Offset schemes which reward farmers for practices which trap and store greenhouse gases as soil organic carbon are mainly reaching those already carrying out ‘carbon farming’ practices or are strongly interested in them, according to US researchers.
The findings of the study by Clare Barbato and Dr Aaron Strong from Hamilton College suggest that such carbon markets may not be incentivising much more soil improvement activity, with its associated climate mitigation effects, than would already be happening.
Barbato and Strong carried out interviews with two groups of farmers: conventional row-crop farmers who are already participating in or seeking to participate in voluntary carbon markets, and organic row-crop farmers who are carrying out soil carbon sequestration practices but are ineligible for such markets in the state where they are based.
The aim of this selection was to determine whether views are shared between farmers that are all involved to some degree in soil organic carbon improvements, but are not all participating in incentive schemes.
What’s driving carbon farming?
They found that across both groups, benefits to soils and crop health, as well the long-term economic benefits that came from these benefits, were the prime motivators to undertake action to improve soils, such as low- or no-till practices and the use of cover crops. Although the researchers expected financial payments to motivate action, “this was very clearly not the case,” the researchers wrote in the journal npj Climate Action.
A third of large-scale commodity crop farmers surveyed said their conventional practices had ultimately led to economic hardship, making changes to practices more appealing, due to their potential to ensure long-term profitability. Organic farmers had a more specific interest in ensuring a diverse microbiome on their land, to ensure plant health and productivity.
“Based on our research, carbon market payments through existing markets…for soil carbon sequestration are largely reaching farmers who were already implementing these beneficial practices or were already strongly interested in implementing these practices, and that the payments for the offset credits are seen as a ‘gravy on top’ in the form of payments earned for what they were already doing,” they said.
“There is a fundamental disjuncture between how carbon markets define themselves, primarily as a climate change mitigation tool built on rigorous, permanent and additional offsets, and the work that farmers want offset markets to be doing.”
Scheme structure criticisms
The work also recorded a number of shared criticisms of carbon credit schemes. Respondents told the researchers that they thought the structure of schemes benefitted large agricultural corporations and offset developers rather than farmers, that rewards were unpredictable and paperwork burdensome. Many also said that there was a lack of support for changes in practices on farms.
Another threat to the ‘additionality’ of such markets is the fact that farmers felt payments were simply too low to encourage new adoption of soil-friendly practices.
“As the voluntary market for agricultural soil carbon offsets expands, it is increasingly important to ensure that market programs for agricultural soil carbon sequestration are effective at sequestering additional carbon and appealing enough to incentivise farmers to adopt soil carbon sequestration practices,” the researchers concluded.
