Agricultural Soil Carbon Credits Protocol Synthesis

Agricultural Soil Carbon Credits:
Making sense of protocols for carbon sequestration and net

greenhouse gas removals
NATURAL CLIMATE SOLUTIONS
About this report
This synthesis is for federal and state We contacted each carbon registry and
policymakers looking to shape public marketplace to ensure that details
investments in climate mitigation presented in this report and
through agricultural soil carbon credits, accompanying appendix are accurate.
protocol developers, project developers This report does not address carbon
and aggregators, buyers of credits and accounting outside of published
others interested in learning about the protocols meant to generate verified
landscape of soil carbon and net carbon credits.
greenhouse gas measurement, reporting While not a focus of the report, we
and verification protocols. We use the remain concerned that any end-use of
term MRV broadly to encompass the carbon credits as an offset, without
range of quantification activities, robust local pollution regulations, will
structural considerations and perpetuate the historic and ongoing
requirements intended to ensure the negative impacts of carbon trading on
integrity of quantified credits. disadvantaged communities and Black,
This report is based on careful review Indigenous and other communities of
and synthesis of publicly available soil color. Carbon markets have enormous
organic carbon MRV protocols published potential to incentivize and reward
by nonprofit carbon registries and by climate progress, but markets must be
private carbon crediting marketplaces. paired with a strong regulatory backing.
Acknowledgements
This report was supported through a gift Conservation Cropping Protocol; Miguel
to Environmental Defense Fund from the Taboada who provided feedback on the
High Meadows Foundation for post- FAO GSOC protocol; Radhika Moolgavkar
doctoral fellowships and through the at Nori; Robin Rather, Jim Blackburn,
Bezos Earth Fund. Carrie Masiello and Kenneth Walker at
We would like to thank the individuals BCarbon; and Karen Graham, Melissa
from each organization who took the Varty, Fred Frydoon Far and Konrad
time to provide feedback and clarification Muller who provided feedback on the
on our interpretation of their protocols: Australian protocols. We thank Carl
Sami Osman at CAR; Stefan Jirka at Churchill at Woodwell Climate Research
Verra; Giancarlo Raschio at Gold Center for creating Figure 2. We would
Standard; Sophia Leiker, Gisel Booman also like to acknowledge Stephen Wood
and Sarah Baxendell from Regen of The Nature Conservancy for reviewing
Network; Karen Haugen-Kozyra who this document.
provided feedback on Alberta’s
2 EDF.ORG/SOILCARBON
Contents
About this report 2
Acknowledgements 2
Executive summary 4
Box 1: Terminology 8
Introduction 10
Box 2: Investing in agricultural climate solutions 11
Research gaps underlying the premise of emerging soil carbon markets 13
Technical considerations for emerging soil carbon markets: Measurement and

uncertainty 15
Key sampling issues: Capturing spatial and temporal variability 15
Box 3: Technological developments for measuring SOC 17
Key sampling issues: Soil carbon at depth and equivalent soil mass 18
Key modeling issues: Uncertainty, scale of model inputs and applicability 19
Box 4: Advancing MRV through model benchmarking efforts 21
Structural considerations of emerging carbon markets: Additionality, leakage,

reversals and permanence 22
Assessing overall climate impact 25
Defining the project scale 26
Ensuring equity and environmental justice 28
Credit equivalency 29
Box 5: Current protocol adoption and emerging soil carbon markets and carbon
programs 30
Recommendations 32
Appendix A 34
Appendix B 38
Notes 39
How to cite this report: Oldfield, E.E., A.J. Eagle, R.L Rubin, J. Rudek, J. Sanderman, D.R. Gordon. 2021. Agricultural soil
carbon credits: Making sense of protocols for carbon sequestration and net greenhouse gas removals. Environmental
Defense Fund, New York, New York. edf.org/sites/default/files/content/agricultural-soil-carbon-credits-protocol-
synthesis.pdf.
EDF.ORG/SOILCARBON 3
Executive summary
Agriculture contributes to climate Differences in the way protocols and
change through direct greenhouse gas carbon markets estimate SOC and net
emissions and indirect land use change, GHG reductions, as well as the way they
and it has the potential to help solve account for issues such as permanence
climate change through avoided and additionality of carbon sequestered,
emissions and carbon sequestration, as run the risk of creating credits that are
well as building resilience to unavoidable not equivalent or even comparable.
climate impacts. This variation makes it difficult to
The potential for agricultural climate ensure net climate benefits have been
solutions overall has fueled growing achieved. A lack of comparability and
investment in credits for soil organic standardization will be especially
carbon sequestration in particular. The problematic if the U.S. government
stakes for climate change and farmers decides to use SOC credits to meet
are high, and there is a pressing need to nationally determined contributions or if
evaluate emerging SOC measurement, sectors required to reduce emissions
reporting and verification protocols to purchase SOC credits to compensate for
ensure they result in high-quality credits emissions elsewhere.
that identify real net atmospheric Consistent accounting and verification
carbon sequestered. of direct emission reductions during
Environmental Defense Fund and the agricultural production — reduced nitrous
Woodwell Climate Research Center oxide emissions via improved nutrient
reviewed 12 published MRV protocols for management, reduced carbon dioxide
SOC credits generated on cropland and emissions via reduced tractor use and
rangeland — eight from the United reduced methane emissions from
States, two from Australia, one from improved manure management — and
Canada and one from the Food and from avoided land conversion is a less
Agriculture Organization. (See Table 1 for risky and permanent climate solution for
additional details.)2 supply chain and other public investment.
These protocols take different This approach should result in credits
approaches to quantifying SOC and net that could count toward NDCs or
GHG removals. Some use soil sampling emission offsets.
only, some combine sampling with
process-based modeling, and others use
only modeling and remote sensing.
Improved management practices that approaches that combine episodic soil
aim to build SOC can deliver many co- sampling, such as every five years, with
benefits, including improved water process-based models.
quality, increased yields and yield Confidence that models can produce
resilience. Thus, while uncertainty accurate and unbiased estimates of SOC
remains about the climate mitigation sequestration is critical, as credits will
potential of SOC sequestration, efforts primarily be issued based on modeled
to build SOC are still valuable. results in the short term. Little evidence
suggests that existing models can
This report: accurately capture SOC change at the
1. Identifies critical research gaps field level under all proposed management
related to knowledge of SOC accrual interventions for all combinations of soils
in response to agricultural and climate. For both sampling-only and
management. hybrid sampling and modeling
approaches, designing an effective soil
2. Specifies limitations and key
sampling strategy that adequately
uncertainties associated with
captures spatial heterogeneity and
different SOC quantification
reduces uncertainty in SOC stock
approaches.
estimates is essential. Soil sampling
3. Synthesizes different protocol details provided by published protocols
approaches to issues such as may prove insufficient, depending on the
additionality, leakage, reversals and associated challenges to quantifying SOC
permanence. and the level of certainty demanded by
buyers of credits.
4. Outlines critical actions the public
This report outlines research gaps
and private sectors can collectively
underpinning the understanding of the
take to strengthen the potential for
mitigation potential of SOC sequestration.
SOC markets.
It details how the various protocols plan to
quantify changes in SOC and associated
Research gaps and the GHGs — nitrous oxide and methane. It
challenges of quantifying SOC includes important considerations in the
Existing cropland protocols assess application of process-based models for
carbon sequestered through the GHG estimation, and it highlights
adoption of a limited number of technological developments for
practices like cover crops, reduced measuring SOC.
tillage and crop rotation. Scientists do
not, however, have a clear understanding Different protocol approaches to
about the degree to which these structural accounting issues
conservation practices can sequester
In addition to the technical challenges of
sufficient atmospheric carbon to have
SOC quantification, SOC credits must
an appreciable impact in mitigating
account for issues of additionality,
climate change.
leakage, reversals and permanence, all of
This uncertainty stems from a lack of
which increase the risk of not achieving
data on spatial and temporal patterns of
desired climate benefits.
SOC accrual across working farms and
These structural considerations address
under different management practices.
whether a specific project results in carbon
SOC can vary significantly over space,
sequestration that would not otherwise
and it changes very slowly over time.
have occurred under a business-as-usual
This makes it difficult to detect change
approach (additionality). They ensure a
without collecting and analyzing a high
project does not result in increased
density of soil samples, which is
emissions off-site (leakage), while
expensive and potentially cost
accounting for and protecting against
prohibitive. As such, published protocols
subsequent losses (reversals) due to
rely either exclusively on models or on
changing practices or unplanned climate This report suggests a conceptual
impacts like fires, floods and droughts. framework and an example of an
They also consider whether a project aggregation approach, based on tiered
achieves permanence of sequestered land classifications that capitalizes upon
carbon by accounting for reversals, which existing U.S. Department of Agriculture
is generally approximated as maintenance reporting districts that track relevant
of the carbon stock over 100 years. statistics for assessing leakage and
Published protocols address these additionality. The USDA districts could
issues but with varying thresholds. also be used as jurisdictional regions,
These differences mean that credits ensuring a region-wide accounting
derived from different protocols are not system.
equivalent, a significant impediment for
applying these credits to NDCs or Recommendations for a way
emission offsets. This underscores the forward and continued research
need for consistent oversight to ensure needs
environmental integrity in the
generation of credits. Paying farmers to sequester carbon
remains an uncertain approach to climate
change mitigation due to reversal risk and
Mitigating risk and managing the uncertainties of accurately detecting
uncertainty through accounting carbon stock change over time. Direct
at regional scales emission reductions and verified avoided
Existing protocols rarely define the scale conversion, by comparison, should result
of project implementation, whether at a in credits that could count toward NDCs
field-, farm- or aggregated fields level. or emission offsets.
Grouping together multiple farm-scale Because of these uncertainties,
projects, known as aggregation, will help companies with agricultural supply chains
reduce transaction costs associated should only include GHG mitigation
with MRV. Explicitly defining the scale through SOC sequestration as part of
and bounds of aggregation using their scope three reductions. Companies
biophysical and agroecological can make the greatest, most certain
characteristics would enhance risk climate impact by prioritizing direct
mitigation and accounting while greatly emissions reductions of methane, nitrous
reducing measurement MRV costs. oxide and carbon dioxide. Continued
Aggregation at an appropriate scale can research, pilot projects and advances in
help with tracking annual variability in MRV will help address the current
climate patterns, crop yields, and broad challenges and uncertainties associated
scale management adoption, allowing with carbon credits by providing the
for more transparent and feasible evidence needed for outcomes to match
accounting and assessment of leakage expectations.
and additionality. To improve confidence, increase
Furthermore, an aggregated scale scalability and help ensure carbon credits
would mitigate against the risk of represent net environmental benefits, EDF
reversal by enabling the accumulation recommends that federal policymakers,
and management of a sufficiently large researchers, protocol and project
buffer account. Using an ensemble of developers, and food and agriculture
process-based models as a component companies:
of SOC MRV at large scales would also
1. Validate and compare net carbon
produce more accurate estimates of
sequestered along with associated
mean changes in SOC with reduced
uncertainty as estimated by different
uncertainty versus accounting for
MRV protocols to help determine the
changes in SOC on a project-by-project
degree to which different published
basis.
protocols equivalently account for net
GHG reductions.
2. Determine the appropriate scale of 3. Develop high-quality, open-access
aggregation and buffer-level datasets for model calibration,
accounting based on agroecological, benchmarking, and baseline and
biophysically defined regions and additionality determination.
socio-economic attributes to account
4. Support the continued development of
for additionality and leakage, reduce
cost-effective approaches to MRV
risks of reversal, help provide MRV
using emerging technology to help
cost savings, and support participation
produce accurate and scalable
of diverse farm operations within any
solutions for quantifying net GHG
crediting program.
reductions.
Table 1:
Soil carbon estimation and sampling methodologies
ISSUE APPROACH
Measurement • Sampling.
• Modeling.
• Sampling + modeling (hybrid).
• Sampling + remote sensing.
Additionality • New practices are not already implemented on a percentage of land area.
• Legally required practices are not accepted.
• Modeling demonstrates carbon storage above business as usual.
• Practices must be proven to be new and additional to business as usual.
• There is a reasonable expectation for carbon dioxide drawdown from project activity.
• Credits issued for carbon stored after the initiation of soil testing.
• Credits issued for “look back” periods of 5 to 10 years.
Reversals • A percentage of credits are held in a buffer pool to mitigate reversal.

• The risk of reversal determines whether credits can be sold.
Permanence • Depending on the protocol, practices have to be maintained for 10, 20, 25 or 100 years (with buffers held
for reversal).
Net carbon addressed • Nitrous oxide and other emissions are addressed through models/emissions factors.
• Emissions are only included if they are >5% of baseline/business as usual.
• Only SOC sequestered is credited.
Acceptable uncertainty • Depending on the protocol, uncertainty cannot be above 10, 15, 20 or variable.
• The probability of exceedance = 60%.
For information related to these issues and specific to each protocol, see the appendix. Protocols synthesized include CAR Soil Enrichment Protocol (CAR
SEP); Verra Methodology for Improved Agricultural Land (VM0042); Verra Soil Carbon Quantification Methodology (VM0021); Verra Adoption of Sustainable
Land Management (VM0017); Gold Standard Soil Organic Carbon Framework Methodology (GS-SOC); Australian Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative-
Measurement of Soil Carbon Sequestration in Agricultural Systems) Methodology Determination (AUS-SM); Australian Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming
Initiative-Estimating Sequestration of Carbon Using Default Values) Methodology Determination (AUS-DV); Food and Agriculture Organization GSOC MRV
Protocol (FAO GSOC); Alberta Quantification Protocol for Conservation Cropping (Alberta CC); Regen Network Methodology for GHG and Co-Benefits in
Grazing Systems and BCarbon Soil Carbon Credit Systems.
BOX 1: TERMINOLOGY
Additionality: The concept that a project/activity leads to emission reductions or
removals that are additional to those that would have happened in the absence of
the incentive generated by the crediting mechanism.
Baseline: The emissions level corresponding to the scenario under which the project/
activity is not awarded the incentive generated by the crediting mechanism.
Baseline scenario: The most likely scenario in the absence of the crediting
mechanism, including all assumptions on drivers for relevant emission reductions.
Carbon credit: The unit that is certified by a carbon credit program or standard for
trade in carbon markets, representing one metric tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent.
Carbon dioxide equivalent: A metric, often written as CO2-e, used to compare GHGs
on the basis of their global warming potential, by converting amounts of other gases,
usually nitrous oxide and methane, to the equivalent global warming potential of
carbon dioxide. Note that the shorter life span of methane means that the calculation
should be done on a 20-year rather than 100-year basis for this gas.B1-1
Carbon inset: A broad term to describe emission reductions or removals achieved

within the supply chain of an entity that are used to compensate for entity emissions;
a carbon credit secured through investment within the supply chain of an entity.
Carbon insetting: The use of carbon credits, or other units, generated within a
company’s supply chain to offset a company’s emissions or environmental and
social impacts.
Carbon market: A market in which units — allowances or credits — are traded

between entities. When units are used for voluntary purposes or where carbon
credits are certified solely by voluntary programs or standards, the market is often
referred to as a “voluntary” carbon market. Where units are used to satisfy legal
compliance obligations, this is often referred to as a “compliance” market.
Carbon offset: A broad term describing a carbon credit. Often used when the carbon
credit is generated outside of a country or company supply chain to compensate for
the country’s or company’s emissions.
Carbon offsetting: The use of carbon credits, or other units, to compensate for a
country’s or company’s emissions covered by a compliance or voluntary target.
Carbon stock: The absolute mass of carbon in a sample of known volume — typically
expressed in tonnes per hectare to a specific depth.
Compliance market: A market-based measure that establishes a legal obligation

on covered entities to retire or surrender carbon credits or allowances to cover
their emissions.
Credit quality criteria: Criteria that aim to ensure high-quality attributes for carbon
credits. There are several initiatives that have sought/are seeking to define
high-quality credit criteria.
Global warming potential: The global warming potential of a gas refers to the total
contribution to global warming over a defined time frame resulting from the emission
of one unit of that gas relative to one unit of the reference gas, carbon dioxide, which
is assigned a value of one.
Leakage: Increased emissions outside of project boundaries as a result of project
activities that are intended to reduce or remove GHG emissions (e.g., if net carbon
sequestration results in lower productivity, expansion of land under agricultural
production may result, increasing emissions and representing leakage).
Measurement, reporting and verification: A system or protocol for tracking specific

methods and outcomes, transparently communicating specific information, and
validating that the information is accurate and complete. Often abbreviated as MRV.
Mitigation: A human intervention to reduce emissions or enhance GHG

sinks (removals).
Permanence: A requirement that the issued carbon credits represent long-term

reductions or removals and that measures are in place to mitigate the risk that the
reduction or removal is reversed. For SOC projects, the permanence time frame
generally requires that projects maintain activities that have led to SOC accrual in
order to prevent reversals.
Protocol: A guidance document that contains all relevant rules, standards,

deductions, calculations and parameters for the calculation/estimation of emission
reductions and removals, and for monitoring, verification and reporting of emission
reductions and removals from an emissions crediting project.
Reversal: A loss in carbon that was previously sequestered, due to harvesting,

clearing, weather or management practices. Reversal risk is directly related
to permanence.
Scope one emissions: A company’s direct emissions from owned or

controlled sources.
Scope two emissions: A company’s indirect emissions associated with purchase of

power, heat, steam or cooling.
Scope three emissions: A company’s indirect emissions that occur in their value
chain, including both upstream and downstream emissions.
Soil carbon sequestration: The net additional storage of carbon from atmospheric
carbon dioxide in soil pools, after accounting for any GHG losses.
Soil organic carbon: The carbon contained within soil organic matter. Often
abbreviated as SOC.
Soil organic matter: The fraction of soil that consists of decomposed plant, animal
and microbial material.
Verification: The process whereby an accredited third-party verifier examines or

reviews a project, including the methodology and emission reduction or removal
calculations, that the regenerative practices are occurring on farm and that SOC is
being properly accounted for.
B1-1
Ocko, I. B., S. P. Hamburg, D. J. Jacob, D. W. Keith, N. O. Keohane, M. Oppenheimer, J. D. Roy-Mayhew, D. P. Schrag, and
S. W. Pacala. 2017. Unmask temporal trade-offs in climate policy debates. Science 356:492–493.
Introduction
Soils represent one of the largest These protocols and the promise of
terrestrial carbon stocks on Earth. Land carbon markets rest on research
use change and conversion of native soil showing that certain agricultural
to agriculture has led to significant management practices effectively
reductions in that stock.3,4 This loss of sequester SOC. For instance, reduced
organic matter, with its associated and no-tillage, retaining crop residues,
reduction in soil fertility, threatens crop cover cropping, diverse crop rotations
yield stability and environmental quality and fertilizer management have shown
across the globe.5,6,7 The resulting land improvements in SOC levels compared
degradation decreases food security, to conventional modes of agriculture
diminishes rural livelihoods and that rely on more frequent tillage and
threatens freshwater systems. less diverse cropping systems.9,10,11,12,13
In response, initiatives ranging from SOC MRV protocols apply this
advocacy campaigns to state and research to help farmers generate
federal policy creation to private sector credits for verified emissions reductions
incentive programs — examples include and carbon sequestration. Farmers can
4 per mille, California’s Healthy Soils then sell these credits to companies for
Program and Indigo Carbon — have use in voluntary carbon markets as part
been developed to restore soils. These of corporate sustainability efforts or in
efforts rest on the premise that compliance markets, if protocols have
increasing the amount of SOC will both regulatory approval, to satisfy climate
restore agricultural lands through a shift mitigation compliance requirements.
to more sustainable practices and As momentum grows for crediting
sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide. farmers to sequester SOC, it is essential
In recent years, carbon registries and that any credits generated be based on
private companies (see Table 1) have accurate estimates of net carbon stored.
developed SOC MRV protocols to bring To that end, there is a pressing need to
verified carbon credits to the market ensure SOC MRV protocols result in
and pay farmers for sequestering high-quality credits that represent real
carbon. Additionally, the Biden net GHG reductions. Differences in the
administration is considering way protocols and carbon marketplaces
establishing a USDA-led carbon bank8 or estimate carbon and net GHG
other mechanism to scale the adoption reductions, as well as the way they
of emissions-reducing and carbon- account for issues such as permanence
storing agricultural practices. of carbon sequestered, run the risk of
creating credits that are not equivalent • Highlight the lack of quantitative
(see Box 2). This is especially guidance in existing SOC MRV
problematic if SOC credits are used to protocols when it comes to
meet U.S. NDCs or sold as offsets to providing sampling strategies for
sectors required to reduce emissions. effectively detecting change in
SOC over time.
In this report we:
• Provide an overview of critical • Synthesize how the different

knowledge gaps in the scientific protocols approach issues such
understanding of management as additionality, reversals,
impacts on SOC sequestration. permanence and the
quantification of net
• Specify limitations and key GHG reductions.
uncertainties associated with
different SOC quantification • Outline critical research needs to
approaches. solidify the footing upon which
emerging carbon credits
• Share a summary of available currently stand.
SOC MRV protocols specifically
for improved agricultural lands
(see Table 1 and the Appendix A).
BOX 2: INVESTING IN AGRICULTURAL

CLIMATE SOLUTIONS
Climate mitigation opportunities in agriculture include reducing on-farm fuel
consumption, rebuilding soil organic matter, increasing aboveground and
belowground biomass, improving nutrient management and reducing methane
emissions associated with livestock production.
While much of the current attention is focused on SOC sequestration, the
opportunities to reduce emissions associated with agricultural activities are equally
worthy of consideration, as their mitigation potential is large, and they have many
advantages over SOC sequestration as a mitigation strategy.
For instance, reduction of fuel consumption, methane emissions or fertilizer
inputs results in avoided emissions that are permanent and therefore do not have
the risk of reversal. Without the risk of reversal, there is no need for risk
management requirements like maintaining a GHG offset credit buffer. Avoided
emissions are also immediate, unlike SOC sequestration, which takes many years to
accumulate to measurable levels.
As noted in this report, protocols use process-based models, soil sampling or both
to estimate SOC sequestration. Soil samples taken in year five could potentially
demonstrate that modeled estimates were greater than measured rates of SOC
accrual. Depending on who assumed the initial risk, an overestimation could result in
delayed payments until measured SOC accrual matches modeled estimates or
requirements to use buffer credits to make up the difference.
Thus, SOC sequestration offset credits are risky investments. It will take several
years to determine if they are beneficial and will require continued monitoring to
ensure that the SOC sequestered is not lost through changes in management
practices. The expected duration of SOC sequestration is typically set at 100 years,
although most protocols have much shorter required periods of permanence. This
inconsistency demonstrates a dilemma that is not yet resolved, adding further risk to
investments in SOC sequestration.
An important avoided emissions opportunity for farmers is the reduction of nitrous
oxide emissions from soil. Nitrous oxide is a potent GHG with a global warming
potential of 265 over 100 years or 264 over 20 years.B2-1 Agricultural soils are
responsible for 78% of nitrous oxide emissions in the U.S., representing about 5% of
total GHG emissions on a 100-year time frame.B2-2 By optimizing manure and
inorganic fertilizer application, many farmers can save money and reduce nitrous
oxide losses from soils, while also reducing nitrate leaching and providing water
quality benefits.
Empirical modeling has shown that as the N balance — nitrogen input minus
nitrogen removed — increases, the percentage of applied nitrogen lost as nitrous
oxide and nitrate increases at an accelerating rate.B2-3 Thus, targeting those farms
where N balance is high represents an opportunity to gain substantial GHG emission
reductions with little risk of yield impacts, as well as cost savings for the farmer.
Reducing fertilizer nitrogen application also has the indirect GHG benefit of reducing
the fossil GHG emissions released during the manufacturing and transport of
the fertilizer.
For livestock producers, reduction of emissions of methane represents a valuable
opportunity to generate revenue while reducing a potent short-term climate warming
gas. Methane’s atmospheric lifetime averages a little over a decade, and its global
warming potential over 20 years is 84. Reduction in methane emissions can have
major impacts on the rate of warming over the next few decades.B2-4
Capturing biogas, which is usually more than half methane, currently emitted from
manure management systems can provide permanent, immediate climate benefits,
as well as revenue since biogas can be processed to pipeline-grade methane.
Livestock also produce methane via enteric emissions. Work is underway to
develop feed additives or diet changes to reduce enteric emissions, and protocols to
credit those avoided methane emissions are being considered. However, getting such
feed additives to grazing beef cattle, where most livestock methane emissions occur,
will be a challenge.
B2-1
Pachauri, R. K., M. R. Allen, V. R. Barros, J. Broome , W. Cramer, R. Christ, J. A. Church, L. Clarke, Q. Dahe, P. Dasgupta,
and N. K. Dubash. 2014. Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fifth
assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (p. 151). IPCC.
B2-2
U.S. EPA. 2021. Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sources. EPA.
B2-3
Eagle, A. J., E. L. McLellan, E. M. Brawner, M. H. Chantigny, E. A. Davidson, J. B. Dickey, B. A. Linquist, T. M. Maaz, D. E.
Pelster, C. M. Pittelkow, C. Kessel, T. J. Vyn, and K. G. Cassman. 2020. Quantifying On-Farm Nitrous Oxide Emission
Reductions in Food Supply Chains. Earth’s Future 8:e2020EF001504.
B2-4
Ocko, I. B., S. P. Hamburg, D. J. Jacob, D. W. Keith, N. O. Keohane, M. Oppenheimer, J. D. Roy-Mayhew, D. P. Schrag, and
S. W. Pacala. 2017. Unmask temporal trade-offs in climate policy debates. Science 356:492–493.
Research gaps underlying
the premise of emerging soil
carbon markets
Soil scientists generally agree that a slope. Long-term datasets of
large proportion of agricultural soils agricultural field trials do not necessarily
have lost SOC. The top 30 cm (~1 foot) capture this variation because
of the world’s agricultural soils has been researchers often implement treatments
estimated to contain 263 Pg of organic across replicated field blocks to
carbon, having lost an estimated 31 Pg reduce and eliminate the influence of
from anthropogenic land use changes soil variability.
over the last 12,000 years.14 Many of these long-term datasets
Practices that reduce soil also lack a baseline measurement of
disturbance, increase the amount of SOC and corresponding bulk density
organic inputs into the soil, retain plant values, limiting the capacity to resolve
residues and keep plants in the ground the true trajectory of SOC stocks over
are generally understood as practices time and in response to specific
that can restore or enhance at least management interventions.18
some of the lost SOC in surface soils by Some empirical data for which there
building soil health through improved are baseline measurements have
soil structure and nutrient and water revealed reductions in SOC under both
retention. There is a lack of scientific conventional and improved management
consensus, however, about the degree systems, albeit improved management
to which these practices can sequester practices might show slower rates of
sufficient atmospheric carbon to have loss.19,20 Related and contributing to this
an appreciable impact in mitigating lack of spatial and temporal resolution:
climate change.15,16,17 increases in SOC occur slowly and can
This uncertainty stems in large part be difficult to detect without a very high
from a lack of data on the spatial and density of soil samples (see Figure 1).21,22
temporal patterns of SOC across The process of sampling and
agricultural landscapes. The amount of analyzing soils for SOC is time intensive,
SOC can vary markedly across a field expensive and requires a high degree of
due to pronounced differences in analytical accuracy to limit analytical
biophysical and landscape conditions variance.23
such as soil moisture, soil texture and
Management treatments in long-term practices. For example, agricultural
agricultural field trials are not practices that build SOC could
necessarily reflective of working farm potentially result in increased nitrous
practices, further limiting the oxide emissions, which could offset
understanding of their impacts on SOC. gains in SOC sequestration.27,28
For example, field trials often introduce Quantifying this potential trade-off is
large amounts of inputs such as manure difficult, however, because nitrous oxide
and compost, which may not be emissions vary temporally and spatially
accessible to most farmers.24,25 Such and constitute an uncertain component
practices may only shift carbon from of agricultural GHG budgets.29 The use
one location to another and don’t of metrics such as nitrogen balance —
actually lead to net sequestration. the difference between nitrogen inputs
Furthermore, the typical on-farm and outputs — can help approximate
practice of no-till in alternate years or on-farm nitrogen losses to understand
other no-till interruptions differs from management impacts on these potential
no-till research trials that measure trade-offs.30
outcomes after continuous no-till over These empirical data gaps generate a
many years. Thus, trial results often lack of confidence and high uncertainty
result in larger apparent carbon benefits when it comes to our understanding of
than those that are found in commercial the capacity for improved agricultural
fields.26 management to generate meaningful
The impact of agricultural and lasting reductions in atmospheric
management on net emission reductions carbon through SOC sequestration.
represents another critical knowledge Efforts to integrate data and existing
gap. Agriculture is a significant source knowledge are underway (e.g.,
of anthropogenic nitrous oxide, methane OpenTEAM, CIRCASA) and will increase
and carbon dioxide emissions, and scientists’ understanding of agricultural
efforts using soil as a natural climate management impacts on SOC
change solution must account for sequestration across a diversity of
unintended consequences or potential working farms.
trade-offs resulting from shifts in
Technical considerations for
emerging soil carbon markets:
Measurement and uncertainty
SOC sequestration projects as hybrid approaches that require both soil
developed under different MRV sampling and the use of models; or
protocols need to provide real, net GHG remote sensing that relies on satellite
reductions to produce high-quality imagery verified by soil sampling.
credits that could be used to meet
national GHG commitments or to offset Key sampling issues: Capturing
emissions in regulated sectors. spatial and temporal variability
These reductions are difficult to
Soils must be sampled in a manner that
quantify due to the unique challenges of
captures field-scale variability to provide
measuring SOC. Measuring SOC is time
an unbiased estimate of the mean.
intensive and expensive, which limits the
Strategies such as stratification —
scale at which data are collected.31 More
division of the project area into zones of
data is necessary to determine whether
similar soil type, slope and elevation
a change in SOC will be large enough
— of the landscape create more
and fast enough for researchers to
efficient sampling designs to capture
detect it against background variation in
the distribution of SOC across a given
SOC. The estimated cost of
landscape.34 Capturing spatial
measurement remains high at U.S. $32
heterogeneity is critical to improving the
per hectare),32 while the price of carbon
accuracy of SOC estimates while
credits as announced by many of the
potentially reducing the number of soil
emerging carbon crediting organizations
samples required to estimate mean SOC
(U.S. $10-$15 per credit)33 precludes soil
content across a landscape.
sampling at a density that would provide
Most protocols either recommend or
high levels of confidence in the ability to
require some level of stratification prior
detect meaningful change.
to sampling soils. However, none of the
The protocols in this report use
protocols provide quantitative
different approaches for measuring and
approaches to help guide stratification;
monitoring SOC and other GHGs. (See
they remain very qualitative. Australia’s
Table 1 and the Appendix A). Protocols
SOC monitoring protocol and FAO’s
are based on soil sampling only;
Global Soil Organic Carbon (GSOC) MRV
modeling that uses either process-
protocol are the only ones that include a
based biogeochemical models, empirical
minimum number of strata (at least
models or emissions factors to estimate
three) and a minimum number of
GHG emission reductions of carbon
samples per strata (at least three).
dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane;
For protocols that do require depending on the degree of variability
stratification, returning to the same (standard deviation). Field-scale
strata in each successive sampling estimates of variability differ and can
round might help reduce variability over range from relatively low variability
time, but very few of the protocols (standard deviation of 0.2) to more
provide any guidance for the use of highly variable (standard deviation of
paired sampling locations over time. 1.0).35,36,37
Permanent sampling locations could
lead to “gaming the system,” but
collecting independent samples at each Figure 1: Results from a traditional power analysis at 95% confidence
monitoring round increases the degree with power of 0.8 performed for different levels of field variability on
of variability that might make detecting a 50-hectare farm
change in SOC very difficult.
Samples required to detect change in SOC
The Climate Action Reserve Soil
Enrichment Protocol (CAR SEP) allows
for remeasurement on no more than
50% of previous sampling points, and 150
FAO’s GSOC MRV allows for returning to
previous sampling locations, provided
Samples per hectare
they are offset by a few feet. Verra’s Soil Standard deviation

Carbon Quantification Methodology 100 0.3
(VM0021) is the only protocol that calls
for the establishment of permanent soil 0.5
sampling plots, but no one has adopted 0.7

this protocol since it was published 50
in 2011.
Given that there are no specifications
related to project scale across any of
the protocols, the minimum strata and
0
sampling efforts specified could result
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10
in woefully inadequate coverage to
Absolute change in SOC (%)
detect meaningful changes in SOC over
time with a degree of confidence that This power analysis was designed to determine the number of samples per hectare
can support robust carbon credits. necessary to detect an absolute change in SOC across a range from 0.03 to 0.10% (i.e.,
Some protocols that rely on soil going from 2.0% to 2.03% or 2.1%). We chose this range to encompass a commonly cited
rate of SOC accumulation under cover cropping (0.3 t C ha-1 yr-1). Over five years, this
sampling (Verra VM00021 and FAO would add up to an increase of 1.5 tC ha-1, which amounts to an increase of 0.05% in SOC
GSOC MRV) recommend that power concentration (focusing on the top 30 cm and assuming a bulk density of 1 g cm-3). The
analysis be performed at an acceptable power analysis assumes independently sampled points at each time period.
level of uncertainty to determine a
minimum number of samples to take. To
inform the power analysis, which In addition to uncertainty about the
requires some level of knowledge number of samples required to detect
regarding the variation of SOC across SOC change, scientists and practitioners
the project area, protocols recommend also face uncertainty about the amount
conducting reconnaissance pre- of time required to observe measurable
sampling. This may or may not be increases in SOC. A synthesis of
feasible given the extra resources it agricultural experiments in the U.S.
requires. Figure 1 presents results from showed time frames between 11 years
a traditional power analysis across a and 71 years to detect statistically
hypothetical field of 50 hectares (124 significant changes in SOC stocks,38
acres), demonstrating the sample sizes despite a small-plot experimental design
necessary to detect different levels of that eliminated much of the inherent
absolute change in SOC concentrations variation in soils found in real farms.
Other published rates of SOC allow for estimates of SOC using soil
accumulation from long-term research spectroscopy (AUS-SM, FAO GSOC).
in temperate agricultural systems range The development of in-field sensors also
from 0.3% to 18% of initial SOC presents a promising approach to
concentrations.39 Assuming an initial capture accurate SOC estimates over
starting concentration of 1.5%, achieving large, heterogeneous landscapes.42
2% SOC would take about 75 years with Because SOC is heavily context
a constant annual relative rate of dependent, requiring a set number of
increase of 0.4%, the global target set strata and soil samples within a protocol
out by the 4 per mille initiative. Thus, is likely not feasible or useful.
the combination of spatial variation and Establishing a baseline through soil
slow SOC accumulation rates makes it sampling is critically important to help
difficult to accurately quantify determine the trajectory of change in
discernible changes in SOC. SOC. Most sampling-only and hybrid
Emerging measurement techniques protocols do require an initial baseline.
(see Box 3) that allow for a greater Quantitative guidance regarding
density of soil samples at a lower stratification — what method to employ
analytic cost may improve our ability to and recommendations for number of
detect changes in SOC. One such strata given the size of the project area
approach is soil spectroscopy, which can — could provide useful guidance to help
provide accurate measures of SOC at a reduce variation in modeled and
fraction of the cost of traditional lab sampled SOC estimates.
analysis.40,41 Some protocols already
BOX 3: TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS

FOR MEASURING SOC
In response to the unique challenges of quantifying SOC, the public and private
sectors are investing in various efforts to reduce the costs of monitoring and
verification without sacrificing accuracy. The Department of Energy’s ARPA-E Smart-
Farm Program is investing in technology to advance MRV capabilities. Funded
projects range from soil sensors building off advances in soil spectroscopy to
combined process-based model and remote sensing approaches to quantify field-
level GHGs.
Advances in spectroscopy present an alternative to dry combustion methods and
can address the need for long-term monitoring at a reduced cost. Organic matter
and soil minerals absorb light at different wavelengths, enabling estimation of a
number of soil properties from low-cost, high-throughput measurements of light
absorbance in the visible, near-infrared and mid-infrared regions of the
electromagnetic spectrum.B3-1,2
Already a well-established technology in the research domain, private sector
startups are capitalizing on these advancements to present the business case for
spectroscopy as a scalable SOC MRV solution. For example, Yard Stick, a probe that
attaches to a hand-held drill, has a tiny camera that captures infrared light reflected
off the soil and includes a resistance sensor for bulk density measurement. The Yard
Stick device is currently undergoing testing against traditional bulk density and SOC
quantification methods in summer 2021. It aims to eliminate the need for traditional
soil sampling to produce an instant estimate of SOC.
Remote sensing technologies are also under discussion as scalable solutions to
MRV but are still in early phases of development. For instance, some remote sensing
products can track agricultural yields and adoption of conservation agricultural
practices, such as no-till and winter cover cropping. Examples include OpTISB3-3 and
Descartes Lab products. Such information could be quite useful for parameterizing
models, as well as for determining additionality and leakage for SOC sequestration
projects developed under various protocols.
With the proliferation of higher-resolution, satellite-based sensors, there is
growing research linking these remotely sensed spectral signatures over bare ground
to measured SOC data.B3-4 This work generally shows promise for mapping the spatial
distribution of surface SOC concentrations under ideal conditions.B3-5
Vegetation, crop residues and variable soil moisture conditions all confound the
direct use of remote sensing to estimate SOC, so while there is limited but growing
success in mapping surface SOC concentration over bare fields, there has been no
demonstrated proof that remote sensing alone can account for changes in SOC
stocks to at least 30 cm over time thus far. It is critical that these efforts be
evaluated in terms of their efficacy of achieving accuracy and precision when it
comes to detecting changes in SOC.
B3-1
Dangal, S., J. Sanderman, S. Wills, and L. Ramirez-Lopez. 2019. Accurate and Precise Prediction of Soil Properties from
a Large Mid-Infrared Spectral Library. Soil Systems 3:11.
B3-2
Wijewardane, N. K., S. Hetrick, J. Ackerson, C. L. S. Morgan, and Y. Ge. 2020. VisNIR integrated multi-sensing
penetrometer for in situ high-resolution vertical soil sensing. Soil and Tillage Research 199:104604.
Hagen, S. C., G. Delgado, P. Ingraham, I. Cooke, R. Emery, J. P. Fisk, L. Melendy, T. Olson, S. Patti, N. Rubin, B. Ziniti, H.
B3-3
Chen, W. Salas, P. Elias, and D. Gustafson. 2020. Mapping Conservation Management Practices and Outcomes in the Corn
Belt Using the Operational Tillage Information System (OpTIS) and the Denitrification–Decomposition (DNDC) Model.
Land 9:408.
B3-4
Angelopoulou, T., N. Tziolas, A. Balafoutis, G. Zalidis, and D. Bochtis. 2019. Remote Sensing Techniques for Soil Organic
Carbon Estimation: A Review. Remote Sensing 11:676.
Castaldi, F., A. Hueni, S. Chabrillat, K. Ward, G. Buttafuoco, B. Bomans, K. Vreys, M. Brell, and B. van Wesemael. 2019.
B3-5
Evaluating the capability of the Sentinel 2 data for soil organic carbon prediction in croplands. ISPRS Journal of
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 147:267–282.
Improvements in regional soil Key sampling issues: Soil

mapping show promise for providing carbon at depth and equivalent
prior information that could help inform soil mass
sampling efforts. Technology
Understanding both SOC at depth and
developments such as web-based
changes to soil bulk density are critical
applications could also help project
accounting issues for calculating
developers and farmers establish
accurate carbon stock estimates. All soil
quantitatively backed stratification
sampling protocols require taking
approaches that incorporate relevant
samples to 30 cm. CAR’s SEP and the
data layers and available soil
FAO GSOC protocol recommend
information. These improvements to
sampling to one meter, though it is not
sampling design, coupled with
required. Verra’s VM0021 — based on
technological advances for measuring
sampling requirements set out in
and estimating SOC, will help develop
VMD0021 — is the only protocol that
accurate, scalable and cost-effective
requires taking samples to at least one
measurement-based approaches to SOC
meter, with the ultimate recommendation
MRV (see the “Defining the project
of reaching two meters.
scale” section below).
Measuring SOC at depth provides the outcomes, potentially reducing costs
most complete picture of how carbon and allowing for finer time increments.
stocks change due to management. For For example, given the inability to detect
instance, practices such as no-till have annual changes in SOC, a predictive
shown a redistribution of SOC across model would be necessary for a market
depth profiles to one meter, resulting in to credit farmers annually.
no net change in SOC under no-till.43 A A number of protocols (CAR SEP,
recent meta-analysis shows gains in VM0042, FAO GSOC, Gold Standard’s
SOC under no-till within the top 30 cm SOC Framework Methodology and
coupled with an approximately 50% BCarbon) employ hybrid approaches
reduction in overall gains when soils that combine process-based models
were measured at depth (0 cm-60 cm).44 with direct field measurements of SOC
Because of the uncertainty of no-till to verify model predictions. There are
impacts on SOC stocks across the soil several key considerations when
profile, converting from deeper tillage employing process-based models for
practices to reduced or no-till are not SOC MRV: the level of expertise required
eligible under CAR’s SEP. to run the model; whether the model is
In addition to the need to accurately appropriately calibrated and validated to
capture SOC stocks at depth, only two a project area; the scale of input data
of the protocols (FAO GSOC and and model deployment; and the degree
Australia’s Carbon Farming Initiative) of certainty in predicted SOC stock,
require calculating carbon stocks using stock change and other GHG fluxes.
an equivalent mass basis to account for Project developers are more likely to
potential changes in soil bulk density. use models with relatively accessible
When calculating stocks, it is critical to interfaces within an internet application
account for reductions in bulk density or browser that can be used without
through improved management involving outside expertise. However,
practices that effectively reduce the soil there may be a trade-off between
mass in the upper soil layer.45 efficiency and complexity. Even with
Sampling protocols, such as clear guidance documentation, unless
Australia’s sampling methodology and those running the model possess a
FAO GSOC MRV that require taking soil sufficient combination of technical and
samples with a minimum of two depth domain expertise, they may
increments, can account for potential inadvertently misapply or misinterpret
changes in bulk density for more the data.
accurate accounting of SOC stocks. The quality and quantity of available
Other protocols, such as CAR’s SEP, measured data to support modeling
recommend accounting for equivalent efforts are critically important for
soil mass but only require a single modeling SOC, including changes in
measurement to 30 cm. SOC. While scientists use empirical
understanding to develop the soil-plant
Key modeling issues: system processes estimated within
Uncertainty, scale of model models, the outcomes’ adherence to
inputs and applicability reality relies on sufficient calibration and
validation across the range of
Even with emerging measurement
environmental and agricultural practice
techniques, cost-effective sampling
combinations.47
cannot easily detect changes in SOC at
Advances in computing power and
the field scale and within market-
scientific network efforts have increased
appropriate time frames.46 Appropriately
the volume of globally applicable soil
calibrated and validated models can
data available for model calibration and
extrapolate over space and time to
evaluation.48 Such validation, with
assess SOC and other relevant GHG
choices about the appropriate
extrapolation of models beyond stocks used as data inputs for models
empirical bounds, would preferably may only represent one to a few
precede application within a carbon replicates for a given site. This can lead
sequestration protocol. Implementation to high measurement error, which
of a model within a project itself will increases site-level uncertainty of SOC
have quite different data requirements, estimates.51 A 2010 study exploring the
ranging from delineation of soil and impact of scale on process model
climate zones to historical management. estimates of changes in SOC showed
Some of these inputs may have a that uncertainty was inversely related to
seemingly outsized influence on model scale with uncertainties of
output, so that slight changes in factors approximately 20% at a national scale
like the crop rooting depth could have a ballooning to 600%-700% at the site
greater impact on organic matter scale.52 Models alone may be inadequate
cycling than the precisely described for SOC estimation at site-level scales,
tillage system. unless project developers adequately
It is essential that connections calibrate for areas and crops.53
between activities (practice Predicting SOC stocks and stock
combinations) and estimated net carbon changes over regional scales can reduce
sequestered are directionally correct, the uncertainty of modeled estimates.
since the outcomes will guide programs These advantages of larger scales
and markets. This assessment requires suggest that regional aggregation of
accuracy in both the starting point (SOC projects would result in greater precision
stock) and in the trend over time with lower measurement effort.
(change in SOC). To maximize the Aggregation may not, however, address
likelihood of success in both of these accuracy or the unbiased ability to
areas, model guidance for practitioners predict net GHG outcomes.
should carefully outline the cropping Any remaining uncertainty would
systems, regions and management need to be managed through
practices that can be modeled, as well discounting of credits awarded or other
as those for which uncertainty may be insurance mechanisms within a protocol.
too high for appropriate deployment.49 Regular, standardized comparisons of
SOC biogeochemical models can, in model results with measured data from
theory, be deployed at different scales, multi-field projects would be useful for
from sub-field to farm to region. assessing potential bias, as well as for
However, measurement error can determining the appropriate geographic
significantly impact uncertainty in site- and time scales for a desired level of
level predictions, and model evaluation confidence with the anticipated SOC
has suffered from lack of clear error change (see Box 4).
quantification within existing
databases.50 Thus, measured SOC
BOX 4: ADVANCING MRV THROUGH
MODEL BENCHMARKING EFFORTS
While a hybrid approach that combines in situ measurements with
process-based models is likely a better solution than relying on
process-based models alone, protocols need to improve the accuracy
and scalability of the models by benchmarking them with
independent and high-quality measurements from soil sampling.
(See the Recommendations section.)
Most recommended models currently require a very high level of
specialized knowledge and a deep dive into the scientific literature to
understand their overall performance and quality.
Development of an open-model registry with common
performance metrics would greatly reduce the current opacity in soil
carbon models. A set of sites that have long-term records of all
required model inputs — including management records, soil
properties, climate data and yield — and outputs — carbon fluxes
including gross primary production and carbon dioxide respiration,
nitrogen fluxes and long-term SOC change — can serve as primary
calibration and validation sites.
In addition, a larger set of auxiliary sites located in important crop
production zones could provide a reduced suite of measurements
— crop yields, SOC, bulk density and N balance — to allow for true,
out-of-sample model validation within each production zone in which
the model will be applied.
Existing research networks such as the USDA Agricultural
Research Service’s Long-term Agroecosystem Research Network,
some of the National Science Foundation’s Long-term Ecological
Research Network and the NSF National Ecological Observatory
Network, in combination with research stations at many land-grant
institutions and other research centers, can provide the backbone for
such a model benchmarking effort.
Much of the data necessary already exists,B4-1 but it will require a
concerted effort to bring together these disparate data sources and
ensure interoperability. Once existing data streams are identified,
gaps in geographic data collection can be identified and targeted as
new auxiliary sites in this benchmarking effort.
B4-1
Paustian, K., S. Collier, J. Baldock, R. Burgess, J. Creque, M. DeLonge, J. Dungait, B. Ellert, S.
Frank, T. Goddard, B. Govaerts, M. Grundy, M. Henning, R. C. Izaurralde, M. Madaras, B. McConkey,
E. Porzig, C. Rice, R. Searle, N. Seavy, R. Skalsky, W. Mulhern, and M. Jahn. 2019. Quantifying carbon
for agricultural soil management: from the current status toward a global soil information system.
Carbon Management 10:567–587.
Structural considerations of
emerging carbon markets:
Additionality, leakage, reversals
and permanence
Within each protocol, structural practices impacting SOC storage are not
considerations address whether already being implemented on a defined
agricultural practices implemented percentage of land area containing a
under a project activity result in net project (>50% in the case of the CAR
GHG reductions or sequestration that SEP protocol, >20% for Verra and >5%
would not otherwise have occurred for Gold Standard). These differences in
under a business as usual approach defined percentages mean that a project
(additionality), do not result in increased eligible under CAR SEP might not be
emissions off-site (leakage), account for eligible under Gold Standard’s SOC
and protect against subsequent losses Framework.
(reversals) due to changing practices or Legal requirement tests defined
unforeseen climate impacts, and is within protocols stipulate that there is
permanently sequestered (permanence). no additionality if specific practices are
Specifics for each protocol are outlined required by law (CAR SEP and Gold
in Appendix A and B with a general Standard SOC Framework Methodology).
overview provided in the following Other protocols require project owners
paragraphs. to show (based on reasonable evidence,
modeling results or historic farm
Additionality records) that they have not previously
Addressing additionality requires proof deployed the same or similar
that project activities would not have management interventions and that the
occurred without the incentive structure new management will result in increased
provided by the carbon market. The SOC storage compared to a business-
protocols assessed in this report have as-usual/baseline approach.
different standards for meeting Encouraging early adopters to
thresholds of additionality. continue beneficial practices while also
Climate Action Reserve’s Soil ensuring any credits are truly additional
Enrichment Protocol (CAR SEP), Verra’s is a challenge. For instance, Nori allows
Methodology for Improved Agricultural for back payments, so farmers can
Land Management Protocol and Gold accumulate credits for practices
Standard’s Soil Organic Carbon undertaken over the past five years.
Framework Methodology use a BCarbon awards credits for SOC
performance standard approach, which sequestration after the initiation of
requires project activities to show that testing. Less-stringent additionality
requirements help ensure that these Reversals
early adopters do not abandon their Reversals in carbon sequestration can
practices to re-adopt later for eligibility result from a change in land use or
in the market. management, such as repeated tillage
CAR SEP assessed USDA’s National events after no-till, or from
Agricultural Statistics Service data on uncontrollable climate events, such as
practice adoption rates within specific droughts, floods and fires. Protocols
counties and compiled a “negative list.” have different approaches to account
For practices on this list, projects are for these types of risk. CAR, Verra, Gold
ineligible for single-practice adoption if Standard, Regen Registry, BCarbon and
the penetration rate is >50% based on the Australian Carbon Farming Initiative
cropland acres within each county. all require that a certain percentage of
However, if a single practice on the credits go into buffer pools to account
negative list combines with an additional for the risk of both unavoidable and
practice (e.g., no-till plus cover avoidable reversal. If an avoidable
cropping), then the entire stack counts reversal occurs, the project owner must
as additional. typically relinquish a quantity of credits
Alberta’s Quantification Protocol for equal to the size of the avoidable
Conservation Cropping dealt with early reversal, or payments cease until the
adoption by establishing a “moving loss of SOC is accounted for.
baseline” to accommodate both early Nori’s approach to reversals differs
and late adoption of reduced and no-till. slightly. During their pilot, Nori is paying
The sequestration coefficient derived for farmers in both cash and an equivalent
each eligible region in Alberta is number of restricted tokens — a
discounted according to the adoption cryptocurrency that is restricted for
rates of reduced and no-till. This allows 10 years. If a supplier intentionally
early adopters to participate and releases carbon or makes a fraudulent
maintain their practice, while later carbon claim, Nori will determine the
adopters receive a discounted amount of carbon released, quantify this
sequestration coefficient, even though value into Nori Removal Tonnes and
only the latter would truly count as recover the equivalent value of those
“additional.” tonnes from the restricted tokens.
Leakage Permanence
Leakage results when GHG emissions Related to the risk of reversal is
increase outside of the project area as a permanence. Permanence is critical if
result of project activities. Most of the emission reductions were sold as
protocols include examples like shifting offsets, as large emitters may be
crop production to other lands to purchasing these credits to offset
compensate for yield reductions or continued GHG emissions.
displacement of livestock outside of the The period of permanence is
project area. Most protocols explicitly inconsistent across protocols. The
account for yield reductions by requiring United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel
projects to prove that yield reductions on Climate Change defined a 100-year
are no greater than 5% of baseline timeframe for monitoring permanence,
yields. Projects must also show that the in combination with determining global
level of grazing activity is not lower than warming potential over the same time
the average level in the historic baseline frame.54 Arguments in favor of a shorter
period. Appropriately defining a “leakage permanence period stem from the
area” and accounting for increased 100-year monitoring timetable — a
emissions within that area resulting significant obstacle for projects,
from project area activities remains especially since projects only receive
a challenge.
payments during the first 20-30 years 100- or 25-year permanence period. If
of the project. projects elect for 25 years, then 20% of
CAR SEP, Verra’s VM0042 and the the carbon credits will be deducted over
Australian Carbon Farming Initiative the project crediting period.
protocols are the only protocols that Other protocols require permanence
include a 100-year permanence period, only over the course of the crediting
but they have different mechanisms to period, using reversal buffers to account
ensure permanence. CAR’s SEP has for any loss. Regen Registry, BCarbon
less-intensive monitoring requirements and Nori have shorter permanence
during the permanence period. The periods. Nori requires projects to report
protocol mandates evidence to support operating data to prove carbon
that no reversals have occurred (e.g., sequestration for 10 years from the date
through remotely sensed methods) and of their last carbon removal tonne sale,
information related to ongoing activities after which projects can elect to enter
on the site (e.g., management logs an additional 10-year contract. BCarbon
and records). requires an initial permanence period of
The Australian protocols stipulate 10 years, which is renewable each
that project owners properly document subsequent year when new credits are
carbon maintenance obligations over issued. Transactions may occur annually,
the course of the permanence period which creates a rolling 10-year
with the land title. CAR’s SEP and commitment. The Regen Network
Australia’s protocols also have different requires a 25-year permanence period
discounting measures to enable projects with projects either allocating an
to receive credits without committing to additional 5% of each credit issuance (in
a 100-year permanence period. For addition to a reversal buffer pool) to a
instance, CAR’s SEP developed tonne- dedicated permanence buffer pool or
year accounting for which credits are registering a covenant (a set of rules
issued as a proportion of the 100-year regarding land use) on project land from
permanence time frame. Similarly, the project registration until the end of the
Australian Carbon Farming Initiative 25-year permanence period.
protocols allow projects to elect for a
Assessing overall
climate impact
It is critically important that carbon resulting from activities such as fertilizer
markets account for potential increases use, increased fuel/electricity use and
in other potent GHGs — especially livestock management.55
nitrous oxide and methane — that might Nori assumes that project activities will
accompany project activities. All not result in a net increase in total farm
protocols except Nori and BCarbon refer GHGs and does not account for non-
to net GHG emissions resulting from target GHGs in its methodology. Some
project activities. However, there are key protocols allow for estimates of other
differences with how protocols account GHGs to count toward emission
for overall emission reductions — reductions. Other protocols only account
including carbon sequestered in the soil, for increases in GHGs if they are above
nitrous oxide and methane. the baseline and, therefore, don’t credit
Most protocols use emissions factors potential GHG reductions. Differences in
or process-models to quantify net GHG net emissions accounting could
emissions resulting from project exacerbate the issue of protocol-
activities. Emissions factors, such as dependent credits being calculated for
those developed by the IPCC, provide the same field and data.
broad-based estimates of these GHGs
Defining the project scale
Existing protocols rarely define the scale mitigate against the risk of reversal by
of project implementation (i.e., field, enabling the accumulation and
farm, aggregated set of fields). management of a sufficiently large
Aggregation, or grouping multiple buffer account.
participating farms that have similar The USDA or another entity could
biophysical and agroecological facilitate the establishment and
characteristics would enhance risk administration of an MRV program
mitigation and accounting,56 while across technology extrapolation domain
greatly reducing MRV costs. units (see Figure 2). Using an ensemble
For instance, the technology of process-based models58,59 as a
extrapolation domain approach component of SOC MRV at large scales
delineates regions via a robust spatial would also produce more accurate
framework that identifies cropland estimates of mean changes in SOC with
cohorts with similar soils and climate reduced uncertainty versus accounting
where a comparable response to a for changes in SOC on a project-by-
technological intervention — broadly project basis.60,61
defined as tillage methods, crop USDA Agricultural Statistical Districts
varieties, fertilizer management, crop could also form jurisdictional boundaries
rotations and cover crop inclusion — in which the USDA or another entity
would be expected (see Figure 2).57 This would conduct larger-scale monitoring
spatial framework could also expand to of the entire landscape, covering both
include socio-economic circumstances carbon storage projects and the area
— output and input prices, farm size, without projects. This monitoring,
access to markets, credit and analogous to jurisdictional approaches
information. proposed for high-quality REDD+
Such an approach would achieve an tropical forest carbon credits62 or for
appropriate scale to track annual national emissions inventories,63 would
variability in climate patterns, crop facilitate full carbon accounting,
yields and broad-scale management reducing issues associated with
adoption that would allow for more additionality, permanence and leakage
transparent and feasible accounting and and reduce the potential for double-
assessment of leakage and additionality. counting.
Furthermore, an aggregated scale would
Figure 2: Example of aggregation at scale based upon tiered land classifications
700K acres
400K
0
ASD 1740 FineTED Values (≤ 20k acres not shown)
≤ 110k 1,300k+
Technology extrapolation domains64 (TEDs, shown in color), USDA Agricultural Statistical Districts (ASDs, delineated by black lines with district
1740 pictured), and USDA Major Land Resource Areas (MLRAs, darkened region) could provide a basis for a regional approach for SOC
markets. TEDs identify areas of similar soils and climate where comparable responses to agricultural technologies and interventions would be
expected. TEDs could provide an initial stratification layer over which project aggregators report on credit-generating activities to USDA ASDs.
ASDs report TED-based activities to USDA MLRAs where project activities are aggregated by TEDs to eliminate bias. Using publicly available
data through ASDs would enable more transparent accounting of market issues such as leakage, and calibrated remote sensing products
could track the adoption of conservation practices such as reduced tillage and cover cropping to help account for additionality.
Ensuring equity and
environmental justice Photo by: @jennrox85 via Twenty20
A long history of discriminatory policies and creation, and fostering partnerships.

and programs enacted by the USDA and Furthermore, any crediting program
other government entities have harmed designed to create offsets must
farmers of color (e.g., discrimination in explicitly address environmental justice
the processing of Black farm loan concerns and be paired with strong
applications and higher rates of regulatory protections for local air and
foreclosure among farmers of color).65 It water quality. The sale of offsets to high
is essential that the potential financial emitters allows industry to continue to
benefits of carbon crediting programs emit carbon dioxide and other
are available to all communities, pollutants. Frontline communities, who
especially those who have been are more likely to be people of color and
historically marginalized and often face low income, face higher exposure to
barriers to participating in existing these pollutants and suffer
markets. disproportionate health impacts.66
BCarbon includes explicit Environmental justice concerns
consideration of diversity, equity and associated with offsets must be
inclusion within its crediting program. addressed and corrected for to ensure
BCarbon plans to include strategies for that any compliance regulations result in
supporting diversity, equity, inclusion net environmental benefits both for the
and accessibility within its program such climate and frontline communities.
as outreach, internships, job training
Credit equivalency
Voluntary carbon markets are comparable. Furthermore, differences in
developing at a rapid pace. This the way credits are derived under
momentum underscores the need for different protocols and within different
oversight by the USDA, or other such carbon marketplaces may result in
entity, to ensure that generated credits developers and buyers focusing on
are equivalent and represent net securing the greatest number of credits
environmental benefit. for the least amount of investment. This
Differences in the way protocols and could potentially push protocols with the
carbon marketplaces estimate SOC and highest standards out of the market.
net GHG reductions, as well as the way Inconsistent SOC credits would be
they account for issues such as especially problematic if they were used
permanence and additionality of carbon to meet U.S. NDCs or sold as offsets to
sequestered, run the risk of creating sectors required to reduce emissions as
credits that are not equivalent or even part of a compliance market.
BOX 5: CURRENT PROTOCOL ADOPTION
AND EMERGING SOIL CARBON MARKETS
AND CARBON PROGRAMS
Most of the protocols assessed have not yet been adopted; many of them have
just recently been published (CAR SEP, Verra Methodology for Improved
Agricultural Land Management, Gold Standard Soil Organic Carbon Framework
Methodology and BCarbon).
Indigo Ag recently announced that it had secured commitments to sell verified
carbon credits (through the use of Verra and CAR protocols) to several buyers,
including Boston Consulting Group, Shopify, Barclays and JP Morgan Chase.
Nori Marketplace made its first major sale of verified credits in the fall of 2020.
These credits, sold under the pilot phase of Nori’s marketplace to Shopify, amount
to 5,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide removal. Nori’s protocol allows for
backward-looking credits, through which farmers can accumulate credits for
practices undertaken over the previous five years. This calls into question the
premise of additionality for these pilot phase credits, and most other carbon
programs do not allow for these “look-back” periods.
Microsoft announced its first round of purchased carbon credits from Regen
Network, which includes 40,000 tons of sequestered SOC from a livestock
operation in Australia, and has committed to buying credits developed under
TruCarbon, a new carbon marketplace developed by Truterra, LLC.
Australia Emissions Reduction Fund has several registered projects under its
Carbon Farming Initiative Methodology. Of the approximately 125 projects
registered, the majority deal with pasture management (stocking rates and
reseeding pasture). Only one project has received credits thus far. Alberta’s
Quantification Protocol for Conservation Cropping has delivered over 17 million
tonnes of offsets since 2007.
The Government of Alberta requires industrial facilities exceeding 100,000
tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents per year to report and reduce their emissions
to established targets. Emission offsets regulated by Alberta’s Quantification
Protocol are an option for these large emitters to meet their reduction
requirements. This protocol is practice-based and applies to any farm using
reduced or no-tillage where sufficient records are available to justify the emissions
reductions being claimed. This protocol is set to expire on December 31, 2021, due
to the end of a 10-year crediting period, after which no additional credits will
be issued.
Other protocols such as Verra’s Soil Carbon Quantification Methodology
(VM0021) have not seen any adoption since its publication in 2012. The
methodology relies on Verra’s Estimation of Stocks in the Soil Carbon Pool
(VMD0021), which has extremely intensive sampling requirements that present a
significant barrier to adoption.
In addition to the protocols covered in this report, announced SOC crediting
programs for both scope one and scope three emission reductions are currently
enrolling farmers but do not yet have published protocols that are publicly
available. With some of these programs, it is unclear if they will adopt a published
protocol such as CAR SEP or VM0042 or develop their own. It will be critical to track
the different approaches these programs take on MRV (e.g., hybrid approaches,
remote sensing and process-model approaches) and their requirements for meeting
additionality, permanence and accounting for potential reversals. Programs
announced as of April 2021 include Soil and Water Outcomes Fund, CIBO, TruCarbon,
Bayer Carbon Initiative, Ecosystem Services Market Consortium, Nutrien, Gradable
Carbon and Corteva’s Carbon and Ecosystem Services portfolio.
Recommendations
Paying farmers to sequester SOC support continued research, pilot
remains an uncertain approach to projects and advances in MRV that are
climate change mitigation due to needed to address the current
reversal risk and the uncertainties of challenges and uncertainties associated
accurately detecting carbon stock with carbon credits by providing the
change over time. Current research and evidence needed for outcomes to match
MRV advances will help address these expectations.
challenges by providing the evidence Establishing a USDA-led carbon bank
needed for outcomes to match or other federal system would
expectations. complement actions by the private
For SOC sequestration to become an sector and could help mitigate
important mitigation strategy worthy of uncertainties associated with net SOC
government and private sector sequestration by assuming some of the
investment, a credible, cost-effective risk upfront. For instance, the USDA
and consistent MRV system is essential could support research and
for building trust and confidence in the technological advances while
credits generated. In the meantime, we maintaining accounting of credits during
believe only avoided land conversion and an initial development phase.
direct emission reductions — for The creation of a national soil
example, reduced nitrous oxide monitoring program analogous to the
emissions via improved nutrient U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Inventory
management and reduced carbon and Analysis would facilitate consistent
dioxide emissions via reduced tractor baselines and accounting methodology.
use — that are consistently accounted The system could set a standard
for and can be verified should result in approach for permanence (e.g., 100
credits that might count toward NDCs or years), additionality (e.g., setting uniform
emission offsets. baselines for technology extrapolation
Commitments by food and agriculture domain units) and accounting for net
companies to reduce scope three GHGs. The USDA could pilot a unified
emissions from their supply chains can approach to ensure that the technology
add value by accelerating the adoption extrapolated domain-based scale
of agricultural practices that can have enables equitable inclusion of diverse
benefits beyond SOC storage, such as farm operations and that the scale of
increased resilience to climate change aggregation allows for reduced
impacts.67 Such adoption can also
uncertainty and greater confidence in • Create open-access datasets
generated credits. with harmonized high-quality
Additionally, federal policymakers, data for model calibration and
protocol and project developers, food benchmarking efforts across
and agriculture companies, and agroecological zones (see Box 4).
researchers should prioritize the A network of benchmark sites
following actions to help build can support continual model
confidence and reduce uncertainty with improvement in an open,
respect to agricultural SOC credits: collaborative fashion.
• Validate and compare the net • Develop cost-effective

GHG reductions estimated by approaches to MRV using
different MRV protocols and the emerging technologies and user-
associated uncertainty against friendly technology (e.g., a web-
measured changes at benchmark based applications), such as
sites. quantitatively backed
stratification approaches to
• Determine the appropriate scale ensure samples are collected in a
of aggregation and level of buffer rigorous way that appropriately
accounting — based on captures landscape heterogeneity.
agroecological and biophysically
defined regions (e.g., technology • Identify — in the U.S. and globally
extrapolation domains68) and — characteristics of agricultural
socio-economic attributes — to soils with the highest capacity to
best account for additionality and store carbon over decadal time
leakage, reduce risks associated frames. Voluntary and regulatory
with reversals and support markets could then focus on
participation of diverse farm those areas (regions or
operations within any crediting landforms) where real SOC
program. increases are most readily
realizable.
• Evaluate whether a multi-model
These actions can take place over
ensemble approach for each
both immediate and longer timescales
aggregated region can be used to
and will improve confidence, increase
reduce structural and parameter
scalability and help ensure net
uncertainties in individual models.
environmental benefits for the
development of scope one carbon
credits.
Appendix A
TABLE A-1:
Additionality, permanence, reversals and leakage requirements for synthesized protocols
PROTOCOL ADDITIONALITY PERMANENCE REVERSALS LEAKAGE CONSIDERATION

REQUIREMENT PERIOD OF OTHER GHGS
(E.G., NITROUS
OXIDE AND
METHANE)
Climate Action Reserve Soil Yes, performance Yes, commitment of A percentage of Yes, accounts for Yes, net emissions
Enrichment Protocol v 1.0 standard test and 100 years or tonne- credits go to a leakage related accounted for
legal requirement year accounting buffer pool to displacement through use
test where credits of livestock of modeling or
are issued as a and sustained emissions factors
proportion of 100- reductions in crop
year permanence yields
period
Verra VM0042 Methodology Yes, identification of Yes, 30 years, Yes, a percentage Yes, accounts Yes, net emissions
for Improved Agricultural Land barriers preventing with risk of non- of credits go to a for application accounted for
Management, v 1.01 project activities permanence buffer pool of manure from through use
and performance calculated using outside project of modeling or
standard test the VCS AFOLU area, sustained emissions factors
Non-Permanence reductions in crop
Risk Tool yields and livestock
displacement
Verra VM0017 Adoption of Yes, must use Yes, 30 years, Yes, a percentage Yes, accounts for Yes, net emissions
Sustainable Land Management additionality tool for with risk of non- of credits go to a use of fuel from accounted for using
(SALM), v 1.01 Clean Development permanence buffer pool non-renewable emissions factors
Mechanism project calculated using sources due to
activities the VCS AFOLU decrease in use of
Non-Permanence manure that may be
Risk Tool transferred to fields
through project
activities
Verra VM0021 Soil Carbon Yes, must use Yes, 30 years, Yes, a percentage Yes, accounts Yes, emissions
Quantification Methodology, v 1.02 additionality tool for with risk of non- of credits go to a of livestock factors applied if
Clean Development permanence buffer pool displacement project activities
Mechanism project calculated using and sustained result in emissions
activities the VCS AFOLU reductions in crop >5% of baseline
Non-Permanence yields
Risk Tool
Nori Croplands Methodology, v 1.1 Yes, project 10 years Yes, restricted Verification will No
activities must tokens are used establish if SOC
show improvement to account for any stock gains result
in carbon deliberate reversals in losses outside of
sequestration over project boundary
baseline scenario
Gold Standard Soil Organic Carbon Yes, performance Permanence Yes, a percentage Yes, accounts Yes, modeling or
Framework Methodology v 1.0 standard test and required within of credits go to a for shifting crop emissions factors
legal requirement crediting period buffer pool production applied if project
test (depending on SOC activities result in
Activity Module, emissions >5% of
5-20 years) baseline
Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Yes, a “newness” 100 or 25 years; if Yes, a percentage Yes, accounts Yes, emissions
Initiative — Measurement of test that requires projects opt for 25, of credits go to a for application factors are used if
Soil Carbon Sequestration in at least one new then 20% of credits buffer pool of amendments project emissions
Agricultural Systems) Methodology management will be deducted outside of project are greater than
Determination activity area those of baseline
Carbon Credits (Carbon Yes, a “newness” 100 or 25 years; if Yes, a discount rate Yes, accounts for Yes, net abatement
Farming Initiative — Estimating test that requires projects opt for 25, on sequestration leakage resulting is calculated
Sequestration of Carbon in Soil at least one new then 20% of credits is applied if a from new irrigation through the
Using Default Values) Methodology management will be deducted “depletion event” (if using new water FullCAM model
Determination activity and will has taken place access entitlement
result in expected or irrigation right)
changes
TABLE A-1 continued:
Additionality, permanence, reversals and leakage requirements for synthesized protocols
Alberta Quantification Protocol for Yes, eligible project 20 years Yes, each offset Based on ISO Yes, regionally
Conservation Cropping, v 1.0 must be new is discounted by a 14064:2 — activity based emissions
and additional to percentage specific shifts deemed factors built into
business as usual; to the region minimal sequestration
sequestration containing project coefficients
coefficient
discounted
according to
observed rate of
increase in adoption
of no-till
FAO GSOC MRV Protocol Yes, project must Projects are Yes, a 5% risk of Potential sources Yes, net emissions
show improvement planned for a 4-year reversal discount of leakage defined accounted for
over baseline in duration and can be will be applied during the initial through use
sequestration by renewed for another to sequestration project assessment of modeling or
performing a 20- 4 years. projects emissions factors
year SOC simulation
BCarbon Issued credits will 10 years, which is 10% of credits go to Potential sources No
be for carbon added renewable each a buffer pool of leakage will be
to the ground after subsequent year assessed by life
initiation of testing when new credits cycle assessment3
are issued
Regen Network Grasslands Protocol Yes, eligible project 25 years Yes, a percentage Potential sources Yes, net emissions
must implement of credits go to a of leakage tracked accounted for using
practices new buffer pool over time IPCC or relevant
and additional to national/state/
business as usual regional factors
1
VM0042 is a hybrid sampling-modeling approach that can be applied internationally; VM0017 is a model-only approach that is targeted more specifically
for small-holder agriculture.
2
VM0021 is a hybrid sampling-modeling approach that has not been adopted likely due to its strict soil sampling requirements as outlined in VMD0021 (see
Table 3).
3
This life cycle approach is currently under development and will stipulate that any increase in the life cycle emissions must be deducted. Decreased
emissions will not be credited.
TABLE A-2:
PROTOCOL APPROACH REQUIRED BASELINE STRATIFICATION MINIMUM FREQUENCY ALLOWABLE

ASSESSED (MODEL, MODEL? VALIDATION NUMBER OF SAMPLING UNCERTAINTY
SAMPLING, (DYNAMIC VS. OF
HYBRID) STATIC) SAMPLES
PER
STRATA?
Climate Action Hybrid No, but Dynamic Required 3 Every 5 years 15%
Reserve Soil must meet performance
Enrichment Protocol minimum baseline
v 1.0 requirements calibrated with
(publicly sampling
available, peer
reviewed)
Verra VM0042 Hybrid No, but Dynamic Recommended Not Every 5 years 15%
Methodology for must meet performance specified
Improved Agricultural minimum baseline
Land Management, requirements calibrated with
v 1.0 (publicly sampling
available, peer
reviewed)
Verra VM0021 Soil Hybrid Yes, DNDC Static Required, Not At least every 10%
Carbon Quantification established by minimum of 1 specified 5 years
Methodology, v 1.01 sampling
Verra VM0017 Model Recommend Static baseline Recommended N/A N/A 15%
Adoption of RothC
Sustainable Land
Management (SALM),
v 1.0
Nori Croplands Model GGIT Dynamic Not specified N/A N/A Depends
Methodology, v 1.1 performance
baseline
Gold Standard Sampling or No, but must Either Yes Not Every 5 years 20%
Soil Organic hybrid3 be a peer performance or specified
Carbon Framework reviewed static depending
Methodology v 1.02 model on accounting
approach
Carbon Credits Sampling NA Static Required, 3 At least every Probability of

(Carbon Farming established by minimum of 3 5 years exceedance = 60%
Initiative — sampling
Measurement
of Soil Carbon
Sequestration in
Agricultural Systems)
Methodology
Determination
Carbon Credits Model Yes, FullCAM Static N/A N/A N/A Uncertainty
(Carbon Farming model performance associated with
Initiative — baseline activity data,
Estimating and the model
Sequestration of was determined
Carbon in Soil Using using a Monte
Default Values) Carlo analysis in
Methodology conjunction with
Determination the IPCC approach
one propagation of
error method
TABLE A-2 continued:
FAO GSOC MRV Hybrid No, but Dynamic Required, Minimum Every 4 years Not explicitly
Protocol evidence must performance minimum of 3 of 3 stated
be provided baseline composite
(publications, calibrated with samples
local research sampling
studies)
demonstrating
the use of
the model is
appropriate
for the
agroecological
zone where
the project is
located
Alberta Quantification Practice- Uses an Performance N/A N/A N/A Uncertainty is

Protocol for based empirical standard accounted for in
Conservation modeling the estimation
Cropping, v 1.0 approach of sequestration
specific to coefficients
project area
regions
BCarbon Hybrid No, each Static baseline Required None Every 5 years 10%
model used established by specified
will be sampling
reviewed by
project team
Regen Network Remote No Static baseline Recommended Soil At least every 20%
Grasslands Protocol sensing established by sampling 5 years
sampling protocol
provides a
minimum
number of
required
samples
per 1000
hectares
PROTOCOLS/METHODOLOGIES DEVELOPED FOR SOIL SAMPLING
Verra VMD0021 Sampling No Static Required, Not Not addressed Not addressed
Estimation of Stocks established by minimum of 1 specified (as this is a (as this is a
in the Soil Carbon sampling methodology methodology to
Pool, v 1.0 (this to support support other
protocol is specific other registries)
to the soil sampling registries)
requirements for
VM0021)
ICRAF A Protocol Sampling N/A Static Recommended Not Not addressed Not addressed
for Modeling, established by specified (as this is a (as this is a
Measurement and sampling methodology methodology to
Monitoring Soil to support support other
Carbon Stocks other registries)
in Agricultural registries)
Landscapes, version
1.1
1
The sampling requirements for VM0021 are outlined in the supporting module, VMD0021, Verra VMD0021 Estimation of Stocks in the Soil Carbon Pool, v1.0.
2
Sampling or modeling protocols that can be used to support monitoring requirements for other registries (e.g., VMD0021 is an approved sampling protocol
for Gold Standard’s Soil Organic Carbon Framework Methodology).
3
There are three approaches available for quantification of emission reductions through this protocol: (1) Approach 1: On-site measurements to directly
document baseline and project SOC stocks; (2) Approach 2: datasets, parameters, models from peer-reviewed pubs to estimate baseline and project SOC
stocks; (3) Approach 3: default factors to estimate SOC changes (IPCC). For approaches 2 and 3, direct sampling is required for validation.
Appendix B
To download a matrix with more specific details on measurement approaches and structural considerations for each
synthesized protocol, please visit edf.org/SOC-protocol-matrix.
Notes
1
The nine crediting organizations (representing the 12 MRV protocols) provided review and feedback of our interpretation
for their protocols.
2
A number of other land-based agricultural protocols have been developed over the last several years that focus on
avoided conversion, nitrogen management and sustainable grassland management. The protocols assessed in this report
focus primarily on net emission reductions from cropland management approaches that target carbon sequestration. We
included one protocol that focuses exclusively on grassland management from Regen Network because they are selling
credits on the market, and their Grasslands Methodology protocol depends heavily on remote sensing for SOC
quantification.
3
Wei, X., M. Shao, W. Gale, and L. Li. 2014. Global pattern of soil carbon losses due to the conversion of forests to
agricultural land. Scientific Reports 4:1-6.
4
Sanderman, J., T. Hengl, and G. J. Fiske. 2017. Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 114:9575-9580.
5
Minasny, B., B. P. Malone, A. B. McBratney, D. A. Angers, D. Arrouays, A. Chambers, V. Chaplot, Z. S. Chen, K. Cheng, B. S.
Das, D. J. Field, A. Gimona, C. B. Hedley, S. Y. Hong, B. Mandal, B. P. Marchant, M. Martin, B. G. McConkey, V. L. Mulder, S.
O’Rourke, A. C. Richer-de-Forges, I. Odeh, J. Padarian, K. Paustian, G. Pan, L. Poggio, I. Savin, V. Stolbovoy, U. Stockmann,
Y. Sulaeman, C. C. Tsui, T. G. Vågen, B. van Wesemael, and L. Winowiecki. 2017. Soil carbon 4 per mille. Geoderma 292:59-
86.
6
Rumpel, C., F. Amiraslani, L.-S. Koutika, P. Smith, D. Whitehead, and E. Wollenberg. 2018. Put more carbon in soils to meet
Paris climate pledges. Nature 564:32-34.
7
Bradford, M. A., C. J. Carey, L. Atwood, D. Bossio, E. P. Fenichel, S. Gennet, J. Fargione, J. R. B. Fisher, E. Fuller, D. A. Kane,
J. Lehmann, E. E. Oldfield, E. M. Ordway, J. Rudek, J. Sanderman, and S. A. Wood. 2019. Soil carbon science for policy and
practice. Nature Sustainability 2:1070:1072.
8
A USDA-led carbon bank is broadly defined as a set of policy tools to direct funding to incentivize voluntary climate
mitigation. The USDA and Congress are still defining the concept. Read more at https://www.edf.org/ZBJ4.
9
Marriott, E. E., and M. M. Wander. 2006. Total and Labile Soil Organic Matter in Organic and Conventional Farming
Systems. Soil Science Society of America Journal 70:950-959.
10
Grandy, A. S., and G. P. Robertson. 2007. Land-Use Intensity Effects on Soil Organic Carbon Accumulation Rates and
Mechanisms. Ecosystems 10:59-74.
11
Bhardwaj, A. K., P. Jasrotia, S. K. Hamilton, and G. P. Robertson. 2011. Ecological management of intensively cropped
agro-ecosystems improves soil quality with sustained productivity. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 140:419-429.
12
Ogle, S. M., C. Alsaker, J. Baldock, M. Bernoux, F. J. Breidt, B. McConkey, K. Regina, and G. G. Vazquez-Amabile. 2019.
Climate and Soil Characteristics Determine Where No-Till Management Can Store Carbon in Soils and Mitigate
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Scientific Reports 9:11665.
13
Sun, W., J. G. Canadell, L. Yu, L. Yu, W. Zhang, P. Smith, T. Fischer, and Y. Huang. 2020. Climate drives global soil carbon
sequestration and crop yield changes under conservation agriculture. Global Change Biology 26:3325-3335.
14
Sanderman, J., T. Hengl, and G. J. Fiske. 2017. Soil carbon debt of 12,000 years of human land use. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 114:9575-9580.
15
VandenBygaart, A. J. 2016. The myth that no-till can mitigate global climate change. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment 216:98-99.
16
Schlesinger, W. H., and R. Amundson. 2018. Managing for soil carbon sequestration: Let’s get realistic. Global Change
Biology:gcb.14478.
17
Bradford, M. A., C. J. Carey, L. Atwood, D. Bossio, E. P. Fenichel, S. Gennet, J. Fargione, J. R. B. Fisher, E. Fuller, D. A.
Kane, J. Lehmann, E. E. Oldfield, E. M. Ordway, J. Rudek, J. Sanderman, and S. A. Wood. 2019. Soil carbon science for policy
and practice. Nature Sustainability 2:1070:1072.
18
Sanderman, J., and J. A. Baldock. 2010. Accounting for soil carbon sequestration in national inventories: A soil
scientist’s perspective. Environmental Research Letters 5:034003.
19
Ibid.
20
Sanford, G. R., J. L. Posner, R. D. Jackson, C. J. Kucharik, J. L. Hedtcke, and T. L. Lin. 2012. Soil carbon lost from Mollisols
of the North Central U.S.A. with 20 years of agricultural best management practices. Agriculture, Ecosystems &
Environment 162:68-76.
21
Don, A., J. Schumacher, M. Scherer-Lorenzen, T. Scholten, and E. D. Schulze. 2007. Spatial and vertical variation of soil
carbon at two grassland sites — Implications for measuring soil carbon stocks. Geoderma 141:272-282.
22
Kravchenko, A. N., and G. P. Robertson. 2011. Whole-Profile Soil Carbon Stocks: The Danger of Assuming Too Much from
Analyses of Too Little. Soil Science Society of America Journal 75:235-240.
23
Goidts, E., B. V. Wesemael, and M. Crucifix. 2009. Magnitude and sources of uncertainties in soil organic carbon (SOC)
stock assessments at various scales. European Journal of Soil Science 60:723-739.
24
Poulton, P., J. Johnston, A. Macdonald, R. White, and D. Powlson. 2018. Major limitations to achieving “4 per 1000”
increases in soil organic carbon stock in temperate regions: Evidence from long-term experiments at Rothamsted
Research, United Kingdom. Global Change Biology 24:2563-2584.
25
Tautges, N. E., J. L. Chiartas, A. C. M. Gaudin, A. T. O’Geen, I. Herrera, and K. M. Scow. 2019. Deep soil inventories reveal
that impacts of cover crops and compost on soil carbon sequestration differ in surface and subsurface soils. Global
Change Biology 25:3753-3766.
26
Aguilera, E., L. Lassaletta, A. Gattinger, and B. S. Gimeno. 2013. Managing soil carbon for climate change mitigation and
adaptation in Mediterranean cropping systems: A meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 168:25-36.
27
Lugato, E., A. Leip, and A. Jones. 2018. Mitigation potential of soil carbon management overestimated by neglecting
N2O emissions. Nature Climate Change 8:219-223.
28
Guenet, B., B. Gabrielle, C. Chenu, D. Arrouays, J. Balesdent, M. Bernoux, E. Bruni, J. P. Caliman, R. Cardinael, and S.
Chen. 2021. Can N2O emissions offset the benefits from soil organic carbon storage? Global Change Biology 27:237-256.
29
Ibid.
30
McLellan, E. L., K. G. Cassman, A. J. Eagle, P. B. Woodbury, S. Sela, C. Tonitto, R. D. Marjerison, and H. M. van Es. 2018.
The Nitrogen Balancing Act: Tracking the Environmental Performance of Food Production. BioScience 68:194-203.
31
Smith, P., J. F. Soussana, D. Angers, L. Schipper, C. Chenu, D. P. Rasse, N. H. Batjes, F. van Egmond, S. McNeill, and M.
Kuhnert. 2020. How to measure, report and verify soil carbon change to realize the potential of soil carbon sequestration
for atmospheric greenhouse gas removal. Global Change Biology 26:219-241.
32
Paul, S. S., N. C. Coops, M. S. Johnson, M. Krzic, and S. M. Smukler. 2019. Evaluating sampling efforts of standard
laboratory analysis and mid-infrared spectroscopy for cost-effective digital soil mapping at field scale. Geoderma
356:113925.
33
Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace. 2020. The Only Constant is Change. State of the Voluntary Carbon Markets
2020, Second Installment Featuring Core Carbon & Additional Attributes Offset Prices, Volumes and Insights. Washington
DC: Forest Trends Association.
34
de Gruijter, J. J., A. B. McBratney, B. Minasny, I. Wheeler, B. P. Malone, and U. Stockmann. 2016. Farm-scale soil carbon
auditing. Geoderma 265:120-130.
35
Robertson, G. P., K. M. Klingensmith, M. J. Klug, E. A. Paul, J. R. Crum, and B. G. Ellis. 1997. Soil Resources, Microbial
Activity, and Primary Production Across an Agricultural Ecosystem. Ecological Applications 7:158-170.
36
Sherpa, S. R., D. W. Wolfe, and H. M. van Es. 2016. Sampling and Data Analysis Optimization for Estimating Soil Organic
Carbon Stocks in Agroecosystems. Soil Science Society of America Journal 80:1377-1392.
37
356:113925.
38
Necpálová, M., R. P. Anex, A. N. Kravchenko, L. J. Abendroth, S. J. D. Grosso, W. A. Dick, M. J. Helmers, D. Herzmann, J.
G. Lauer, E. D. Nafziger, J. E. Sawyer, P. C. Scharf, J. S. Strock, and M. B. Villamil. 2014. What does it take to detect a
change in soil carbon stock? A regional comparison of minimum detectable difference and experiment duration in the
north central United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 69:517-531.
39
Poulton, P., J. Johnston, A. Macdonald, R. White, and D. Powlson. 2018. Major limitations to achieving “4 per 1000”
increases in soil organic carbon stock in temperate regions: Evidence from long-term experiments at Rothamsted
Research, United Kingdom. Global Change Biology 24:2563-2584.
40
356:113925.
41
Sanderman, J., K. Savage, and S. R. S. Dangal. 2020. Mid-infrared spectroscopy for prediction of soil health indicators in
the United States. Soil Science Society of America Journal 84:251-261.
42
Wijewardane, N. K., S. Hetrick, J. Ackerson, C. L. S. Morgan, and Y. Ge. 2020. VisNIR integrated multi-sensing
penetrometer for in situ high-resolution vertical soil sensing. Soil and Tillage Research 199:104604.
43
Angers, D. A., and N. S. Eriksen-Hamel. 2008. Full-inversion tillage and organic carbon distribution in soil profiles: A
meta-analysis. Soil Science Society of America Journal 72:1370-1374.
44
Meurer, K. H. E., N. R. Haddaway, M. A. Bolinder, and T. Kätterer. 2018. Tillage intensity affects total SOC stocks in
boreo-temperate regions only in the topsoil — A systematic review using an ESM approach. Earth-Science Reviews
177:613-622.
45
Haden, A. C. von, W. H. Yang, and E. H. DeLucia. 2020. Soil’s dirty little secret: Depth-based comparisons can be
inadequate for quantifying changes in soil organic carbon and other mineral soil properties. Global Change Biology
26:3759-3770.
46
Smith, P., J. F. Soussana, D. Angers, L. Schipper, C. Chenu, D. P. Rasse, N. H. Batjes, F. van Egmond, S. McNeill, and M.
Kuhnert. 2020. How to measure, report and verify soil carbon change to realize the potential of soil carbon sequestration
for atmospheric greenhouse gas removal. Global Change Biology 26:219-241.
47
Tonitto, C., P. B. Woodbury, and E. L. McLellan. 2018. Defining a best practice methodology for modeling the
environmental performance of agriculture. Environmental Science & Policy 87:64-73.
48
Malhotra, A., K. Todd-Brown, L. E. Nave, N. H. Batjes, J. R. Holmquist, A. M. Hoyt, C. M. Iversen, R. B. Jackson, K. Lajtha,
C. Lawrence, O. Vindušková, W. Wieder, M. Williams, G. Hugelius, and J. Harden. 2019. The landscape of soil carbon data:
Emerging questions, synergies and databases. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment 43:707-719.
49
50
Del Grosso, S. J. D., L. R. Ahuja, and W. J. Parton. 2016. Modeling GHG Emissions and Carbon Changes in Agricultural
and Forest Systems to Guide Mitigation and Adaptation: Synthesis and Future Needs. Pages 305-317 Synthesis and
Modeling of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Carbon Storage in Agricultural and Forest Systems to Guide Mitigation and
Adaptation. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
51
Gurung, R. B., S. M. Ogle, F. J. Breidt, S. A. Williams, and W. J. Parton. 2020. Bayesian calibration of the DayCent
ecosystem model to simulate soil organic carbon dynamics and reduce model uncertainty. Geoderma 376:114529.
52
Ogle, S. M., F. J. Breidt, M. Easter, S. Williams, K. Killian, and K. Paustian. 2010. Scale and uncertainty in modeled soil
organic carbon stock changes for US croplands using a process-based model. Global Change Biology 16:810-822.
53
54
Herzog, H., K. Caldeira, and J. Reilly. 2003. An Issue of Permanence: Assessing the Effectiveness of Temporary Carbon
Storage. Climatic Change 59:293-310.
55
Buendia, E., K. Tanabe, A. Kranjc, J. Baasansuren, M. Fukuda, S. Ngarize, A. Osako, Y. Pyrozhenko, P. Shermanau, and S.
Federici. 2019. Refinement to the 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. IPCC: Geneva,
Switzerland.
56
Diamant, A. 2010. Aggregation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Offsets: Benefits, Existing Methods, and Key Challenges.
Palo Alto, California.
57
Rattalino Edreira, J. I., K. G. Cassman, Z. Hochman, M. K. van Ittersum, L. van Bussel, L. Claessens, and P. Grassini. 2018.
Beyond the plot: technology extrapolation domains for scaling out agronomic science. Environmental Research Letters
13:054027.
58
Bradford, M. A., C. J. Carey, L. Atwood, D. Bossio, E. P. Fenichel, S. Gennet, J. Fargione, J. R. B. Fisher, E. Fuller, D. A.
Kane, J. Lehmann, E. E. Oldfield, E. M. Ordway, J. Rudek, J. Sanderman, and S. A. Wood. 2019. Soil carbon science for policy
and practice. Nature Sustainability 2:1070:1072.
59
Riggers, C., C. Poeplau, A. Don, C. Bamminger, H. Höper, and R. Dechow. 2019. Multi-model ensemble improved the
prediction of trends in soil organic carbon stocks in German croplands. Geoderma 345:17-30.
60
Ogle, S. M., F. J. Breidt, M. Easter, S. Williams, K. Killian, and K. Paustian. 2010. Scale and uncertainty in modeled soil
organic carbon stock changes for US croplands using a process-based model. Global Change Biology 16:810-822.
61
62
ART Secretariat. 2020. The REDD+ Environmental Excellence Standard (TREES). Winrock International. Arlington, VA.
USA. 70 pp. (ART) Program.
63
IPCC. 2019. 2019 Refinement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Task Force on
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland.
64
Beyond the plot: Technology extrapolation domains for scaling out agronomic science. Environmental Research Letters
13:054027.
65
USDA. 2021. Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Strategy: 90-Day Progress Report. Page 20. Washington DC.
66
Zeka, A., A. Zanobetti, and J. Schwartz. 2005. Short-term effects of particulate matter on cause specific mortality:
Effects of lags and modification by city characteristics. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 62:718-725.
67
Kane, D. A., M. A. Bradford, E. Fuller, E. E. Oldfield, and S. A. Wood. 2021. Soil organic matter protects US maize yields
and lowers crop insurance payouts under drought. Environmental Research Letters 16:044018.
68
Beyond the plot: Technology extrapolation domains for scaling out agronomic science. Environmental Research Letters
13:054027.

Agricultural Soil Carbon Credits Protocol Synthesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agricultural Soil Carbon Credits Protocol Synthesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agricultural Soil Carbon Credits Protocol Synthesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agricultural Soil Carbon Credits:

Making sense of protocols for carbon sequestration and net

Box 2: Investing in agricultural climate solutions 11

Research gaps underlying the premise of emerging soil carbon markets 13

Technical considerations for emerging soil carbon markets: Measurement and

Key sampling issues: Capturing spatial and temporal variability 15

Box 3: Technological developments for measuring SOC 17

Key modeling issues: Uncertainty, scale of model inputs and applicability 19

Box 4: Advancing MRV through model benchmarking efforts 21

Structural considerations of emerging carbon markets: Additionality, leakage,

Assessing overall climate impact 25

Defining the project scale 26

Ensuring equity and environmental justice 28

Reversals • A percentage of credits are held in a buffer pool to mitigate reversal.

Carbon inset: A broad term to describe emission reductions or removals achieved

Carbon market: A market in which units — allowances or credits — are traded

Compliance market: A market-based measure that establishes a legal obligation

Measurement, reporting and verification: A system or protocol for tracking specific

Mitigation: A human intervention to reduce emissions or enhance GHG

Permanence: A requirement that the issued carbon credits represent long-term

Protocol: A guidance document that contains all relevant rules, standards,

Reversal: A loss in carbon that was previously sequestered, due to harvesting,

Scope one emissions: A company’s direct emissions from owned or

Scope two emissions: A company’s indirect emissions associated with purchase of

Verification: The process whereby an accredited third-party verifier examines or

• Provide an overview of critical • Synthesize how the different

BOX 2: INVESTING IN AGRICULTURAL

they are offset by a few feet. Verra’s Soil Standard deviation

sampling plots, but no one has adopted 0.7

BOX 3: TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS

Improvements in regional soil Key sampling issues: Soil

A long history of discriminatory policies and creation, and fostering partnerships.

• Validate and compare the net • Develop cost-effective

PROTOCOL ADDITIONALITY PERMANENCE REVERSALS LEAKAGE CONSIDERATION

PROTOCOL APPROACH REQUIRED BASELINE STRATIFICATION MINIMUM FREQUENCY ALLOWABLE

Carbon Credits Sampling NA Static Required, 3 At least every Probability of

Alberta Quantification Practice- Uses an Performance N/A N/A N/A Uncertainty is

PROTOCOLS/METHODOLOGIES DEVELOPED FOR SOIL SAMPLING

You might also like