Market approaches to sequester soil organic carbon on farms: justifications and suggested transformations from embedded market actors

Authors: COLBY, ASHLEY - University Of Illinois; JOHNSON, MCKENZIE - University Of Illinois; Hammond Wagner, Courtney; WARDROPPER, CHLOE - University Of Illinois

Submitted to: Agriculture and Human Values
Publication Type: Peer Reviewed Journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 12/16/2024
Publication Date: 2/25/2025
Citation: Colby, A., Johnson, M.F., Hammond Wagner, C.R., Wardropper, C.B. 2025. Market approaches to sequester soil organic carbon on farms: justifications and suggested transformations from embedded market actors. Agriculture and Human Values. Article s10460-024-10694-w. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-024-10694-w.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-024-10694-w

Interpretive Summary: Problem: Voluntary carbon markets for agricultural soils are emerging within the United States to pay farmers to sequester and store carbon within agricultural soils as a way to mitigate climate change. While there is great interest in promoting carbon sequestration in agricultural soils, there are many unanswered questions about voluntary carbon markets that may create challenges for farm operators and investors. In particular, there is uncertainty in the methods used by voluntary carbon markets for estimating and measuring how much carbon is sequestered in agricultural soils at a given location. Accomplishment: We examine how project developers from voluntary carbon market startups, agricultural corporations, and nonprofit organizations conceptualize the importance and validity of voluntary markets for agricultural soil carbon as a tool to address climate change. Project developers act to enroll farmers in their programs to create and sell agricultural soil carbon credits via the adoption of soil conservation practices on farms. We interviewed 22 actors across 19 different organizations and find that some project developers acknowledge issues with cost, quality of carbon measurements, and barriers to inclusion. However, the majority assume that market maturation and technology innovation will resolve any scientific uncertainties and gaps in the programs. Respondents also offered potential improvements and alternatives, including broader criteria for inclusion. Contribution of accomplishment to solving the problem: The perspectives of project developers in this study highlight contradictions within voluntary agricultural soil carbon markets in the US – project developers acknowledge scientific uncertainty and barriers to inclusion in market structure but are not taking steps within their organization to address these issues. Our results suggest that as constructed, voluntary carbon markets are unlikely to internally resolve issues of uncertainty and inequity.

Technical Abstract: Carbon capture and storage technologies are increasingly part of society’s multi-pronged approach to avoid a drastically warmer future. Sequestering soil organic carbon (SOC) through credits for voluntary markets has received recent attention as an avenue for carbon storage on agricultural lands. Similar to other payment for ecosystem services programs, technical and market uncertainties—in particular, estimating and measuring of how much carbon is sequestered in a given location—create challenges for farm operators and investors. In the last five years, numerous startups, agricultural corporations, and nonprofit organizations have emerged as project developers aiming to enroll farmers in their programs to create and sell SOC credits via the adoption of soil conservation practices on farms. In this evolving context, we examine how project developers conceptualize the importance and validity of voluntary markets for SOC as a tool to address climate change, and how market actors themselves think they could be improved. Drawing on interviews with 22 actors across 19 different organizations, we find that some respondents acknowledge issues with cost, quality of carbon measurements, and barriers to inclusion. However, the majority invoke neoliberal market assumptions regarding market maturation and technology innovation to justify and reinforce the importance of voluntary carbon markets for SOC. Respondents offered potential improvements and alternatives, including broader criteria for inclusion. Taken together, these perspectives are critical to highlight the contradictions within voluntary markets. Further, our results suggest that as constructed, voluntary carbon markets are unlikely to internally resolve issues of uncertainty and inequity.