Analysing the methodologies for certifying carbon farming

The report critiques the EU's CRCF carbon farming methodologies, highlighting systemic flaws in quantification, additionality, and sustainability safeguards. It argues that the current framework allows for potential overcrediting and greenwashing, particularly if units are used for offsetting. The author recommends shifting from a credit-based system to an activity-based performance model to ensure environmental integrity.

• The CRCF framework lacks clear rules on how certified units can be used, creating a regulatory gap that may allow for inappropriate offsetting and greenwashing, especially since temporary sequestration units are not equivalent to permanent emissions reductions.
• The methodologies for agriculture are overly permissive, utilizing non-exhaustive lists of practices and failing to account for critical emission sources such as livestock emissions, which represent approximately two-thirds of agricultural emissions.
• The framework fails to robustly address indirect land use change (ILUC) and leakage, incorrectly tying ecological risks to economic profitability and ignoring the potential for agricultural displacement to cause deforestation elsewhere.
• Monitoring periods are deemed too short to ensure long-term carbon sequestration; for example, afforestation is only monitored for 40 years, whereas some voluntary market standards require 100 years.
• Quantification approaches are criticized for lacking conservativeness, allowing operators to select models that maximize claimed benefits and restricting soil sampling depth to 0-30cm, which may overestimate carbon accumulation.
• The framework's approach to additionality is weakened by zero-value baselines for certain activities and temporary exemptions that allow for retroactive crediting of projects started between 2023 and 2027.
• Liability mechanisms for reversals are insufficient, particularly for peatland rewetting where no risk assessment or liability mechanism is prescribed based on the incorrect assumption that emission reductions are permanent.
• Sustainability safeguards are inadequate, as the mandatory co-benefits criterion for biodiversity lacks measurable indicators and third-party validation, and the afforestation methodology ignores the warming effect of the albedo effect.

APA

Hernández, M. R. (2026). Analysing the methodologies for certifying carbon farming. Carbon Market Watch. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Faulty-to-the-cOre-2.pdf

Chicago

Hernández, Marlène Ramón. Analysing the methodologies for certifying carbon farming. Carbon Market Watch, 2026. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Faulty-to-the-cOre-2.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Hernández |first1=Marlène Ramón |title=Analysing the methodologies for certifying carbon farming |publisher=Carbon Market Watch |date=June 2026 |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Faulty-to-the-cOre-2.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{hernndez2026analysing, author = {Hernández, Marlène Ramón}, title = {{Analysing the methodologies for certifying carbon farming}}, institution = {Carbon Market Watch}, year = {2026}, month = jun, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Faulty-to-the-cOre-2.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }