain expensive and limited in scale.
For Dr Gupta “the good news is that there are jurisdictions that have very good practice” as policy design can play a decisive role in strengthening integrity.
Once again, a prime example is Australia. Its Carbon Credits Act 2011 provides a regulatory framework allowing agricultural credits to be used both in compliance markets and voluntary markets. The government has also committed to purchasing credits to help meet its own emissions targets.
“As a researcher who works on voluntary and regulated carbon markets, my view is that regulation assures better certainty on integrity,” says Gupta: “If you want to use land-based sequestration for your compliance market, then you must ensure your permanence criteria are met.”
Canada has adopted a similar approach through its federal Greenhouse Gas Offset Credit scheme, which regulates compliance-grade sequestration credits. By contrast, voluntary carbon markets often lack consistent oversight, contributing to concerns about quality and credibility. “As a researcher who works on voluntary and regulated carbon markets, my view is that regulation assures better certainty on integrity,” says Gupta.
Aligning agriculture with net-zero policy priorities
Policy coherence remains a major challenge, particularly within agricultural subsidy systems. A 2022 report by the European Court of Auditors found that subsidies under the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) had limited impact on reducing agricultural emissions and, in some cases, undermined environmental objectives. Globally, agricultural subsidies remain poorly aligned with climate goals.
“In general, it looks like agricultural subsidies aren’t very well aligned with net zero priorities,” the Executive Director of the Climate Policy Monitor at the University of Oxford Helena Wright says. Because subsidies strongly influence farming practices, misaligned incentives can slow the adoption of climate-friendly methods.
A growing role for regulation and green finance
Despite integrity concerns, policymakers increasingly see potential for improving land-based carbon credits through stronger regulatory frameworks. “The upshot is that there’s a lot of fussing about high-integrity versus low-integrity carbon credits,” Wright adds.
The European Union is emerging as a key standard-setter. Its Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming Regulation aims to establish a certification framework covering permanent carbon removals, carbon farming, and carbon storage in products.
Dr Gupta describes the regulation as “a step in the right direction”.
Beyond technical standards, the framework also includes provisions on social safeguards, benefit-sharing, and dispute resolution — areas gaining importance as carbon markets expand.
“The questions about social integrity are particularly interesting because good examples of this can be found in African jurisdictions within our remit,” Helena Wright points out.
Balancing climate action, food security and biodiversity
Aligning agriculture with climate goals presents complex trade-offs. The need for food security means you need intensive farming, and intensive farming leads to high emissions, Dr Wright explains.
Failure to align agricultural policy with climate objectives could accelerate biodiversity loss and environmental degradation. At the same time, reducing emissions must be balanced with maintaining food production. Experts say progress will require coordinated policy frameworks that integrate climate mitigation, land-use planning, agricultural productivity and ecosystem protection.
The need for food security means you need intensive farming, and intensive farming leads to high emissions. – Dr Helena Wright, Executive Director of the Climate Policy Monitor at the University of Oxford.
As scrutiny of carbon markets intensifies, the credibility of agricultural carbon credits — and their role in achieving net-zero targets — will depend on robust regulation, scientific monitoring, and transparent governance.
