Shaping India's climate future: A perspective on harnessing carbon credits from agriculture

Abstract

Human activities are responsible for emitting greenhouse gases (GHGs) that contribute to global warming and climate change. As the world's second-largest producer of staple food and the third-largest emitter of GHGs, India has been witnessing an increase in demand for food and energy, resulting in increased emissions. Thus, to achieve net carbon neutrality by 2070, India must focus urgently on climate change mitigation. Its agriculture sector has the potential to transition from being a net emitter to a net absorber of GHGs by adopting sustainable farming practices such as zero tillage, laser-assisted precision land leveling, direct seeding of rice, intercropping, biochar application, use of solar energy, and more efficient management of irrigation water, soil nutrients, livestock feed, and manure. To incentivize climate consciousness, a voluntary carbon credit trading system could be utilized in agriculture, supported by a measurement, monitoring, reporting, and verification platform. This system would also bring about social, environmental, and financial co-benefits for its stakeholders. Specifically, the agriculture sector could substantially reduce the country's annual emissions by 84% from 2019 to 2070. But to realize their potential, the carbon markets must overcome the limitations currently set by policy, economic, cultural, and biophysical factors.

Keywords

Climate change carbon sequestration greenhouse gas emission reduction soil organic carbon regenerative agriculture conservation agriculture carbon credits voluntary carbon market

Introduction

Increased emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) due to anthropogenic activities result in global warming and climate change (UNFCCC, 2022a). Between 1990 and 2019, worldwide annual GHG emissions were ∼ 42 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO₂e), primarily from fossil fuel-based energy plants, transportation, and agriculture (Ritchie and Roser, 2022). About two-thirds of the world's GHG emissions were contributed by 10 countries: China, the United States of America (USA), India, the European Union (EU), Russia, Japan, Brazil, Indonesia, Iran, and Canada (Friedrich et al., 2023; Ritchie and Roser, 2022). While the per capita emissions of developing countries like India (2.77 tCO₂e), Brazil (10.03 tCO₂e), Indonesia (7.49 tCO₂e), and Iran (11.42 tCO₂e) were significantly lower than countries in the Global North (an average of 14.21 tCO₂e in 2021) (Jones et al., 2023; Ritchie et al., 2023), there has been a surge in emissions from the Global South during recent years (Ritchie et al., 2020).

The dual challenges of climate change and poverty in developing countries can be addressed by transforming domestic agrifood systems. The world's agrifood systems are responsible for feeding a global population of 8.1 billion, of which nearly half of the poor live in middle-income countries, particularly China and India (Mahler et al., 2023; World Economic Forum, 2022). On the one hand, the temperature variations caused by climate change damage the natural and physical resource base and result in increased incidences of disease, unpredictable declines in crop yields, reduced biodiversity, and higher energy demands (Dellink et al., 2019). On the other hand, GHG emissions resulting from the overuse of synthetic fertilizers, livestock production, inefficient water management, deforestation, and food loss and waste, among other practices, contribute largely to climate change (Pathak et al., 2014). As the global population rises, the pressure on agriculture to produce more food using existing resources will increase, and the production process will emit even more GHGs, exacerbating the pace of climate change (Anders and Lokuge, 2022). It is imperative to implement measures to reduce GHG emissions; however, these measures should not compromise system vulnerability or hinder productivity.

Against this context, various technologies, policies, and market mechanisms are being developed to promote sustainable agriculture (Buck and Compton, 2022; Giller et al., 2021). Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, several mitigation and adaptation measures were proposed for agriculture to facilitate carbon sequestration and trade in the carbon market (Rose et al., 2022). However, spreading climate resilience measures among smallholder farmers, who face liquidity constraints and lack access to information, has remained a major challenge for the agricultural Research and Development (R&D) agencies and governments of the Global South (Rapsomanikis, 2015).

Linking carbon markets to farm production and incentivizing emission reduction with the help of tradable carbon credits are lauded as win-win strategies (World Bank, 2023a). For instance, agricultural carbon markets can facilitate the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs) such as conservation agriculture, reduced burning of crop residues, organic farming, livestock feed management, and agroforestry. These practices have the potential to sequester carbon in soil and reverse ecosystem degradation before the climate tipping point is reached (Amundson and Biardeau, 2018; Ginkel et al., 2020; United Nations Environment Program, 2020). Private entities (corporations or individuals from the developed world) could buy carbon credits from the voluntary carbon market (VCM) to offset their emissions (Seeberg-Elverfeld, 2010). A share of the revenue generated from the sale of carbon credits could be shared with the farmers, thereby improving their financial status (Jindal et al., 2007). In short, agricultural carbon markets could improve agricultural productivity, food, and income security (United Nations Environment Program, 2020), while facilitating the overall attainment of carbon neutrality.

Carbon markets and the application of carbon credits to spreading SAPs are in the nascent stage (Anders and Lokuge, 2022). Nevertheless, they have already gained significant attention in research and policy arenas. Several informative industry reports explain the concept, evolution, and status of carbon markets at the global scale (Ecosystem Marketplace, 2022a; Food and Agriculture Organization, 2010; South Pole, 2022). However, most existing studies have been geographically skewed, focusing predominantly on developed regions (Buck and Compton, 2022) and leaving the unique opportunities and challenges of the Global South underexplored. Furthermore, there remains a notable dearth of comprehensive research specifically addressing the integration of carbon markets into the agricultural sector of developing countries. Given the significant role that agriculture plays in the Global South, coupled with its vulnerability to the effects of climate change, the need to understand how carbon markets can be effectively leveraged against the specific policy environment of a given country is imperative. Understanding this research gap, we attempt to answer the following research questions: (a) Can carbon credits be generated in Indian agriculture with the help of regenerative agriculture? If yes, then what is the procedure for doing this, and who would participate? (b) What are the possible opportunities and challenges? By answering these questions, we aim to provide a perspective on carbon farming as a solution for combating GHG emissions and generating carbon credits in the agriculture sector of rapidly developing economies such as India. Only a few studies (e.g. Kumara et al., 2023) make a linkage between SAPs and climate change mitigation through participation in carbon markets.

In the rest of this article, we trace the evolution and current state of carbon credit markets and their relevance in the context of SAPs and carbon sequestration, alongside their co-benefits and limitations. In addition, the stakeholders of a carbon farming system and the process of carbon crediting in agriculture are also discussed. Finally, specific emphasis is laid on the role of Indian agriculture in climate change mitigation in terms of its opportunities and challenges.

Evolution of carbon markets and credits

The concept of carbon markets was introduced by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) through the Kyoto Protocol (1997) and included mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), Joint Implementation (JI), and the International Emissions Trading System (ETS) (Sarkar and Dash, 2011; Sydney et al., 2019). After 2012, because concerns emerged regarding the limited scalability of the mechanisms, an international VCM was introduced in the Paris Agreement (Kossoy and Guigon, 2012; UNFCCC, 2023a) This was intended to address the limitations of the earlier mechanisms and adapt to the evolving landscape of climate action, and the evolution underscores the adaptability and resilience of the VCM as a vital tool in addressing climate change (Ahonen et al., 2022). Projections suggest that carbon markets may facilitate transactions ranging between US$5 and 50 billion by 2030 (Blaufelder et al., 2021). Specifically, the size of the VCM is expected to increase at a compounded annual growth rate of 35%, reaching at least US$15 billion by 2030 (Alexander, 2023). However, the realization of these estimates depends on a complex interplay of factors including evolving policies and market conditions.

There are two distinct categories of carbon markets: compliance markets and voluntary markets. Compliance carbon markets, established following the Paris Agreement, are mandated and regulated by governments or international organizations. These markets require companies either to achieve prescribed emission reduction targets or acquire carbon credits to offset their emissions (Anders and Lokuge, 2022; Marchant et al., 2022). Regulatory tools, such as carbon taxes, and market-based mechanisms such as cap and trade, offer avenues for emission reduction at the international, national, and regional levels. The introduction of carbon taxes dates back to 1990 when Finland implemented this approach (Dorst, 2021). Following suit, numerous market-based carbon pricing mechanisms were established under the Kyoto Protocol, including the EU ETS and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) (Marchant et al., 2022). As of 2023, 73 initiatives, collectively covering 23% of global GHG emissions (equivalent to 11.66 GtCO₂e), have implemented the ETS or carbon taxes (World Bank, 2023b). Among these, China's ETS holds the largest share (8.92%) (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Share of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions covered by different carbon tax and emissions trading systems (ETS). Source: Compiled from World Bank (2023b).

VCMs contrast with compliance markets, as they involve private entities who volunteer to either offset their carbon emissions or support sustainability objectives without government mandates (Mendelsohn et al., 2021). Voluntarily traded carbon credits are primarily used to fund Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Environmental Degradation (REDD) projects in developing countries, along with carbon sequestration/removal initiatives encompassing agriculture, renewable energy, waste management, and more (Blaufelder et al., 2021; Mendelsohn et al., 2021). VCMs may contribute to emission mitigation projects that yield supplementary environmental and social benefits, including community development, women's empowerment, and biodiversity conservation. Irrespective of these benefits, such projects must substantiate their tangible and quantifiable contributions to emission reduction (Blaufelder et al., 2021).

Agricultural carbon credits are actively traded within the framework of VCMs. They adhere to standardized protocols and are issued by carbon crediting mechanisms rooted in Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) models. The traded credits can incentivize the use of SAPs for carbon storage and removal (Ecosystem Marketplace, 2022a; Food and Agriculture Organization, 2010). Table 1 displays some examples of carbon farming projects.

Table 1.

Selected agricultural projects registered on VERRA and the Gold Standard.

S. No.	Crediting mechanism	Project	Proponent	Standardisation methodology	Monitoring period	Project length (years)	Estimated annual credits
1.	VERRA	Kenya Agriculture Carbon Project	Vi Agroforestry Programme	VM0017	01/07/2009–30/06/2029	20	365,890
2.	VERRA	Agricultural Land Management Project, Beed District, India	Godrej Properties Ltd	VM0017	28/07/2017–27/07/2037	20	33,764
3.	VERRA	UK Cow Credit Project	MOOTRAL SA	VM0041	07/05/2019–06/05/2029	10	215,050
4.	Gold Standard	Small Farmers’ Carbon Farming Project, Taiwan	Eco-affinity Inc	SOC Framework Methodology	01/08/2022–01/08/2032	10	3000
5.	VERRA	Core Carbon Sahaja Vyavasayam in Andhra Pradesh	Core CarbonX Solutions Pvt. Ltd	VM0017	01/07/2018–30/06/2058	30	4,830,706
6.	VERRA	Developing carbon finance project for farmers adopting regenerative agriculture practices in the Indo-Gangetic plains	Varaha ClimateAg Private Limited	VM0042	01/06/2019–31/05/2039	20	4,796,219

Source: Compiled from The Gold Standard (2023a), and VERRA (2021).

The establishment of a regulatory mechanism for VCMs is imperative to eliminate the possibility of greenwashing, double counting, or leakage of carbon credits. It would ensure the standardized quality of carbon credits, market credibility, and buyer confidence (Ziegler, 2023). Further, it would check for overinflated emission baselines and dubious carbon credits (Netter et al., 2022), as noted in an article by West et al. (2020) about worthless rainforest REDD + carbon credits.

Most agricultural projects in VCMs are covered by the VERRA-administered Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) Program, and the Gold Standard (Netter et al., 2022; VERRA, 2022a). These two carbon crediting mechanisms are key frameworks in the VCM ecosystem. They govern the credibility and transparency of carbon markets, ensuring effective contributions to GHG reductions and the promotion of sustainable practices. While both the Gold Standard and VERRA play significant roles in the carbon market and are globally applicable, their key distinguishing features concerning agricultural carbon credits are tabulated below (Table 2).

Table 2.

Distinguishing features of VERRA and the Gold Standard.

S. No.	Aspect	VERRA	Gold Standard
1.	Scope	• It is a not-for-profit organization. • It governs standards on carbon markets, climate, community, biodiversity, and sustainable development. • It primarily concentrates on carbon accounting and emissions reduction.	• It is a private foundation. • It has dual objectives of combating climate change and attaining sustainable development goals (SDGs). • It prioritizes projects that deliver co-benefits like improved soil health, air quality, water availability, and technological innovation for sustainability.
2.	Sectoral Coverage	• Agriculture Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) • Livestock and Manure Management.	• AFOLU • It does not issue carbon credits for the conservation/sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks, under the REDD + scheme.
3.	Co-benefits	• The project proponent must demonstrate that a project aligns with at least three SDGs, at the end of each monitoring period.	• Projects/programs seeking validation must demonstrate their contribution to at least three SDGs, including SDG-13: Climate Action.
5.	Certification Process	• VERRA-approved qualified and independent third-party auditors validate and verify the project with a relevant program such as VCS. Then the project's compliance with the respective VERRA methodology and standard is verified and certified. Finally, a certified verified carbon unit (VCU) is issued.	• SustainCERT undertakes the certification process for the projects listed on the Gold Standard. Once the preliminary project design is approved, the project is monitored and verified by independent third-party auditors. Then, it is certified by SustainCERT.

Source: Compiled from Anon (2023), Michaelowa et al. (2019), The Gold Standard (2023b, 2023c), Urs (2023), and VERRA (2022b, 2023.)

Agriculture and allied sectors’ specific methodologies

A detailed examination of carbon crediting methodologies is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of the carbon credit landscape within agricultural projects in VCMs. The VCS program, initiated in 2005, offers individual methodologies such as VM0022 for optimized nitrogen fertilizer use in the USA, VM0041 for reducing enteric methane (CH₄) emissions from ruminants globally, VM0042 for agriculture land management and VM0044 for CO₂e removal through biochar production. Along with this, since 2003, the Gold Standard has developed methodologies such as afforestation/reforestation for agroforestry projects, the soil organic carbon (SOC) Framework for enhanced agricultural practices, and specific approaches for CH₄ emission reduction in dairy cows and water efficiency in sugarcane cultivation. These frameworks highlight the diverse and targeted strategies for carbon accounting and reduction in various agricultural settings, described in Supplemental Material S1. The choice of standard to use depends on the specific goals and priorities of a given project.

Prices of carbon credits in the VCM

The VCM witnessed a substantial 252% increase in carbon credit retirements in 2022, compared to the level recorded in 2017 (South Pole, 2022). The heightened commitment to decarbonize, in alignment with the Paris Agreement, may increase the annual global demand for voluntary offsets, estimated at 1.5–2 GtCO₂e by 2030 and 7–13 GtCO₂e by 2050 (Blaufelder et al., 2021; The United Nations, 2023). Against this potential demand, carbon markets continue to supply an increasing number of carbon credits (Figure 2), with a notable surge in forestry-based credits against agriculture-based credits (World Bank, 2021). By avoiding deforestation, encouraging reforestation, minimizing landfill emissions, and applying technology to remove CO₂, the annual supply of carbon credits is anticipated to be between 8 and 12 GtCO₂e annually (Blaufelder et al., 2021).

Figure 2.

Carbon credit issuance over years. Source: Compiled from World Bank (2023c).

The nature-based voluntary carbon credits are traded in online commodity exchanges such as the Carbon Trade Exchange and the Voluntary Climate Marketplace (TCVCM), or over-the-counter (OTC) in the case of occasional or low-volume trading and non-standardized contracts (Chen et al., 2021; Ecosystem Marketplace, 2022b; Perdan and Azapagic, 2011). The market price of carbon credits can be determined in two ways: (a) internal (cost-based) pricing, which factors in the social costs of GHG emissions, the costs of abatement technologies, and the present and future value of emission allowances; and (b) external (market-based) pricing, which balances the supply and demand of emission units to establish a price for carbon credits through a cap and trade or baseline-and-credit system (Opanda, 2023; World Bank, 2023c). These methodologies contribute to the overall pricing framework in carbon markets. Therefore, the choice between these pricing approaches is highly relevant, as it impacts the valuation of carbon credits while incentivizing emission reduction and maintaining economic growth (UNFCCC, 2023b). In addition, the price of carbon credits is influenced by the project location, type of program, underlying standards, year of issuance, co-benefits beyond carbon reduction such as sustainable development goals (SDGs), regulatory mechanism, traded volume, and market supply and demand (Opanda, 2023). For instance, credits associated with carbon removal tend to command higher prices (US$19 per credit) than avoidance-based credits (US$8 per credit) (World Bank, 2022a). Meanwhile, due to the regulatory obligations faced in the compliance market, the weighted price of a carbon credit is traded at around US$35 (CarbonCredits.Com, 2023). This is higher than the price of agriculture projects in the VCM that hover around an annual average of US$8 per tCO₂e (Ecosystem Marketplace, 2022b). For the most part, voluntary carbon credits are traded OTC, at a premium. Specifically, agricultural carbon credits traded OTC in India are priced significantly higher at US$12–40 (e.g. climes.io sells voluntary carbon credits priced at US$24) than those traded on exchanges, which are priced at US$1–6.

Some researchers have pointed out that to incentivize decarbonization, carbon prices (US$28 in the compliance market and US$7 in the voluntary market per tCO₂e) should increase (Boever, 2023; Credit Suisse, 2022) (Table 3). Notably, the Taskforce on Scaling VCMs (TSVCMs) conservatively predicts that the price of voluntary carbon credits will range between US$10 and US$20 per tCO₂e in 2030 (Credit Suisse, 2022). Shifting from business-to-business (B2B) to business-to-consumer (B2C) business models can boost the demand for carbon credits and, thus, increase their price. For instance, notable companies like Amazon, Flipkart, Walmart, and Zomato have begun to purchase carbon credits to offset their GHG emissions stemming from packaging and home delivery operations in India, which collectively amount to ∼1.5–5 million deliveries per day (Marcel, 2023). In 2022–2023, Zomato procured 500,000 carbon credits from the VCM and offset 18% of its deliveries by adopting eco-friendly transportation like bicycles and electric vehicles (Zomato Limited, 2022). Likewise, Perfora, an oral care company, offers climate-neutral products in collaboration with Climes that sells carbon credits to customers and has in this way offset 3 tCO₂e to date (Climes, 2023). Moreover, blockchain technology is being utilized by Unilever's Ben & Jerry's, an ice-cream manufacturer, to (a) make carbon credits more accessible even to small buyers, unlike the current carbon offset markets that sell bulk credits to large corporate buyers, and (b) simplify the carbon credit trading process with enhanced transparency (Sherry, 2018).

Table 3.

Projected prices for carbon credits in different economies.

	Projected Price (USD/Tonne CO₂e) in year
	2030	2040	2050
Advanced economies	130	205	250
Major emerging economies^a	90	160	200
Other emerging and developing economies	15	35	55

Source: Credit Suisse (2022).

Includes China, Brazil, Russia, and South Africa.

The dynamic interplay of increasing supply and demand for carbon credits has the potential to exert upward pressure on their price (Ernst and Young, 2022). In fact, carbon prices rose by 40% between 2021 and 2022 (South Pole, 2022).

While carbon markets hold significant promise, they face an issue of asymmetric pricing information (Blaufelder et al., 2021). A single carbon credit can exhibit divergent pricing across regions, with examples of compliance carbon credit prices at US$11 in Korea, US$29 in California, and US$35 in Austria (World Bank, 2023b). Similarly, voluntary carbon credit prices range widely from US$1 to US$119 (CarbonCredits.Com, 2023). This pricing inconsistency extends to several online platforms, including Quantum Commodity Intelligence and Ecosystem Marketplace, which report varying carbon credit prices for identical activities. The lack of a clear and uniform pricing mechanism in carbon markets contributes to limited global engagement, and these markets often favor developed countries (Buck and Compton, 2022; Favasuli and Sebastian, 2021). Other probable reasons for low global participation include a lack of public awareness about climate change, high administrative costs, limited approved methodologies for estimating carbon saved from an intervention, and insufficient quality assessment of credits. This results in non-transparent measuring, reporting, and verification (MRV) (Marchant et al., 2022; Smith et al., 2019).

In response to these financial, technical, and accounting challenges, some developing countries, such as Kenya and China, have taken mitigative action. The Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project proposed a collective approach for small farmers to sequester carbon, earn credits, and drive rural development (Siedenburg and Brown, 2015). Similarly, China established a Green Carbon Fund in 2007 and engaged in carbon credit trading, with credits valued at US$3 per tCO₂e (Zhu et al., 2014).

Quality of carbon credits

To achieve the broader adoption of agricultural carbon credits, a critical imperative is quality enhancement, which is more than an abstract notion. High-quality carbon credits represent ecological integrity and promise a sustained, credible impact on the environment and economy, making them more appealing to buyers (DiMarino and Wright, 2023). Certain project characteristics indicate the quality of a carbon credit. Firstly, the principle of additionality emphasizes that carbon projects must lead to emission cuts over and above the baseline scenario. Secondly, the concept of permanence stresses the durability of these credits. Carbon removal or storage activities must prevent leakage and ensure that the net carbon captured does not inadvertently find its way back into the atmosphere. For instance, if a farmer reverts to conventional tillage from no-till, the sequestered carbon could be released back into the atmosphere, thus disturbing the permanence of the initially generated credits. Furthermore, carbon offset programs must accurately estimate that the number of credits retired corresponds to the volume of emissions reduced, avoiding pitfalls such as double counting or transfer redundancies. Lastly, it is crucial to align the carbon credits with established standards, such as those set by VERRA or the Gold Standard, so that they are inherently recognized as being of high-quality (The Gold Standard, 2023d; VERRA, 2022c). Initiatives such as the core carbon principles have been recently released by the Integrity Council for the VCM to improve the quality of voluntary carbon credits and market standards (Alexander, 2023).

Besides financially incentivizing SAPs, high-quality carbon credits also provide significant co-benefits for society and the environment (Buck and Compton, 2022; Fleming et al., 2019). Co-benefits are the additional positive impacts of climate mitigation actions and can be categorized into financial, social, and environmental dimensions (Fleming et al., 2019; Tang, 2016; White, 2022). From a financial standpoint, they offer an additional stream of revenue for farmers and create opportunities for climate traders and aggregators. On the social front, the benefits range from food security, enhanced farmer livelihoods, and women's empowerment, to poverty alleviation, improved rural infrastructure, community development, and the emergence of new markets for green products. Environmentally, the advantages encompass reduced GHG emissions, bolstered biodiversity, and public health benefits. However, empirical studies often neglect these co-benefits of carbon farming, leading to an underestimated GHG mitigation potential and insufficient compensation for farmers (Tang, 2016).

Acknowledging these co-benefits could further incentivize carbon farming. However, the inclusion of co-benefits in carbon pricing mechanisms is challenging. Firstly, quantification methodologies for estimating co-benefits lack consistency as they are context-specific (Lou et al., 2022). Thus, the collection, measurement, and inclusion of their data in carbon pricing mechanisms is tricky (Vrsatz et al., 2014). Even when they are quantified, the co-benefits may be unequally distributed between communities or individuals due to the absence of internationally recognized criteria for them (Hultman et al., 2020). Moreover, conflicting political and stakeholder interests may result in uncertainty regarding the co-benefits reaped (Hultman et al., 2020). Finally, policy formulation to incorporate co-benefits in carbon pricing faces political and bureaucratic hindrances at the global, national, sub-national, and local levels. Often, this results in the target players not benefiting from the policy (Spencer et al., 2016). Despite these challenges, efforts are being made to incorporate co-benefits into carbon pricing mechanisms to address short and long-term socioeconomic and environmental concerns. To encourage this, VERRA mandates project proponents to map their project's benefits to the relevant SDGs (VERRA, 2023).

Key players and pathways: Navigating carbon farming stakeholders and implementation steps in agriculture

While stakeholder engagement is crucial for the success of carbon farming projects, its complex nature is often not fully addressed in academic studies (Smit and Pilifosova, 2018). One may check Supplemental Material S2 for the various stakeholders in carbon farming. The stakeholders play a crucial role in the design, implementation, and success of a carbon farming project in agriculture, and its sequence of steps is explained in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Simplified flowchart of steps in carbon crediting. Source: Authors’ compilation from Smith et al. (2019), VERRA (2022b, 2023) and World Bank (2022b).

The project proponent drafts a document detailing the design of the carbon farming initiative, outlining its goals, operational scale, timeframe, geographic setting, the specific carbon farming techniques to be utilized, and the baseline scenario for comparison. This document also defines the roles and responsibilities of the project stakeholders, the provisions for building their capacities, and a plan for the monitoring and expansion of the project (UNFCCC, 2022b). Thereafter, the project activities that reduce GHG emissions and/or sequester SOC are implemented by the farmers (Smith et al., 2019). They are then validated by accredited third-party auditors following standardized methodologies (VERRA, 2022b) and the estimated baseline (VERRA, 2023). After the implementation and validation of the project, emission reductions are estimated and verified by project developers (Agtech companies), either through direct visits or using remote sensing technology (World Bank, 2022b). Accordingly, carbon credits are issued to the project by VERRA or the Gold Standard and sold to buyers (VERRA, 2022c). For instance, Boomitra proposed a carbon farming project in East Africa in 2019, covering 100,000 acres across Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda. The intention is to sequester 1,249,417 tCO₂e in 20 years by deploying regenerative agricultural practices, and the initiative requested registration on VERRA under the VM0042 methodology. In the project area, Boomitra collaborates with implementation partners to promote zero tillage (ZT), crop residue retention, manure application, improved water management, agroforestry, etc., through training and technical support to farmers (Boomitra, 2023).

In general, the generation and sale of carbon credits can be a tedious task, especially for small and marginal farmers, due to insufficient technical assistance for adopting SAPs and administrative, legal, and technical costs incurred during sale in carbon markets (Buck and Compton, 2022; Raina et al., 2024). Therefore, carbon companies like Boomitra, Varaha, Grow Indigo, and Core CarbonX can collaborate with Farmer Producer Cooperatives, Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and local community leaders in rural areas to implement carbon projects and increase farmers’ participation in carbon farming (Nozaki, 2021).

Constraints to reap carbon credits from agriculture

Agricultural carbon credits face demand side challenges like (a) low buyer confidence and trust due to the complex and non-transparent process of carbon sequestration, hampering the authenticity of credits, (b) numerous certification labels like VERRA, Gold Standard, Plan Vivo, Puro.earth, etc., flooding the carbon markets and creating confusion and reducing buyer interest, and (c) skepticism surrounds corporations’ long-term emission reduction pledges (Wongpiyabovorn et al., 2023). As a cumulative effect, agricultural carbon credits are currently low-priced in the market (Nozaki, 2021). Additionally, on the supply side, the low potential for carbon credit generation from small landholdings in the Global South inadequately incentivizes farmers to adopt SAPs (Girish and Trivedi, 2022; Ishtiaque et al., 2024) and reduce their emissions. Meanwhile, insufficient farmers’ awareness and training on SAPs, no contact with the carbon company, and non-receipt of promised carbon credit payment discourage the continuation of SAPs, and the risk of reversibility of captured SOC persists (Cariappa and Birthal, 2023; Wongpiyabovorn et al., 2023).¹,² Furthermore, variations in atmospheric temperature, precipitation, soil properties, topographic factors, and vegetation result in high spatial variability of soil carbon storage (Wang et al., 2021). Another major challenge faced by carbon projects is the generation of accurate MRV, which is costly and time-consuming, depending on the technology adopted by farmers and the region of intervention. For data collection, field surveys are often expensive, and satellite surveillance is challenging, especially during bad weather and cloud cover (Jayaraman et al., 2023). Besides, quantification of SOC using prediction models for a particular soil type/vegetation may be inaccurate, especially for small and marginal farmers of the Global South.³

Recent developments in the agricultural carbon markets

The future landscape of agriculture carbon markets is shaped by a combination of governmental initiatives, shifts in stakeholders’ mindsets, technological advancements, and international collaborations (Lelechenko, 2023). For instance, the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) proposed by the EU aims to levy a carbon tax on imports from countries with less stringent climate policies (Park et al., 2023). This mechanism is expected to decrease worldwide carbon emissions by < 0.2% compared to an emissions trading scheme with a carbon price of 100 euros (US$108) per metric ton and without a carbon tariff (Asian Development Bank, 2024). It could also impact Indian carbon markets as follows: (a) Indian exports of iron, steel, aluminum, and other high carbon footprint products may face a competitive disadvantage in the EU due to the additional carbon tax, (b) although agricultural produce is currently not covered by CBAM, the EU plans to extend its scope, and (c) CBAM could incentivize Indian industries to reduce carbon emissions and adopt cleaner technologies, potentially leading to a domestic carbon pricing system or other decarbonization measures (European Parliament, 2022). This mechanism could lead to an increased demand for carbon credits, including those from agricultural activities, as part of domestic compliance markets, and enhance green investments in low-carbon technologies and SAPs (European Parliament, 2022).

Another important game changer could be the increased government intervention in carbon markets to ensure quality, transparency, and integrity in the transactions. For instance, the World Bank Engagement Road map for High-Integrity Carbon Markets showcases the role of international cooperation in boosting transparent and inclusive carbon markets, benefiting developing countries first (World Bank, 2023d). Governments like that of Singapore set out the Eligibility Criteria to ensure the high environmental integrity of International Carbon Credits (ICCs) under its carbon tax regime. These eligibility criteria, developed in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, reflect a commitment of governments to transparency, additionality, and environmental integrity (National Environment Agency, 2023). Another similar example is the Indian Government's Green Credit Program, launched in October 2023, which incentivizes environmental conservation across various sectors, aligning with the broader “Lifestyle for Environment” movement to promote sustainable practices (Press Information Bureau, 2023). India also introduced a framework on VCM in Indian agriculture in January 2024, to encourage SAPs that reap tradeable carbon credits for the farmers (Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, 2024). Government involvement may harmonize standards, leverage technology for transparency, develop supportive policy frameworks, engage the private sector, and foster international cooperation. Such developments and associated institutional changes suggest a rapid evolution of a multifaceted approach to fully realize the potential of carbon markets, and it can be more beneficial for agricultural sectors, where the emissions are not concentrated, making the credit provision more challenging.

Indian agriculture: Role and opportunities in climate change mitigation

Developing countries (with 85% of the global population) are expected to surpass the GHG emissions of developed countries by 2050. While the per capita emissions may still show significant contrast, some researchers indicate that the whole Global South could play a significant role in climate change (Chandler et al., 2002). Against this context, the case of India, as a rapidly developing agrarian economy, is particularly noteworthy. Its population is projected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.12% from 2022 to 2031, exceeding the global average growth rate of 0.96% (The United Nations, 2022). This demographic trend is set to escalate nutritional and energy demands. Economic growth in India is likely to lead to increased incomes, resulting in dietary shifts towards the greater consumption of dairy and meat products with a higher carbon footprint (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2023a). Such changes are expected to intensify pressure on India's agricultural production. India's per capita CO₂ emissions could potentially double, increasing from 1.53 tCO₂e in 2013 to 2.98 tCO₂e in 2030 (Narain, 2021; World Bank, 2022c; World Economic Forum, 2022).

The agriculture sector accounts for 14% of India's GDP and 17% of its national GHG emissions (Chand and Singh, 2023; Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, 2023). Figure 4 provides a detailed breakdown of emissions from the agriculture sector. The evolving food industry, employing inefficient technology and non-renewable energy sources in food processing, transportation, packaging, and retailing, is likely to further elevate GHG emissions (Mrowczynska-Kaminska et al., 2021). This pattern underscores the urgency to explore climate change mitigation strategies within the agriculture sector. Farmer adoption of SAPs offers a particularly promising solution. Implementing SAPs can significantly reduce India's annual emissions, potentially lowering them from 11.8 GtCO₂e in 2019 to 1.9 GtCO₂e by 2070 (Bhattacharya, 2019; Gupta et al., 2022). Certain SAPs that can be deployed in India are tabulated in Table 4.

Figure 4.

Breakdown of agricultural emissions from different sources in India in 2020. Source: Compiled from Food and Agriculture Organisation (2020).

Table 4.

Climate change mitigating agricultural technologies and their emission reduction potential.

	Technology	Application and potential
1.	Feed additives and manure management strategies	(a) Increasing concentrate feed can sequester 3.4 MtCO₂e yr⁻¹ (Sapkota et al., 2019). Specifically, for dairy cows, increasing concentration by 35–40% can reduce CH₄, N₂O, and CO₂ emissions by 9.5%, 16%, and 5%, respectively (Giamouri et al., 2023). (b) Feeding a balanced ration to cows reduces CH₄ emissions by 10%–15% and increases milk production (Anand Agricultural University, 2016; Garg et al., 2013). (c) Manure management in Indian dairy farms can reduce CH₄ and N₂O emissions by 85% and 41%, respectively (Vijayakumar et al., 2022) and sequester 9.3 MtCO₂e yr⁻¹ (Sapkota et al., 2019). (d) In India, the global warming mitigation potential of family size biogas plants, using 0.225 Gt collectible cattle dung is 0.5 GtCO₂e annually (Raipurkar, 2023).
2.	Solar energy usage	(a) One solar-powered water pump can replace a 5-horsepower diesel pump (operational for 1250 h yr⁻¹) and abate 5 tCO₂e yr⁻¹ (Agrawal and Jain, 2018). (b) Solar drying can avoid post-harvest losses estimated at more than 20%–30% in food grains and 30%–50% in vegetables, fruits, fish, etc. (Kapri, 2021).
3.	Drip/Micro Irrigation	(a) It uses 30%–60% less water (Ranjan and Sow, 2020) and delivers 20%–50% higher crop yield (Winter et al., 2018), compared to furrow irrigation. (b) It decreases N₂O and CH₄ direct emissions by 21% and increases SOC by 90% (Zhang et al., 2020). (c) In India, its GHG mitigation potential ranges between 0.16 and 1.27 tCO₂e ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹ (Sapkota et al., 2019).
4.	Laser land leveling (LLL)	(a) LLL reduces water for irrigation by 12%–14% (rice) and 10–13% (wheat) (Jat et al., 2009). (b) Reduces electricity consumption for irrigation by 754 kWh yr⁻¹ (Aryal et al., 2015). (c) Reduces irrigation time for rice and wheat by 69 h ha⁻¹ per season and 10–12 h ha⁻¹ per season, respectively (Aryal et al., 2015). (d) At all India level, GHG mitigation potential for LLL is between 1.28–3 tCO₂e ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹ (Sapkota et al., 2019).
5.	Alternative wetting and drying (AWD)	(a) AWD reduces water requirement by 15%–20% in pump irrigation systems (Jain et al., 2023). (b) Reduces 30%–70% of CH₄ emissions depending on water usage and rice residue management (Jain et al., 2023).
6.	Direct seeded rice (DSR)	(a) DSR eliminates the need and cost for labor to prepare the nursery (Jain et al., 2023). (b) Improves water use efficiency by 44%–50% (Ishfaq et al., 2020). (c) Reduces India's GHG emissions in rice-growing regions by 34 tCO₂e (25%) (Gartaula et al., 2020). (d) GWP of DSR is lower by 54%–59% in Punjab. If only 50% of land uses DSR, GWP reduces by 16%, whereas, if DSR is applied to 100% of land, GWP reduces by 50% (Pathak et al., 2014).
7.	Inter-cropping	(a) Intercropping cereals and legumes reduces nitrogen fertilizer use as legumes supply 15% of nitrogen and emit fewer GHGs compared to non-legumes (Kakraliya et al., 2018; Rodriguez et al., 2020). (b) Intercrops require 21% less phosphorus fertilizer (Tang et al., 2021). (c) On average, inter-cropping can sequester 0.184 tC ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹ (Chamkhi et al., 2022).
8.	Biochar application	(a) Biochar⁶ reduces CH₄ emissions by 79% (1,590,000 tonnes of CH₄ annually), dairy composting (Harrison et al., 2022). (b) Reduces N₂O emissions by 22%–48% after 2–7 years (Zhang et al., 2021). (c) Improves crop yield by 10% when 15.6 mg ha⁻¹ is applied (Nair and Mukherjee, 2022). (d) Reduces the carbon footprint of producing rice by 20.37–41.29 mg CO₂e ha⁻¹ and maize by 28.58–39.49 mg CO₂e ha⁻¹ (Nair and Mukherjee, 2022).
9.	Optimum fertilizer use	(a) Controlled use of nitrogen fertilizer reduces N₂O emissions by 20%–63% (Zhang et al., 2013). (b) Applying urea at a 33% lower rate (compared to the conventional rate) combined with the urease inhibitor LIMUS during maize–wheat crop rotations has the highest N₂O-reducing effect (Wang et al., 2023). (c) Overall, optimum fertilisation can sequester 0.05–0.2 tCO₂e ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹ (Sapkota et al., 2019).
10.	Zero tillage (ZT)	(a) ZT reduces soil erosion by 1 Gt and fuel use by 3.9 gallons per acre (Gellatly and Dennis, 2011; Jain et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023). (b) It reduces CH₄, CO₂, and N₂O emissions by an average of 20%, 15%, and 8%, respectively (Yue et al., 2023). Whereas using 50 studies Shakoor et al. (2021) found that ZT increased emissions by 7%, 12%, and 21%, respectively. (c) Net GWP is 8%–31% lower than the conventional system (Mangalassery et al., 2014; Shakoor et al., 2021); specifically, by 11%, 14%, 23%, and 30% for barley, maize, rice, and soybean, respectively (Li et al., 2023). (d) According to Powlson et al. (2014), the annual SOC sequestration rate of ZT in the Indo-Gangetic plains is insignificant (0.01 GtCO₂e) but it facilitates crop growth and climate resilience. However, ZT and heavy rains can cause water-logging due to crop residues on the surface. (e) Its GHG mitigation potential in India ranges between 0.5 and 1.8 tCO₂e ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹ (Sapkota et al., 2019).

Source: Author's compilation from the literature.

As indicated in Table 4, SAPs have a lower global warming potential (GWP) than conventional practices. This is due to their positive environmental and economic impacts, such as reductions in soil erosion, water and electricity consumption for irrigation, use of synthetic fertilizers, enteric emissions from livestock, and cost of agricultural labor, while potentially improving crop yields. According to Sapkota et al. (2019), Indian agriculture is expected to emit 515 Megaton (Mt) CO₂e per year (yr⁻¹) by 2030, out of which SAPs can mitigate 85.5 MtCO₂e yr⁻¹. Specifically, ZT, efficient fertilization, and water management for rice production can collectively sequester 43 MtCO₂e yr⁻¹ (Sapkota et al., 2019). For instance, ZT alone sequesters 0.5–1.8 tCO₂e per hectare (ha⁻¹) yr⁻¹ (Sapkota et al., 2019). Assuming a conservative carbon price of US$10 per credit and project developers distributing 60% of carbon credit sales revenue to farmers, a farmer practicing ZT could earn ∼ INR 250–900 ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹. Similarly, the GHG mitigation potential of laser-assisted precision land leveling (LLL) ranges between 1.28 and 3 tCO₂e ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹ (Sapkota et al., 2019). Following LLL technology could yield a farmer ∼ INR 600–1500 ha⁻¹. These figures are based on conservative estimates, and actual earnings could be 1.2–4 times higher, as carbon credit prices in OTC deals range between US$12 and 40.

Such opportunities can be realized if all the stakeholders collaborate and mobilize market information, input supplies, and technical services for farmers (Kumara et al., 2023; Ministry of Agriculture, 2013). However, small and marginal farmers are less likely to adopt SAPs due to their lack of awareness and the high implementation cost of technology. For instance, LLL and drip irrigation have high up-front costs, but small and marginal farmers lack economies of scale and adequate access to credit and risk-bearing abilities (Ruzzante et al., 2021; Ishtiaque et al., 2024). The government extension agencies and self-help groups offer only limited information to facilitate the adoption of the SAPs. The absence of a secure land tenure is another challenge as then the farmer prefers investing in agricultural practices offering immediate returns over long-term investments in SAPs (Ruzzante et al., 2021). Presently, in India, carbon farming policies are in an early development stage. Nonetheless, the recently announced framework on VCM in Indian agriculture and schemes such as the Green Credit Program, Promotion of Alternate Nutrients for Agriculture Management Yojana (PM-PRANAM), and the Mangrove Initiative for Shoreline Habitats and Tangible Incomes (MISHTI) among others, incentivize green growth (Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, 2024; Gazette of India, 2023; Press Information Bureau, 2023). Furthermore, regular consultations with carbon farming stakeholders including project developers, certifiers like VERRA and the Gold Standard, international agricultural R&D organizations, the Integrity Council for the VCM, the Carbon Market Association of India, and carbon credit rating agencies can facilitate holistic policy formulation (Singh and Chaturvedi, 2023).⁴

The role of Indian agriculture in climate change mitigation is growing. In terms of the number of agricultural carbon credit projects, India with 46 projects is second to China (279) and is leading in emission reduction among countries with Agricultural Land Management (ALM) projects on VERRA (Nozaki, 2021; VERRA, 2021). However, policy uncertainty, imprecise MRV, inefficiencies, and variations in sequestration conditions (Tripathi, 2023) should be accounted for while striking a balance between sustainability and economic development.

Potential pitfalls of carbon farming in India

Policy barriers preventing the emergence of carbon farming in India

In the context of global public goods, such as climate change mitigation and environmental conservation, well-crafted policies are essential for addressing problems in collective action, promoting sustainability, and fostering international cooperation (Garg et al., 2007). Otherwise, the result is mismanagement and the irresponsible use of shared resources and negative externalities (Robe, 2014). In India, policy-related challenges are a central barrier to the adoption of carbon farming. They result from the unequal implementation of agri-environmental policies and the conflicting goals of various stakeholders in the agricultural sector. For instance, stubble burning is legally prohibited in Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan (Deshpande et al., 2023), which makes it ineligible to be included in carbon credit projects (VERRA, 2022a). Moreover, developing nations are disproportionately burdened with the responsibility for carbon sequestration and climate change mitigation, raising concerns of “environmental colonialism” (Wittman and Karon, 2009).⁵ This inequity can hinder the enthusiasm for carbon farming initiatives in India. Besides, the risk of carbon leakage, as outlined by Bohringer et al. (2017) is a critical aspect. For instance, the EU's unilateral enforcement of CBAM might shift its emission-intensive industries to developing nations with weaker regulations, such as India (Kawasaki, 2023). As a result, India would experience a rebound effect by nullifying the emission reductions achieved in the EU, paving the way for carbon leakage.⁶ Consequently, environmental challenges can arise, highlighting the need for coordinated global efforts in carbon farming. A common price for carbon credits is also necessary to genuinely reduce emissions and avoid such unintended consequences (Eckersley, 2010; European Commission, 2023).

Educational, operational, and economic roadblocks to carbon farming in India

Without collective participation, carbon farming in India is costly and unappealing because the majority of its farming population are smallholder farmers who lack information and financial and technological resources (Chute et al., 2022; Krishnan and Singhal, 2023). Thus, India could face educational, operational, and economic challenges during the implementation of carbon farming. Firstly, communication gaps between the farmers and the farmer producer organizations, local human resources (e.g. community networks), and agritech companies pose educational barriers for the farmers of India (Nozaki, 2021). Insufficient and asymmetric information about project locations, GHG mitigation technologies, yield and cost changes, input requirements, carbon credit calculation methodologies, market channels, and training for carbon farming can thus cause VCM inefficiency (Harriss-White et al., 2019; Sharma et al., 2021). Secondly, precise MRV is costly and time-consuming for farmers, resulting in the risk of dubious credit sales (Kooten, 2009). Additionally, the majority of farmers in India are hesitant to adopt digital technology since they do not receive immediate benefits (Krishnan and Singhal, 2023). Besides, due to these technical constraints faced by farmers, third-party verification using cloud computing, smart sensors, and blockchain encryption is unfeasible, hindering transparent real-time carbon credit generation (Vives, 2023; Woo et al., 2021). These roadblocks reduce buyer confidence, demand, liquidity, and prices in the carbon credit market (Blaufelder et al., 2021). Global carbon prices were below the required level of US$40–80 per tCO₂e in 2020 and must rise to US$50–100 per tCO₂e by 2030 (High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices, 2017).

Farm and farmer characteristics hindering the adoption of carbon farming in India

Even when agricultural carbon farming is implemented, the comparability of the carbon credits generated can be difficult due to variations in farm properties such as soil type, biomass availability, and crop residue removal and, thus, varying sequestration conditions across regions (Buck and Compton, 2022; Kooten, 2009; Payen et al., 2023). For instance, agroforestry systems have a carbon sequestration potential of between 0.87 and 8.92 megagrams (Mg) ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹. On the one hand, legume-based systems in Punjab can sequester 0.87 Mg ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹, while those in Uttar Pradesh sequester 3.4 Mg ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹. This disparity could be accredited to biophysical variations that must be considered (Chavan et al., 2023). Furthermore, cultural barriers like lack of stakeholders’ awareness, personal interest, and attitude cause apprehensions about carbon farming (Singh and Chaturvedi, 2023; Sharma et al., 2021). In developing countries, especially in Africa and South Asia, women are often excluded from decision-making in agriculture due to intrinsic gender inequality (Lee et al., 2015; Raghunathan et al., 2019). Men often control finances and choose profit over sustainability (Raghunathan et al., 2019). For instance, the household-level survey conducted by Aryal et al. (2014) in Bihar and Haryana found that decisions regarding farm practices and, specifically, the adoption of SAPs are taken by the males of the households. Females undertake laborious tasks in agriculture and, thus, can be more receptive to SAPs that result in higher output and co-benefits and are less laborious. But they become the decision makers only in cases of the emigration of male heads for alternative employment or their demise. In the Gangetic plains of Bihar, Aryal et al. (2018) highlighted that the adoption rate of SAPs, such as crop diversification and the use of high-yielding seed varieties by female-headed households is 0.42% higher than that of male-headed ones (Mishra et al., 2023; Raghunathan et al., 2019).

Conclusion

In summary, the evolution of carbon markets and credits has been marked by the introduction of various mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. The VCM has emerged as a flexible and resilient tool, with projections indicating substantial growth in transactions. Distinct from compliance markets, VCMs involve private entities voluntarily engaging in the offsetting of emissions, including projects in agriculture. Agricultural carbon credits play a crucial role in VCMs, adhering to standardized protocols like the VCS Program and the Gold Standard.

The pricing of carbon credits in the VCM is influenced by various factors, including project location, type, standards, and market dynamics. Agricultural carbon credits, traded over the counter in India, often command higher prices compared to exchange-traded credits. The increasing global demand for voluntary offsets and efforts by major companies like Amazon, Flipkart, and Zomato to purchase carbon credits indicates a positive trend. However, challenges such as asymmetric pricing information and the lack of a uniform pricing mechanism persist, impacting global engagement.

The quality of carbon credits is a critical consideration for their broader adoption. High-quality credits, aligned with recognized standards, contribute to climate mitigation and offer significant co-benefits for society and the environment. These co-benefits, ranging from improved livelihoods to biodiversity conservation, are often overlooked and present challenges in quantification and inclusion in carbon pricing mechanisms. Specifically, to generate agricultural carbon credits, government initiatives can encourage SAPs by increasing awareness and technological advancements while addressing their potential limitations. In the context of Indian agriculture, the country plays a significant role in global emissions, and SAPs are identified as a promising solution for climate change mitigation. The adoption of SAPs in India faces challenges related to policy barriers and educational, operational, and economic roadblocks, as well as farm and farmer characteristics. Initiatives like the Framework on VCM in Indian agriculture and the Green Credit Program aim to incentivize sustainable growth, but a reduction in policy uncertainties and the need for coordinated global efforts remain crucial for the success of carbon farming initiatives in India. In other words, while carbon markets hold promise for climate change mitigation, addressing challenges related to pricing, quality, and global cooperation is essential for their effective implementation, particularly in the context of agricultural practices in India.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-oag-10.1177_00307270241240778 - Supplemental material for Shaping India's climate future: A perspective on harnessing carbon credits from agriculture

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-oag-10.1177_00307270241240778 for Shaping India's climate future: A perspective on harnessing carbon credits from agriculture by Ananya Khurana, Dilip Kajale, Adeeth AG Cariappa and Vijesh V Krishna in Outlook on Agriculture

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This study is also strategically aligned with the One CGIAR Regional Integrated initiative Transforming Agrifood Systems in South Asia (TAFSSA) to support actions that improve equitable access to sustainable healthy diets, improve farmers’ livelihoods and resilience, and conserve land, air, and water resources in South Asia.

Data availability

The data used in the article is freely available in the public domain and can be sourced from the World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the International Energy Agency. All data sources are appropriately referenced within the text.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethics approval statement

This article does not involve new research on human beings or animals. The analysis and discourse presented herein are based on already published studies.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported through the CGIAR Regional Integrated Initiative Transforming Agrifood Systems in South Asia or TAFSSA (https:// www.cgiar.org/initiative/20-transforming-agrifood-systems-insouth-asia-tafssa/). We acknowledge and appreciate the One CGIAR Donors ().

ORCID iDs

Adeeth AG Cariappa

Vijesh V Krishna

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Agarwal

Narain

(2019) Global warming in an unequal world: A case of environmental colonialism. In: India in a Warming World. New Delhi: Centre for Science and Environment, 81–91.

Agrawal

Jain

(2018) Sustainable deployment of solar irrigation pumps: Key determinants and strategies. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment 8(2): 325.

Ahonen

Kessler

Michaelowa

, et al. (2022) Governance of fragmented compliance and voluntary carbon markets under the Paris agreement. Politics and Governance 10(1): 235–245.

Alexander

(2023) The Expanding Scope of Global Carbon Markets: Trends in Voluntary Carbon Credits and Offsets. In: Carbon Credits. Available at: https://www.thallo.io/the-expanding-scope-of-global-carbon-markets-trends-in-voluntary-carbon-credits-and-offsets/ (accessed 21 November 2023).

Amjadi

Lundgren

Zhou

(2022) A dynamic analysis of industrial energy efficiency and the rebound effect: Implications for carbon emissions and sustainability. Energy Efficiency 15(7): 54.

Amundson

Biardeau

(2018) Soil carbon sequestration is an elusive climate mitigation tool. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(46): 11652–11656.

Anand Agricultural University (2016) Evaluating the Impact of Ration Balancing on Methane Emissions in Dairy Animals. Report for National Dairy Support Project. Report no. 5074, 30 August. Anand Agricultural University: Anand.

Anders

Lokuge

(2022) Carbon credit system in agriculture: A review of literature. The Simpson Centre for Agricultural and Food Innovation and Public Education 15: 12.

Anon (2023) Voluntary Carbon Markets: An Effective Tool for Decarbonization. Available at: https://libstore.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/003/144/420/RUG01-003144420_2023_0001_AC.pdf (accessed 6 November 2023).

10.

Antonangelo

Sun

Zhang

(2021) The roles of co-composted biochar (COMBI) in improving soil quality, crop productivity, and toxic metal amelioration. Journal of Environmental Management 277: 111443.

11.

Aryal

Farnworth

Khurana

, et al. (2014) Gender dimensions of climate change adaptation through climate-smart agricultural practices in India. In: Innovation in Indian Agriculture: Ways Forward, New Delhi, India, 4 December 2014. New Delhi: India International Centre.

12.

Aryal

Jat

Sapkota

, et al. (2018) Adoption of multiple climate-smart agricultural practices in the Gangetic plains of Bihar, India. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management 10(3): 407–427.

13.

Aryal

Mehrotra

Jat

, et al. (2015) Impacts of laser land leveling in rice–wheat systems of the North–Western Indo-Gangetic plains of India. Food Security 7: 725–738.

14.

Asian Development Bank (2024) EU Carbon Tariff Likely to Have Limited Impact on Emissions Without Global Efforts. Available at: https://www.adb.org/news/eu-carbon-tariff-likely-have-limited-impact-emissions-without-global-efforts (accessed 2 March 2024).

15.

Bhattacharya

(2019) Global climate change and its impact on agriculture. In: Changing Climate and Resource use Efficiency in Plants. London: Academic Press, 1–50.

16.

Blaufelder

Levy

Mannion

, et al. (2021) A blueprint for scaling voluntary carbon markets to meet the Climate Change. Report, McKinsey & Company, New York, January.

17.

Boever

(2023) Voluntary Carbon Markets: An Effective Tool for Decarbonisation. Available at:https://libstore.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/003/144/420/RUG01-003144420_2023_0001_AC.pdf (accessed 13 November 2023).

18.

Bohringer

Rosendahl

Storrosten

(2017) Robust policies to mitigate carbon leakage. Journal of Public Economics 149: 35–46.

19.

Boomitra (2023) Boomitra Carbon Farming in East Africa Through Soil Enrichment Document Prepared by Boomitra Inc Project Title Boomitra Carbon Farming in East Africa through Soil Enrichment. Available at: https://boomitra.com (accessed 6 February 2024).

20.

Buck

Compton

(2022) Soil carbon sequestration as a climate strategy: What do farmers think? Biogeochemistry 161(46): 59–70.

21.

CarbonCredits.Com (2023) What is the Voluntary Carbon Market? Available at: https://carboncredits.com/what-is-the-voluntary-carbon-market/ (accessed 13 November 2023).

22.

Cariappa

AGA

Birthal

(2023) Farming carbon credits. The Hindu Businessline, 21 November.

23.

Chamkhi

Cheto

Geistlinger

, et al. (2022) Legume-based intercropping systems promote beneficial rhizobacterial community and crop yield under stressing conditions. Industrial Crops and Products 183(3): 114958.

24.

Chand

Singh

(2023) From Green Revolution to Amrit Kaal. Available at: https://niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2023-07/Aggricultrue_Amritkal.pdf (accessed 17 November 2023).

25.

Chandler

Schaeffer

Dadi

, et al. (2002) Climate Change Mitigation in Developing Countries: Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey. Available at: https://www.c2es.org/wp-content/uploads/2002/10/dev_mitigation.pdf (accessed 15 November 2023).

26.

Chavan

Dhillon

Sirohi

, et al. (2023) Carbon sequestration potential of commercial agroforestry systems in Indo-Gangetic plains of India: Poplar and Eucalyptus-based agroforestry systems. Forests 14(3): 559.

27.

Chen

Marbouh

Moore

et al. (2021) Voluntary Carbon Offsets: An Empirical Market Study. Available at: (accessed 13 November 2023).

28.

Chute

Sain

Davis

, et al. (2022) Agricultural Carbon Offset Market Development: Barriers and Opportunities from the Farmer Perspective . Master’s thesis, University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability, United States of America.

29.

Climes (2023) Brands of Gen-C: Perfora. Available at: https://climes.io/app/brands/perfora (accessed 17 November 2023).

30.

Credit Suisse (2022) Carbon Markets: The Beginning of the Big Carbon Age. Securities Research Reports. Report no. 1-202205, 8 April, Credit Suisse AG.

31.

Dellink

Lanzi

Chateau

(2019) The sectoral and regional economic consequences of climate change to 2060. Environmental and Resource Economics 72: 309–363.

32.

Deshpande

Kumar

Pillai

, et al. (2023) Greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural residue burning have increased by 75% since 2011 across India. Science of the Total Environment 904: 166944.

33.

DiMarino

Wright (2023) Carbon Market Principles. Report,

JP Morgan Chase & Co.

, July.

34.

Dorst

(2021) Finland’s Green Building Revolution. Finance and Development Magazine, International Monetary Fund, 2 November. Available at: https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2021/10/27/110421-finlands-green-building-revolution (accessed 8 May 2023).

35.

Eckersley

(2010) The politics of carbon leakage and the fairness of border measures. Ethics and International Affairs 24(4): 367–393.

36.

Ecosystem Marketplace (2022a) Payments for Ecosystem Services. Available at: https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/payments-ecosystem-services/ (accessed 28 March 2023)

37.

Ecosystem Marketplace (2022b) The Art of Integrity: State of Voluntary Carbon Markets, Q3 Insights Briefing. 2 August. Washington: Forest Trends Association.

38.

Elkhlifi

Iftikhar

, et al. (2023) Potential role of biochar on capturing soil nutrients, carbon sequestration and managing environmental challenges: A review. Sustainability 15(3): 2527.

39.

Ernst & Young (2022) Essential, expensive and evolving: The outlook for carbon credits and offsets. An EY Net Zero Centre Report. Report no. 20220530, 30 May. Sydney: Ernst & Young.

40.

European Commission (2023) Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. Available at: https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en (accessed 10 November 2023).

41.

European Parliament (2022) Opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AGRI-AD-699239_EN.pdf (accessed 9 February 2024).

42.

Favasuli

Sebastian

(2021) Voluntary Carbon Markets: How they work, how they’re priced and who’s involved. In: Energy Transition. Available at: https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/blogs/energy-transition/061021-voluntary-carbon-markets-pricing-participants-trading-corsia-credits (accessed 1 September 2023).

43.

Fleming

Stitzlein

Jakku

, et al. (2019) Missed opportunity? Framing actions around co-benefits for carbon mitigation in Australian agriculture. Land Use Policy 85: 230–238.

44.

Food and Agriculture Organisation (2010) The Role of PES in Agriculture. Available at: https://www.fao.org/3/i2100e/i2100e01.pdf (accessed 14 December 2022).

45.

Food and Agriculture Organisation (2020) Emissions Totals. Available at: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/GT (accessed 3 September 2023).

46.

Friedrich

Pickens

, et al. (2023) This Interactive Chart Shows Changes in the World's Top 10 Emitters. Available at: https://www.climatewatchdata.org/ghg-emissions?end_year=2020&start_year=1990 (accessed 2 November 2023).

47.

Garg

Shukla

Kapshe

(2007) From climate change impacts to adaptation: A development perspective for India. Natural Resources Forum 31(2): 132–141.

48.

Garg

Sherasia

Phondba

, et al. (2013) Effect of feeding balanced ration on milk production, enteric methane emission and metabolic profile in crossbred cows under field conditions. Indian Journal of Dairy Science 66(2): 113–119.

49.

Gartaula

Sapkota

Khatri-Chhetri

, et al. (2020) Gendered impacts of greenhouse gas mitigation options for rice cultivation in India. Climate Change 163: 1045–1063.

50.

Gazette of India (2023) Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Notification. Available at: https://egazette.gov.in/WriteReadData/2023/246825.pdf (accessed 11 September 2023).

51.

Gellatly

Dennis

(2011) Agricultural and related biotechnologies. In: Young

M. M.

, ed. Comprehensive Biotechnology. Amsterdam: Elsevier BV, 10–23.

52.

Giamouri

Zisis

Mitsiopoulou

, et al. (2023) Sustainable strategies for greenhouse gas emission reduction in small ruminants farming. Sustainability 15(5): 4118.

53.

Giller

Hijbeek

Andersson

, et al. (2021) Regenerative agriculture: An agronomic perspective. Outlook on Agriculture 50(1): 13–265.

54.

Ginkel

KCHV

, et al. (2020) Climate change induced socio-economic tipping points: review and stakeholder consultation for policy relevant research. Environmental Research Letters 15(023001): 2–17.

55.

Girish

Trivedi

(2022). Monetizing carbon credits: How Indian farmers can benefit. In: India Development Review. Available at: https://idronline.org/article/agriculture/monetising-carbon-credits-how-indian-farmers-can-benefit/ (accessed 8 February 2024).

56.

Gupta

Malik

Sankhe

, et al. (2022) Decarbonising India: Charting a Pathway for Sustainable Growth. Report, McKinsey & Company, Mumbai, October.

57.

Harrison

Gao

Gonzales

, et al. (2022) Dairy manure co-composting with wood biochar plays a critical role in meeting global methane goals. Environmental Science and Technology 56: 10987–10996.

58.

Harriss-White

Hardy

(2019) Towards lower-carbon indian agricultural development: An experiment in multi-criteria mapping. Review of Development and Change 24(1): 5–30.

59.

High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices (2017) Report of the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices. 29 May. Washington: World Bank.

60.

Hultman

Lou

Hutton

(2020) A review of community co-benefits of the clean development mechanism (CDM). Environmental Research Letters 15(5): 053002.

61.

Ishfaq

Akbar

Anjum

, et al. (2020) Growth, yield and water productivity of dry direct seeded rice and transplanted aromatic rice under different irrigation management regimes. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 19(11): 2656–2673.

62.

Ishtiaque

Krupnik

Krishna

, et al. (2024) Overcoming barriers to climate-smart agriculture in South Asia. Nature Climate Change 14: 111–113.

63.

Jain

Barrett

Solomon

, et al. (2023) Surveying the evidence on sustainable intensification strategies for smallholder agricultural systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 48: 6.1–6.23.

64.

Jat

Gathala

Ladha

, et al. (2009) Evaluation of precision land leveling and double zero-till systems in the rice–wheat rotation: Water use, productivity, profitability and soil physical properties. Soil and Tillage Research 105(1): 112–121.

65.

Jayaraman

Aparajay

Devshali

, et al. (2023) Greenhouse gas mitigation and carbon markets in Indian agriculture: An ex-ante critical review. Economic & Political Weekly 58(43).

66.

Jindal

Kerr

Nagar

(2007) Voluntary carbon trading: Potential for community forestry projects in India. Asia-Pacific Development Journal 14(2): 107.

67.

Jones

Peters

Gasser

, et al. (2023) National contributions to climate change due to historical emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide since 1850. Scientific Data 10(155.

68.

Kakraliya

Singh

Bohra

, et al. (2018) Nitrogen and legumes: A meta-analysis. In: Meena

R. S.

et al. (eds) Legumes for Soil Health and Sustainable Management. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd., 277–314.

69.

Kapri

(2021) Solar drying in Agriculture – A Sustainable Agriculture Practice. In: Just Agriculture. Available at: https://justagriculture.in/blog/solar-drying-in-agriculture/ (accessed 16 April 2023).

70.

Kawasaki

(2023) Development of CO₂ Emissions and Impact of Carbon Pricing Development of CO₂ Emissions. Discussion paper, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, Japan.

71.

Kooten

(2009) Biological carbon sequestration and carbon trading re-visited. Climate Change 95: 449–463.

72.

Kossoy

Guigon

(2012) State and Trends of the Carbon Market. Annual Report, The World Bank, Washington DC, April.

73.

Krishnan

Singhal

(2023) Can Carbon Markets Decarbonise and Revitalise Agriculture? Available at: https://sprf.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/carbon-farming.pdf (accessed 10 November 2023).

74.

Kumara

Pal

Chand

, et al. (2023) Carbon sequestration potential of sustainable agricultural practices to mitigate climate change in Indian agriculture: A meta-analysis. Sustainable Production and Consumption 35: 697–708.

75.

Lee

Martin

Wollenberg

(2015) Implications on equity in agricultural carbon market projects: A gendered analysis of access, decision making, and outcomes. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 47(10): 2080–2096.

76.

Lelechenko

(2023) The Rising Trend: SOC and Carbon Markets. In: Agribusiness Solutions. Available at: https://eos.com/blog/the-rising-trend-soc-and-carbon-markets/#:∼:text=As%20more%20and%20more%20farmers,in%20soil%20organic%20carbon%20sequestration (accessed 9 February 2024).

77.

Zhang

, et al. (2023) Responses of soil greenhouse gas emissions to no-tillage: A global meta-analysis. Sustainable Production and Consumption 36: 479–492.

78.

Lou

Hultman

Patwardhan

, et al. (2022) Integrating sustainability into climate finance by quantifying the co-benefits and market impact of carbon projects. Communications Earth and Environment 3: 137.

79.

Mahler

Yonzan

Lakner

(2023) Most of the world’s extreme poor live in middle income countries – but not for long. In: World Bank Data Blog. Available at: https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/most-worlds-extreme-poor-live-middle-income-countries-not-long (accessed 19 December 2023).

80.

Mangalassery

Sjogersten

Sparks

, et al. (2014) To what extent can zero tillage lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from temperate soils? Scientific Reports 4: 4586.

81.

Marcel (2023) Why sustainability is the next frontier of last mile delivery. Available at: https://local-eyes.nl/why-sustainability-is-the-next-frontier-of-last-mile-delivery/ (accessed 10 April 2023).

82.

Marchant

Cooper

Gough-Stone

(2022) Bringing technological transparency to tenebrous markets. Natural Resources Journal 62: 159–182.

83.

Mendelsohn

Litan

Fleming

(2021) A framework to ensure that voluntary carbon markets will truly help combat climate change. Report, The Brookings Institution, Washington DC, September.

84.

Michaelowa

Shishlov

Hoch

, et al. (2019) Overview and Comparison of Existing Carbon Crediting Schemes. Report, Nordic Environment Finance Corporation, Helsinki, February.

85.

Ministry of Agriculture (2013) Policy and Process Guidelines for Farmer Producer Organisations. Available at: https://www.mofpi.gov.in/sites/default/files/fpo_policy_process_guidelines_1_april_2013.pdf (accessed 10 April 2023).

86.

Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare (2024) Launch of Framework for Voluntary Carbon Market in Agriculture Sector and Accreditation Protocol of Agroforestry Nurseries. Available at: https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2000331 (accessed 6 February 2024).

87.

Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (2023) Annual Estimates of GDP at Constant Prices, 2011-12 Series. Available at: https://mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/press_releases_statements/Statement_13_2023-24_01Sept2023.xls (accessed 16 November 2023).

88.

Mishra

Panda

Mohanty

, et al. (2023) Gender mainstreaming in climate-smart agriculture: Peeking into the best practices of other countries to pave a roadmap for India. In: Digital Transformation, Strategic Resilience, Cyber Security and Risk Management. Leeds: Emerald Publishing Limited, 186–195.

89.

Mrowczynska-Kaminska

Bajan

Pawlowski

, et al. (2021) Greenhouse gas emissions intensity of food production systems and its determinants. Plos One 16(4): e0250995.

90.

Nair

Mukherjee

(2022) The use of biochar for reducing carbon footprints in land-use systems: Prospects and problems. Carbon Footprints 2(1): 6.

91.

Narain

(2021) India’s new climate targets: Bold, ambitious and a challenge for the world. Available at: https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/climate-change/india-s-new-climate-targets-bold-ambitious-and-a-challenge-for-the-world-80022 (accessed 8 December 2022).

92.

National Environment Agency (2023) Singapore Sets Out Eligibility Criteria for International Carbon Credits Under the Carbon Tax Regime. Government of Singapore, 4 October.

93.

Netter

Luedeling

Whitney

(2022) Agroforestry and reforestation with the gold standard-decision analysis of a voluntary carbon offset label. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Climate Change 27: 17.

94.

Nozaki

(2021) Rise of Carbon Farming in India. Report, Mitsui & Co. Global Strategic Studies Institute, Tokyo, April.

95.

Opanda

(2023) Carbon Credit Pricing Chart: Updated 2023. Available at: https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/new-buyers-market-guide/carbon-credit-pricing/ (accessed 20 March 2023).

96.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2023a) Agricultural and Food Markets: Trends and Prospects. Available at: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/08801ab7-en/1/3/1/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/08801ab7-en&_csp_=cdae8533d2f4a8eebccf87e7e1e64ccd&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book#section-d1e2781-64de0238c4 (accessed 9 November 2023).

97.

Park

Yamamoto

Doong

MAL

(2023) European Union Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism: Economic Impact and Implications for Asia. Brief, Asian Development Bank, Philippines, November.

98.

Pathak

Bhatia

Jain

(2014) Greenhouse Gas Emission from Indian Agriculture: Trends, Mitigation and Policy Needs. New Delhi: Indian Agricultural Research Institute.

99.

Paul

Bartkowski

Donmez

, et al. (2023) Carbon farming: Are soil carbon certificates a suitable tool for climate change mitigation? Journal of Environmental Management 330(8): 117142.

100.

Payen

Moran

Cahurel

, et al. (2023) Why do French winegrowers adopt soil organic carbon sequestration practices? Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 6: 994364.

101.

Perdan

Azapagic

(2011) Carbon trading: Current schemes and future developments. Energy Policy 39(10): 6040–6054.

102.

Powlson

Sterling

Jatt

, et al. (2014) Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation. Nature Climate Change 4: 678–683.

103.

Press Information Bureau (2023) Notification issued for Green Credit Program (GCP) and Ecomark scheme Under LiFE Initiative to Promote Sustainable Lifestyle and Environmental Conservation. Available at: https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1967476 (accessed 1 March 2024).

104.

Raghunathan

Kannan

Quisumbing

(2019) Can women's self-help groups improve access to information, decision-making, and agricultural practices? The Indian case. The Journal of the International Association of Agricultural Economics 60(5): 567–580.

105.

Raina

Zavalloni

Viaggi

(2024) Incentive mechanisms of carbon farming contracts: A systematic mapping study. Journal of Environmental Management 352: 120126.

106.

Raipurkar

(2023) Statistics of biogas development in India: A review. International Journal of Researches in Biosciences, Agriculture and Technology 1(11): 111–126.

107.

Ranjan

Sow

(2020) Drip irrigation system for sustainable agriculture. Agriculture and Food: E-Newsletter 2(12): 33023.

108.

Rapsomanikis

(2015) The economic lives of smallholder farmers. Report, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, December.

109.

Ritchie

Roser

(2022) Emissions by Sector. Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#per-capita-greenhouse-gas-emissions-where-do-our-emissions-come-from (accessed 13 March 2023).

110.

Ritchie

Roser

Rosado

(2020) CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions (accessed 3 November 2023).

111.

Ritchie

Roser

Rosado

(2023) Greenhouse gas emissions. Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions (accessed 13 March 2023).

112.

Robe

(2014). Global Risks and Collective Action Failures: What Can the International Community Do? Available at: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/wp14195.pdf (accessed 15 November 2023).

113.

Rodriguez

Carlsson

Englund

, et al. (2020) Grain legume-cereal intercropping enhances the use of soil-derived and biologically fixed nitrogen in temperate agroecosystems. A meta-analysis. European Journal of Agronomy 118: 126077.

114.

Rose

Khatri-Chhetri

Stier

, et al. (2022) Agricultural sub-sectors in new and updated NDCs: 2020-2021 dataset. Available at: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/115962 (accessed 18 March 2023).

115.

Ruzzante

Labarta

Bilton

(2021) Adoption of agricultural technology in the developing world: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. World Development 146(1): 105599.

116.

Sapkota

Vetter

Jat

(2019) Cost-effective opportunities for climate change mitigation in Indian agriculture. Science of the Total Environment 655: 1342–1354.

117.

Sarkar

Dash

(2011) Emissions trading and carbon credit accounting for sustainable energy development with focus on India. Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation 7(1): 50–80.

118.

Seeberg-Elverfeldt

(2010) Carbon markets – which types exist and how they work. In: Carbon Finance Possibilities for Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Projects in a Smallholder Context. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation, 5–11.

119.

Shakoor

Shahbaz

Farooq

, et al. (2021) A global meta-analysis of greenhouse gases emission and crop yield under no-tillage as compared to conventional tillage. Science of the Total Environment 750: 142299.

120.

Sharma

Kaushal

Kaushik

, et al. (2021) Carbon farming: Prospects and challenges. Sustainability 13(19): 11122.

121.

