Sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide and its storage in soils is, along with the overall improvement of soil health and environmental services, one of the main goals of carbon farming. However, the transition towards more sustainable land management practices involves costly, time-consuming, and potentially risky measures, making farmers hesitant or even reluctant to adopt them. In this context, Europe’s political ambition is to finance and sustain this transition through the Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM), promoting the trade of certificates that account for carbon removals.
To be successful, this mechanism requires a dedicated certification framework with scientifically robust methods for measuring carbon removals and emission reductions and a set of criteria to certify the integrity and quality of certificates. Specifically, quality criteria are essential to creating trust in the carbon market, reassuring against the risk of greenwashing, and thus providing a monetary value to the certificates. Therefore, quality criteria are thoroughly addressed by crediting standards in carbon farming globally. Nonetheless, significant variations exist in how these criteria are treated and in the accuracy of the methods employed, resulting in carbon credits of varying performance within the VCM. Moreover, these standards do not necessarily align with the European Commission’s Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming Certification (CRCF) Regulation.
Developing robust, harmonised, and context-specific Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) framework, as is MARVIC’s goal, starts with an analysis of the current quality criteria and MRV systems available. Consequently, in 2024, MARVIC experts Lorette Lorand, Marine de la Sayette, Romane Jubera, Célia Ruau, and Edouard Lanckriet (Agrosolutions) produced a public deliverable titled Analysis of Current MRV Systems, which presents a comparative analysis of the quality criteria proposed in 11 existing MRV methodologies. This comparison encompasses private certification standards (Verra, Gold Standard, Plan Vivo, and MoorFutures), public standards (Label Bas Carbone, UK Woodland Carbon Code and UK Peatland Code), and independent international bodies (GHG Protocol and the Integrity Council for Voluntary Carbon Market).
The analysis focused on five quality criteria—additionality, permanence, leakage, baseline and double counting—, and highlighted a notable alignment in the general framework but substantial diversity in the approaches to these criteria. This diversity goes beyond mere differences in terminology; rather, it influences the entire process and arises from the challenge of adapting these criteria to the economic and administrative realities of the agricultural sector and the specificities of biogenically stored carbon.
Specifically, the comparison showed that although additionality is universally acknowledged, its assessment varies significantly. Most MRV systems focus on regulatory and financial additionality, but they apply different levels of precision and methodologies to demonstrate them. Similarly, while most methodologies recognise the importance of permanence, their methods for estimating and ensuring it diverge. Leakage is also inconsistently addressed, with some methodologies providing more robust mechanisms for leakage prevention than others. Moreover, the issue of double counting presents a complex challenge that each methodology approaches differently, while the establishment of baselines varies widely among methodologies.
This broad variability in methodological approaches—addressed in detail in our report—raises significant concerns about the quality and comparability of carbon credits traded within the VCM, highlighting the challenge of designing quality criteria that not only meet technical requirements but are also adapted to the realities of the agricultural sector. Without standardised approaches to address these key criteria, there is a risk that carbon credits may not accurately represent the true climate benefits of projects, potentially leading to market distortions and undermining the credibility of carbon markets as effective tools for climate change mitigation. By examining these variations, this review sheds light on the challenges and opportunities for enhancing the consistency, reliability, and robustness of carbon offsetting practices in agricultural contexts.
If you are interested in participating in these discussions, you can be a part of MARVIC’s Market End-User Forum, led by Agrosolutions. Fill this form if you would like to be a part of this Forum or register for the upcoming webinar “Towards a harmonized MRV for carbon farming and scope 3 reporting in Europe” here.
