29th Sep 2022


Is EU making same mistake as US 'carbon-farming' gamble?

  • An emerging body of research calls into question whether establishing credible, high-integrity soil carbon offsets is possible given the complexities (Photo: Andrew Stawarz)
Listen to article

When the European Commission unveiled its strategy to boost carbon capture on farmland last year, both farmers and green groups were rather lukewarm about the proposal.

Known as "carbon farming", the scheme promises to create a new revenue stream for farmers for the amount of carbon stored in the soil. The idea is that agricultural soils can remove carbon from the atmosphere and compensate for at least some ongoing emissions.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Become an expert on Europe

Get instant access to all articles — and 20 years of archives. 14-day free trial.

... or subscribe as a group

However, before the release of its proposed carbon removals legislation on November 30th, the Commission must address several issues that stand in the way of aligning European farming with the EU's climate ambitions.

First, the IPCC's latest assessment unequivocally states that removals cannot be a substitute for emissions reductions. Emissions must rapidly come down this decade for a chance to limit unsustainable temperature rise. The framework must therefore not become a distraction from this existential task. It must not serve as a loophole for big polluters to hide their emissions.

Second, the commission should learn from the US experience. Carbon farming credits have been in existence there for more than a decade without making a meaningful impact on climate action. From the ease with which carbon is lost from soils, the lack of accurate measurement to the economic risk for farmers, there are several reasons to be sceptical about these schemes.

For instance, an emerging body of research calls into question whether establishing credible, high integrity soil carbon offsets is possible given the complexities and uncertainty in measuring soil carbon.

An analysis of soil carbon testing found that typical testing practices overestimate the level of sequestration by sampling too close to the surface.

Another study found that rising temperatures predicted by climate change will release carbon from the soil much faster than previously predicted, thereby unravelling sequestration that has occurred.

It has also been difficult for carbon consultants to convince US farmers that these projects make economic sense.

Carbon credit schemes that are more robust in monitoring, reporting and verification are costly for farmers to adopt. An Arkansas rice farmer explained to Congress that he only made $133 [€131] on 200 acres put into a carbon credit project, which is not nearly enough to justify the project.

Big Agri data-harvesting?

High costs for project developers and farmers to run these schemes means that these offset projects have primarily benefited large-scale farms, raising concerns that corporate investment in carbon markets will contribute to further consolidation of agricultural land and disadvantage small to mid-sized farmers.

Additional issues arise for farmers who are renting land, including who owns credits that are generated. For example, it is still not clear what the legal obligations and risks to renters are, and how long-term credit obligations may affect the sale of farmland.

These schemes also require farmers to share enormous amounts of data about what is happening on their farm, including annual information about planting, seeds, fertiliser use, equipment and harvest.

Many US farmers are concerned about who controls that data and who is benefiting.

Major global agribusiness firms like Cargill, Bayer and Corteva have created their own on-farm data systems that gives companies unprecedented access to what is happening on individual farms, as well as aggregate data on many farms — all of which would be privately-held and controlled. These are often the same companies on which farmers depend for purchasing farm inputs, hence creating a conflict-of-interest situation.

Alarm bells

All in all, the US experience with carbon farming should ring alarm bells in the EU. Despite some interest from companies in farm-based carbon offsets, there is currently no push to develop a government-run carbon market at the US federal level.

Even a limited bill for setting common standards for private offset credits hasn't passed Congress, facing opposition from 220 environmental and farm organisations.

The current commission should revisit its carbon farming plans and consider other instruments to support farmers transitioning to climate-friendly agriculture. The EU's farming support programme — known as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) — is one of the richest agricultural schemes in the world. It has the instruments, the budget and the enormous potential to be a game changer for sustainable farming in Europe.

The CAP will be up for renewal within the same time frame it would take to set up carbon farming certification schemes.

Rather than gamble with carbon credits, the billions of euros of CAP money must be redirected towards policies that can truly help European farmers meet the EU's climate goals. This would allow lawmakers to build their historical legacy on creating a just transition for farmers and contributing to the EU's climate ambition.

Author bio

Shefali Sharma is the director of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy's European office. IATP is a non-profit think tank with headquarters in the US, working to create fair food and agriculture systems.


The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author's, not those of EUobserver.

With war raging, a push to roll back green farming

Campaigners say pesticides lobbyists are trying to rollback green farming rules but Europe "can't just drop everything we've already tried to develop for sustainable development of farming in the future," says EU agriculture commissioner.

MEPs raise ambition on EU carbon market reform

MEPs on the environment committee agreed on reform of the European carbon market — including expanding it to buildings and transport. They also want to extend the scope of the carbon border tax, and phase out free permits by 2030.

How US tech giants play EU states off against each other

Some have tried to justify Big Tech's meagre tax payments in EU states with heavier tax burdens by emphasising the fact that these companies create jobs and invest in next-generation technologies. However, their market dominance comes at a steep cost.


EU should admonish less, and listen more, to the Global South

Whether on Russia, or gas, or climate change, or food security, the EU's constant finger-wagging and moralising is becoming unbearably repetitive and self-defeating. Most countries in the Global South view it as eurocentric and neo-colonial.

News in Brief

  1. EU takes Malta to court over golden passports
  2. EU to ban Russian products worth €7bn a year more
  3. Denmark: CIA did not warn of Nord Stream attack
  4. Drone sightings in the North Sea 'occurred over months'
  5. Gazprom threatens to cut gas deliveries to Europe via Ukraine
  6. New compromise over EU energy emergency measures
  7. 15 states push for EU-wide gas price cap
  8. EU: Nord Stream explosions 'result of a deliberate act'

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. The European Association for Storage of EnergyRegister for the Energy Storage Global Conference, held in Brussels on 11-13 Oct.
  2. EFBWW – EFBH – FETBBA lot more needs to be done to better protect construction workers from asbestos
  3. European Committee of the RegionsThe 20th edition of EURegionsWeek is ready to take off. Save your spot in Brussels.
  4. UNESDA - Soft Drinks EuropeCall for EU action – SMEs in the beverage industry call for fairer access to recycled material
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic prime ministers: “We will deepen co-operation on defence”
  6. EFBWW – EFBH – FETBBConstruction workers can check wages and working conditions in 36 countries

Latest News

  1. Everything you need to know about the EU gas price cap plan
  2. Why northeast Italy traded in League for Brothers of Italy
  3. How US tech giants play EU states off against each other
  4. Deregulation of new GMO crops: science or business?
  5. The European shipping giants plying Putin's fossil-fuels trade
  6. Russian ideologue and caviar on latest EU blacklist
  7. Netherlands tops EU social safety net for the poor
  8. New EU rules to make companies liable for their AI failures

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us