Sherry

(2018) How Blockchain Can Make Carbon Markets More Accessible. Available at: https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/how-blockchain-can-make-carbon-markets-more-accessible/ (accessed 7 November 2023).

122.

Siedenburg

Brown

(2015) Voices from the field – carbon markets and rural poverty as seen from Madagascar and Mali. Climate and Development 8(1): 10–25.

123.

Singh

Chaturvedi

(2023) Understanding Carbon Markets: Prospects for India and Stakeholder Perspectives. Report, Council on Energy, Environment and Water, New Delhi, February.

124.

Smit

Pilifosova

(2018) Adaptation to Climate Change in the Context of Sustainable Development and Equity. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/wg2TARchap18.pdf (accessed 22 November 2022).

125.

Smith

Soussana

Angers

, et al. (2019) 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(1): 219–241.

126.

South Pole (2022) The Voluntary Carbon Market. Available at: https://www.southpole.com/publications/the-voluntary-carbon-market-report-2022-2023 (accessed 5 May 2023).

127.

Spencer

Lawler

Lowe

(2016) Case studies in co-benefits approaches to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 60(4): 1–21.

128.

Sydney

NovakSydney

Carvalho

, et al. (2019) Potential carbon fixation of industrially important microalgae. In: Biofuels from Algae (Second Edition). Elsevier, 67–88.

129.

Tang

(2016) Economic analysis of the potential for greenhouse gas mitigation through carbon farming in Australia’s Broadacre Agriculture Sector . PhD thesis, The University of Western Australia, Perth.

130.

Tang

Zhang

, et al. (2021) Intercropping legumes and cereals increases phosphorus use efficiency; a meta-analysis. Plant and Soil 460: 89–104.

131.

Thakur

Chander

Sinha

(2017) Whatsapp for farmers: Enhancing the scope and coverage of traditional agricultural extension. International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology 6(4): 2190–2201.

132.

The Gold Standard (2023a) Impact Registry. Available at: https://registry.goldstandard.org/projects?q=&page=1&is_certified_project=true&project_types=22%2C19 (accessed 12 May 2023).

133.

The Gold Standard (2023b) Gold Standard for the Global Goals. Available at: https://www.goldstandard.org/take-action/certify-project (accessed 7 November 2023).

134.

The Gold Standard (2023c) Land Use activities + Nature Based solutions. Available at: https://www.goldstandard.org/our-story/sector-land-use-activities-nature-based-solutions (accessed 7 November 2023).

135.

The Gold Standard (2023d) Double Counting Guideline. Report for the Gold Standard. Version 1.0, November. Switzerland: The Gold Standard.

136.

The United Nations (2022) World Population Prospects 2022: Probabilistic Projections (PPP scenarios). Available at: https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/ (accessed 16 November 2023).

137.

The United Nations (2023) What is Climate Change. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/what-is-climate-change (accessed 13 March 2023).

138.

TraceX Technologies (2021) Digital MRV Systems for Carbon Credits. Available at: https://tracextech.com/digital-mrv-system-for-carbon-credits/ (accessed 2 March 2024).

139.

Tripathi

(2023) Carbon Market Warming up, but is India Ready? Available at: https://www.outlookbusiness.com/strategy-4/feature-17/carbon-market-warming-up-but-is-india-ready-6756 (accessed 9 November 2023).

140.

UNFCCC (2022a) Glossary of climate change acronyms and terms. Available at: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-convention/glossary-of-climate-change-acronyms-and-terms (accessed 12 April 2023).

141.

UNFCCC (2022b) Clean Development Mechanism Methodology Booklet. Available at: https://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/documentation/meth_booklet.pdf (accessed 31 August 2023).

142.

UNFCCC (2023a) The Paris Agreement. Available at: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement (accessed 15 March 2023).

143.

UNFCCC (2023b) About Carbon Pricing. Available at: https://unfccc.int/about-us/regional-collaboration-centres/the-ciaca/about-carbon-pricing#What-is-Carbon-Pricing?- (accessed 6 November 2023).

144.

United Nations Environment Program (2020) UNEP's six-sector solution to climate change. Available at: https://www.org/interactive/six-sector-solution-climate-change/ (accessed 18 March 2023).

145.

Urs

(2023) Comparing Gold Standard and Verra Certification for Biochar Carbon Credits: Key Features and Differences. Available at: https://ibbn.org.in/news-related-posts/comparing-gold-standard-and-verra-certification-for-biochar-carbon-credits/ (accessed 6 November 2023).

146.

VERRA (2021) VERRA Registry. Available at: https://registry.verra.org/app/search/VCS/All%20Projects (accessed 8 May 2023).

147.

VERRA (2022a) Frequently Asked Questions. Available at: https://verra.org/faq/#:∼:text=What%20is%20additionality%3F,the%20sale%20of%20carbon%20credits (accessed 6 September 2023).

148.

VERRA (2022b) Validation and Verification. Available at: https://verra.org/validation-verification/#for-the-vcs-program (accessed 7 November 2023).

149.

VERRA (2022c) Verified Carbon Standard. Available at: https://verra.org/programs/verified-carbon-standard/ (accessed 8 May 2023).

150.

VERRA (2023) VCS Standard v4.5. Available at: https://verra.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/VCS-Standard-v4.5-updated-4-Oct-2023.pdf (accessed 13 November 2023).

151.

Vijayakumar

Singaravadivelan

Senthilkumar

, et al. (2022) Animal husbandry practices and manure management for cost-effective mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from dairy farms in India. Biological Forum: An International Journal 14(4):618–622.

152.

Vives

(2023) Why data infrastructure is key for a transparent carbon market? Available at: https://blogs.worldbank.org/climatechange/why-data-infrastructure-key-transparent-carbon-market (accessed 18 March 2023).

153.

Vrsatz

Herrero

Dubash

, et al. (2014) Measuring the co-benefits of climate change mitigation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 39: 549–582.

154.

Wang

Sha

Zhang

, et al. (2023) Improving nitrogen fertilizer use efficiency and minimising losses and global warming potential by optimizing applications and using nitrogen synergists in a maize-wheat rotation. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 353: 108538.

155.

Wang

Duan

, et al. (2021) Spatial variability of soil organic carbon and total nitrogen in desert steppes of China’s Hexi corridor. Frontiers in Environmental Science 9: 761313.

156.

West

TAP

Borner

Sills

, et al. (2020) Overstated carbon emission reductions from voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117(39): 24188–24194.

157.

White

(2022) The role of soil carbon sequestration as a climate change mitigation strategy: An Australian case study. Soil Systems 6(2): 46.

158.

Winter

Narain

Shamshery

(2018) Sustainable Irrigation: Designing Water and Energy Efficient Systems. Available at: https://tatacenter.mit.edu/portfolio/sustainable-irrigation-designing-water-and-energy-efficient-systems/ (accessed 21 June 2023).

159.

Wittman

Karon

(2009) Carbon offsets and inequality: Social costs and co-benefits in Guatemala and Sri Lanka. Society and Natural Resources 2: 710–726.

160.

Wongpiyabovorn

Plastina

Crespi

(2023) Challenges to voluntary Ag carbon markets. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 45(2): 1154–1167.

161.

Woo

Fatima

Kibert

, et al. (2021) Applying blockchain technology for building energy performance measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) and the carbon credit market: A review of the literature. Building and Environment 205: 108199.

162.

World Bank (2021) Carbon Pricing Dashboard. Available at: https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/carbon_crediting (accessed 18 March 2023).

163.

World Bank (2022a) State and Trends of Carbon Pricing. Report, The World Bank, Washington DC, May.

164.

World Bank (2022b) What You Need to Know About the Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) of Carbon Credits. The World Bank, 27 July.

165.

World Bank (2022c) World Development Indicators. Available at: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators (accessed 4 March 2023).

166.

World Bank (2023a) What is Carbon Pricing. Available at: https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/what-carbon-pricing (accessed 16 March 2023).

167.

World Bank (2023b) Carbon Pricing Dashboard. Available at: https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/map_data (accessed 10 June 2023).

168.

World Bank (2023c) Carbon Pricing Dashboard. Available at: https://carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/carbon_crediting (accessed 10 June 2023).

169.

World Bank (2023d) High Integrity, High Impact: The World Bank Engagement Roadmap for Carbon Markets. Available at: https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/12facd8b391a1eafa5dd53e7ddc5eeb5-0020012023/original/COP28-World-Bank-Engagement-Roadmap-for-Carbon-Markets.pdf (accessed 1 March 2024).

170.

World Economic Forum (2022) Millions of India’s smallholder farmers could soon access carbon credits—that’s good for them and the planet. Available at: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/05/carbon-credits-could-help-india-reach-net-zero-2070/ (accessed 7 March 2023).

171.

World Economic Forum (2023) Recommendations for the Digital Voluntary and Regulated Carbon Markets. Available at: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/Recommendations_for_the_Digital_Voluntary_and_Regulated_Carbon_Markets.pdf (accessed 2 March 2024).

172.

York

Adua

Clark

(2022) The rebound effect and the challenge of moving beyond fossil fuels: A review of empirical and theoretical research. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 13(3): 782.

173.

Yue

Fornara

Hedenec

, et al. (2023) No tillage decreases GHG emissions with no crop yield tradeoff at the global scale. Soil and Tillage Research 228: 105643.

174.

Zhang

Duan

, et al. (2021) The effect of long-term biochar amendment on N2O emissions: Experiments with N15-O18 isotopes combined with specific inhibition approaches. Science of The Total Environment 769: 144533.

175.

Zhang

Dou

, et al. (2013) New technologies reduce greenhouse gas emissions from nitrogenous fertilizer in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(21): 8375–8380.

176.

Zhang

Xiao

, et al. (2020) Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions through optimized irrigation and nitrogen fertilization in intensively managed wheat–maize production. Scientific Reports 10: 5907.

177.

Zhu

Lan

Ness

, et al. (2014) Carbon trade, forestry land rights, and farmers’ livelihood in rural communities in China. In: Transforming Rural Communities in China and Beyond. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 61–91.

178.

Ziegler

(2023) Assessing Credibility in the Voluntary Carbon. Available at: https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=9133772&fileOId=9133777 (accessed 6 November 2023).

179.

Zomato Limited (2022) Our Sustainability Journey: Zomato. Available at: https://www.zomato.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/ESG-Update-_-June-2022.pdf (accessed 17 April 2023).

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB