Shaping India’s climate future: A perspective on harnessing carbon credits from agriculture Ananya Khurana1, Dilip Kajale1, Adeeth AG Cariappa2 and Vijesh V Krishna2 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 wit- nessing 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 volun- tary 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 sta- keholders. 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, eco- nomic, 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 giga- tons 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 coun- tries: 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, unpre- dictable 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 1Department of Agricultural Economics, Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Pune, Maharashtra, India 2 Sustainable Agrifood Systems Program, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Hyderabad, India Corresponding author: Adeeth AG Cariappa, Sustainable Agrifood Systems Program, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, 303, CIMMYT, ICRISAT Campus, Hyderabad 502324, India. Email: a.adeeth@cgiar.org Perspective Outlook on Agriculture 1–18 © The Author(s) 2024 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/00307270241240778 journals.sagepub.com/home/oag https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8920-1586 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2191-4736 mailto:a.adeeth@cgiar.org https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/journals-permissions https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270241240778 https://journals.sagepub.com/home/oag http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F00307270241240778&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2024-03-27 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 impera- tive 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 sus- tainable agriculture (Buck and Compton, 2022; Giller et al., 2021). Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, several miti- gation and adaptation measures were proposed for agricul- ture 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 incentiv- izing emission reduction with the help of tradable carbon credits are lauded as win-win strategies (World Bank, 2023a). For instance, agricultural carbon markets can facili- tate the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs) such as conservation agriculture, reduced burning of crop residues, organic farming, livestock feed manage- ment, and agroforestry. These practices have the potential to sequester carbon in soil and reverse ecosystem degrad- ation 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 secur- ity (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 sig- nificant 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 agri- cultural 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 stake- holders 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 VCMwas 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 adapt- ability and resilience of the VCM as a vital tool in addres- sing 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 evolv- ing 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 com- panies 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 emis- sion reduction at the international, national, and regional 2 Outlook on Agriculture 0(0) 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 emis- sions (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). 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 initia- tives encompassing agriculture, renewable energy, waste management, and more (Blaufelder et al., 2021; Mendelsohn et al., 2021). VCMs may contribute to emis- sion mitigation projects that yield supplementary environ- mental and social benefits, including community development, women’s empowerment, and biodiversity conservation. Irrespective of these benefits, such projects must substantiate their tangible and quantifiable contribu- tions to emission reduction (Blaufelder et al., 2021). Agricultural carbon credits are actively traded within the framework of VCMs. They adhere to standardized proto- cols 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. 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 promo- tion 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). 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 individ- ual 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 method- ologies such as afforestation/reforestation for agroforestry Figure 1. Share of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions covered by different carbon tax and emissions trading systems (ETS). Source: Compiled from World Bank (2023b). Khurana et al. 3 projects, the soil organic carbon (SOC) Framework for enhanced agricultural practices, and specific approaches for CH4 emission reduction in dairy cows and water effi- ciency in sugarcane cultivation. These frameworks high- light 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 land- fill 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). 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 occa- sional or low-volume trading and non-standardized con- tracts (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 incentiv- izing 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 creditT ab le 1. Se le ct e d ag ri cu lt u ra l p ro je ct s re gi st e re d o n V E R R A an d th e G o ld St an d ar d . S. N o . C re d it in g m e ch an is m P ro je ct P ro p o n e n t St an d ar d is at io n m e th o d o lo gy M o n it o ri n g p e ri o d P ro je ct le n gt h (y e ar s) E st im at e d an n u al cr e d it s 1 . V E R R A K e n ya A gr ic u lt u re C ar b o n P ro je ct V i A gr o fo re st ry P ro gr am m e V M 0 0 1 7 0 1 /0 7 /2 0 0 9 – 3 0 /0 6 /2 0 2 9 2 0 3 6 5 ,8 9 0 2. V E R R A A gr ic u lt u ra l L an d M an ag e m e n t P ro je ct , B e e d D is tr ic t, In d ia G o d re j P ro p e rt ie s L td V M 0 0 1 7 2 8 /0 7 /2 0 1 7 – 2 7 /0 7 /2 0 3 7 2 0 3 3 ,7 6 4 3. V E R R A U K C o w C re d it P ro je ct M O O T R A L SA V M 0 0 4 1 0 7 /0 5 /2 0 1 9 – 0 6 /0 5 /2 0 2 9 1 0 2 1 5 ,0 5 0 4. G o ld St an d ar d Sm al l F ar m e rs ’ C ar b o n F ar m in g P ro je ct , T ai w an E co -a ffi n it y In c SO C F ra m e w o rk M e th o d o lo gy 0 1 /0 8 /2 0 2 2 – 0 1 /0 8 /2 0 3 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 5. V E R R A C o re C ar b o n Sa h aj a V ya va sa ya m in A n d h ra P ra d e sh C o re C ar b o n X So lu ti o n s P vt . L td V M 0 0 1 7 0 1 /0 7 /2 0 1 8 – 3 0 /0 6 /2 0 5 8 3 0 4 ,8 3 0 ,7 0 6 6. V E R R A D ev e lo p in g ca rb o n fi n an ce p ro je ct fo r fa rm e rs ad o p ti n g re ge n e ra ti ve ag ri cu lt u re p ra ct ic e s in th e In d o -G an ge ti c p la in s V ar ah a C lim at e A g P ri va te L im it e d V M 0 0 4 2 0 1 /0 6 /2 0 1 9 – 3 1 /0 5 /2 0 3 9 2 0 4 ,7 9 6 ,2 1 9 So ur ce : C o m p ile d fr o m T h e G o ld St an d ar d (2 0 2 3 a) , an d V E R R A (2 0 2 1 ). 4 Outlook on Agriculture 0(0) https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/00307270241240778 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, volun- tary 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. clime- s.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 volun- tary 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 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.) Figure 2. Carbon credit issuance over years. Source: Compiled from World Bank (2023c). Khurana et al. 5 ∼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). 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 contri- butes 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 devel- opment (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 characteris- tics indicate the quality of a carbon credit. Firstly, the prin- ciple 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 atmos- phere. 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 trans- fer 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 categor- ized 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). 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 economiesa 90 160 200 Other emerging and developing economies 15 35 55 Source: Credit Suisse (2022). aIncludes China, Brazil, Russia, and South Africa. 6 Outlook on Agriculture 0(0) Acknowledging these co-benefits could further incentiv- ize carbon farming. However, the inclusion of co-benefits in carbon pricing mechanisms is challenging. Firstly, quantifi- cation methodologies for estimating co-benefits lack con- sistency 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 indi- viduals due to the absence of internationally recognized cri- teria 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, VERRAmandates project proponents to map their pro- ject’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. 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 veri- fied 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 seques- ter 1,249,417 tCO2e in 20 years by deploying regenerative agricultural practices, and the initiative requested registra- tion on VERRA under the VM0042 methodology. In the project area, Boomitra collaborates with implementation Figure 3. Simplified flowchart of steps in carbon crediting. Source: Authors’ compilation from Smith et al. (2019), VERRA (2022b, 2023) and World Bank (2022b). Khurana et al. 7 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/00307270241240778 partners to promote zero tillage (ZT), crop residue retention, manure application, improved water management, agrofor- estry, 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 organiza- tions (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 sequestra- tion, hampering the authenticity of credits, (b) numerous certification labels like VERRA, Gold Standard, Plan Vivo, Puro.earth, etc., flooding the carbon markets and cre- ating confusion and reducing buyer interest, and (c) skepti- cism 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 incen- tivizes 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 tem- perature, 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 tech- nology adopted by farmers and the region of intervention. For data collection, field surveys are often expensive, and sat- ellite surveillance is challenging, especially during bad weather and cloud cover (Jayaraman et al., 2023). Besides, quantification of SOC using prediction models for a particu- lar 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 advance- ments, 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 disad- vantage 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 emis- sions and adopt cleaner technologies, potentially leading to a domestic carbon pricing system or other decarboniza- tion measures (European Parliament, 2022). This mechan- ism could lead to an increased demand for carbon credits, including those from agricultural activities, as part of domestic compliance markets, and enhance green invest- ments 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 inter- national 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 environ- mental integrity of International Carbon Credits (ICCs) under its carbon tax regime. These eligibility criteria, devel- oped 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 environ- mental 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 support- ive 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. 8 Outlook on Agriculture 0(0) 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 pro- jected 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 con- sumption of dairy and meat products with a higher carbon footprint (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2023a). Such changes are expected to inten- sify 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 break- down of emissions from the agriculture sector. The evolv- ing food industry, employing inefficient technology and non-renewable energy sources in food processing, transpor- tation, 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. 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 elec- tricity consumption for irrigation, use of synthetic fertili- zers, enteric emissions from livestock, and cost of agricultural labor, while potentially improving crop yields. According to Sapkota et al. (2019), Indian agricul- ture 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 dis- tributing 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 sup- plies, and technical services for farmers (Kumara et al., 2023; Ministry of Agriculture, 2013). However, small and Figure 4. Breakdown of agricultural emissions from different sources in India in 2020. Source: Compiled from Food and Agriculture Organisation (2020). Note: GHG emissions from crop residue burning, manure management, manure applied to soils, drained organic soils and on-farm energy are categorized as “Others.” Khurana et al. 9 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) Biochar 6 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) ZTreduces 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. (continued) 10 Outlook on Agriculture 0(0) 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 consulta- tions 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 mitiga- tion 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) pro- jects on VERRA (Nozaki, 2021; VERRA, 2021). However, policy uncertainty, imprecise MRV, inefficiencies, and var- iations in sequestration conditions (Tripathi, 2023) should be accounted for while striking a balance between sustain- ability 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 mis- management 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 implementa- tion 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 responsi- bility for carbon sequestration and climate change mitiga- tion, 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, Indiawould experi- ence a rebound effect by nullifying the emission reductions achieved in the EU, paving the way for carbon leakage. 6 Consequently, environmental challenges can arise, highlight- ing the need for coordinated global efforts in carbon farming. A common price for carbon credits is also necessary to genu- inely reduce emissions and avoid such unintended conse- quences (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, com- munication gaps between the farmers and the farmer produ- cer organizations, local human resources (e.g. community networks), and agritech companies pose educational bar- riers for the farmers of India (Nozaki, 2021). Insufficient and asymmetric information about project locations, GHG Table 4. Continued. Technology Application and potential (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. Khurana et al. 11 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 tech- nical 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, liquid- ity, 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 diffi- cult 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 consid- ered (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 agricul- ture 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 deci- sions regarding farm practices and, specifically, the adop- tion 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) high- lighted that the adoption rate of SAPs, such as crop diversi- fication 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 pro- jections 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 pro- tocols 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 com- pared 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 asym- metric 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 environ- ment. 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 agri- cultural carbon credits, government initiatives can encourage SAPs by increasing awareness and technological advance- ments 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 prom- ising 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, addres- sing challenges related to pricing, quality, and global cooper- ation is essential for their effective implementation, particularly in the context of agricultural practices in India. 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 sustain- able healthy diets, improve farmers’ livelihoods and resilience, and conserve land, air, and water resources in South Asia. 12 Outlook on Agriculture 0(0) 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 acknow- ledge and appreciate the One CGIAR Donors (https://www.cgiar. org/funders/). ORCID iDs Adeeth AG Cariappa https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8920-1586 Vijesh V Krishna https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2191-4736 Supplemental material Supplemental material for this article is available online. Notes 1 Supply-side challenges can be addressed by carbon companies through regular communication and training for farmers on newly adopted technologies and ensuring transparency regard- ing timelines and financial benefits for farmers. To do this effectively, carbon companies could collaborate with farmer collectives, grassroots-level NGOs and research organizations for in-person meetings with farmers, and utilize low-cost digital technologies like SMS and WhatsApp to provide updates (Cariappa and Birthal, 2023; Thakur et al., 2017). To further cultivate farmer confidence, certification schemes can up-front offer one part of the payment for SOC sequestration to the farmers and withhold the remaining, conditional on the maintenance of SOC levels for a few years post-certification (Paul et al., 2023). 2 On the demand side, adopting standardized methodologies and protocols for MRV could simplify the process for buyers. Transparency regarding the locations, technologies promoted, their adoption, and the quantity of carbon credits generated is essential (TraceX Technologies, 2021; World Economic Forum, 2023). Moreover, creating a portal on the carbon com- pany’s website with all necessary project information could enhance buyer trust and confidence. 3 Scalable and robust MRV systems and extrapolation of soil sample data using geostatistical methods can be more effective (Wang et al., 2021) in calculating agricultural carbon credits. 4 Carbon credit rating agencies like BeZero, Calyx and Sylvera evaluate the quality of carbon credits. 5 The intentional or unintentional use of climate-related concerns to maintain the division between the countries of the Global North and Global South (Agarwal and Narain, 2019). 6 Emission reductions in a developed nation, state or industry may lead to increased emissions in a developing nation like India (Amjadi et al., 2022; York et al., 2022). 7 About 70% carbon rich biomass-based soil conditioner added to compost is favourable for soil carbon sequestration and nutrient replenishment (Antonangelo et al., 2021; Elkhlifi et al., 2023; Nair and Mukherjee, 2022). References Agarwal A and Narain S (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 S and Jain A (2018) Sustainable deployment of solar irri- gation pumps: Key determinants and strategies. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment 8(2): 325. Ahonen H, Kessler J, Michaelowa A, et al. (2022) Governance of fragmented compliance and voluntary carbon markets under the Paris agreement. Politics and Governance 10(1): 235–245. Alexander N (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 G, Lundgren T and Zhou W (2022) A dynamic analysis of industrial energy efficiency and the rebound effect: Implications for carbon emissions and sustainability. Energy Efficiency 15(7): 54. Amundson R and Biardeau L (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 PS and Lokuge N (2022) Carbon credit system in agricul- ture: 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). Antonangelo JA, Sun X and Zhang H (2021) The roles of co-composted biochar (COMBI) in improving soil quality, crop productivity, and toxic metal amelioration. Journal of Environmental Management 277: 111443. Aryal JP, Farnworth CR, Khurana R, et al. (2014) Gender dimen- sions of climate change adaptation through climate-smart agri- cultural practices in India. In: Innovation in Indian Agriculture: Ways Forward, New Delhi, India, 4 December 2014. New Delhi: India International Centre. Aryal JP, Jat M, Sapkota TB, 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. Aryal JP, Mehrotra MB, Jat M, 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. Khurana et al. 13 https:// www.cgiar.org/initiative/20-transforming-agrifood-systems-insouth-asia-tafssa/ https:// www.cgiar.org/initiative/20-transforming-agrifood-systems-insouth-asia-tafssa/ https:// www.cgiar.org/initiative/20-transforming-agrifood-systems-insouth-asia-tafssa/ https://www.cgiar.org/funders/ https://www.cgiar.org/funders/ https://www.cgiar.org/funders/ https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8920-1586 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8920-1586 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2191-4736 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2191-4736 https://www.thallo.io/the-expanding-scope-of-global-carbon-markets-trends-in-voluntary-carbon-credits-and-offsets/ https://www.thallo.io/the-expanding-scope-of-global-carbon-markets-trends-in-voluntary-carbon-credits-and-offsets/ https://www.thallo.io/the-expanding-scope-of-global-carbon-markets-trends-in-voluntary-carbon-credits-and-offsets/ https://www.thallo.io/the-expanding-scope-of-global-carbon-markets-trends-in-voluntary-carbon-credits-and-offsets/ https://libstore.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/003/144/420/RUG01-003144420_2023_0001_AC.pdf https://libstore.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/003/144/420/RUG01-003144420_2023_0001_AC.pdf https://libstore.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/003/144/420/RUG01-003144420_2023_0001_AC.pdf https://libstore.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/003/144/420/RUG01-003144420_2023_0001_AC.pdf 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). Bhattacharya A (2019) Global climate change and its impact on agriculture. In: Changing Climate and Resource use Efficiency in Plants. London: Academic Press, 1–50. Blaufelder C, Levy C, Mannion P, et al. (2021) A blueprint for scaling voluntary carbon markets to meet the Climate Change. Report, McKinsey & Company, New York, January. Boever ED (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). Bohringer C, Rosendahl KE and Storrosten HB (2017) Robust pol- icies to mitigate carbon leakage. Journal of Public Economics 149: 35–46. 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). Buck HJ and Compton AP (2022) Soil carbon sequestration as a climate strategy: What do farmers think? Biogeochemistry 161(46): 59–70. CarbonCredits.Com (2023) What is the Voluntary Carbon Market? Available at: https://carboncredits.com/what-is-the- voluntary-carbon-market/ (accessed 13 November 2023). Cariappa AGA and Birthal PS (2023) Farming carbon credits. The Hindu Businessline, 21 November. Chamkhi I, Cheto S, Geistlinger J, et al. (2022) Legume-based intercropping systems promote beneficial rhizobacterial com- munity and crop yield under stressing conditions. Industrial Crops and Products 183(3): 114958. Chand R and Singh J (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). Chandler W, Schaeffer R, Dadi Z, 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). Chavan SB, Dhillon RS, Sirohi C, et al. (2023) Carbon sequestra- tion potential of commercial agroforestry systems in Indo-Gangetic plains of India: Poplar and Eucalyptus-based agroforestry systems. Forests 14(3): 559. Chen S, Marbouh D, Moore S et al. (2021) Voluntary Carbon Offsets: An Empirical Market Study. Available at: (accessed 13 November 2023). Chute K, Sain C, Davis W, 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. Climes (2023) Brands of Gen-C: Perfora. Available at: https:// climes.io/app/brands/perfora (accessed 17 November 2023). Credit Suisse (2022) Carbon Markets: The Beginning of the Big Carbon Age. Securities Research Reports. Report no. 1-202205, 8 April, Credit Suisse AG. Dellink R, Lanzi E and Chateau J (2019) The sectoral and regional economic consequences of climate change to 2060. Environmental and Resource Economics 72: 309–363. Deshpande MV, Kumar N, Pillai D, 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. DiMarino B and Wright (2023) Carbon Market Principles. Report, JP Morgan Chase & Co., July. Dorst S (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). Eckersley R (2010) The politics of carbon leakage and the fairness of border measures. Ethics and International Affairs 24(4): 367–393. Ecosystem Marketplace (2022a) Payments for Ecosystem Services. Available at: https://www.ecosystemmarketplace. com/payments-ecosystem-services/ (accessed 28 March 2023) Ecosystem Marketplace (2022b) The Art of Integrity: State of Voluntary Carbon Markets, Q3 Insights Briefing. 2 August. Washington: Forest Trends Association. Elkhlifi Z, Elkhlifi Z, Iftikhar J, et al. (2023) Potential role of biochar on capturing soil nutrients, carbon sequestration and managing environmental challenges: A review. Sustainability 15(3): 2527. 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. European Commission (2023) Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. Available at: https://taxation-customs.ec.europa. eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en (accessed 10 November 2023). 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). Favasuli S and Sebastian V (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). Fleming A, Stitzlein C, Jakku E, et al. (2019) Missed opportunity? Framing actions around co-benefits for carbon mitigation in Australian agriculture. Land Use Policy 85: 230–238. 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). Food and Agriculture Organisation (2020) Emissions Totals. Available at: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/GT (accessed 3 September 2023). Friedrich J, Gi M, Pickens A, 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). Garg A, Shukla P and Kapshe M (2007) From climate change impacts to adaptation: A development perspective for India. Natural Resources Forum 31(2): 132–141. Garg MR, Sherasia P, Phondba B, 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. Gartaula H, Sapkota TB, Khatri-Chhetri A, et al. (2020) Gendered impacts of greenhouse gas mitigation options for rice cultiva- tion in India. Climate Change 163: 1045–1063. 14 Outlook on Agriculture 0(0) https://www.adb.org/news/eu-carbon-tariff-likely-have-limited-impact-emissions-without-global-efforts https://www.adb.org/news/eu-carbon-tariff-likely-have-limited-impact-emissions-without-global-efforts https://www.adb.org/news/eu-carbon-tariff-likely-have-limited-impact-emissions-without-global-efforts at:https://libstore.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/003/144/420/RUG01-003144420_2023_0001_AC.pdf at:https://libstore.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/003/144/420/RUG01-003144420_2023_0001_AC.pdf at:https://libstore.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/003/144/420/RUG01-003144420_2023_0001_AC.pdf at:https://libstore.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/003/144/420/RUG01-003144420_2023_0001_AC.pdf https://boomitra.com https://boomitra.com https://carboncredits.com/what-is-the-voluntary-carbon-market/ https://carboncredits.com/what-is-the-voluntary-carbon-market/ https://carboncredits.com/what-is-the-voluntary-carbon-market/ https://niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2023-07/Aggricultrue_Amritkal.pdf https://niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2023-07/Aggricultrue_Amritkal.pdf https://niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2023-07/Aggricultrue_Amritkal.pdf https://www.c2es.org/wp-content/uploads/2002/10/dev_mitigation.pdf https://www.c2es.org/wp-content/uploads/2002/10/dev_mitigation.pdf https://www.c2es.org/wp-content/uploads/2002/10/dev_mitigation.pdf https://climes.io/app/brands/perfora https://climes.io/app/brands/perfora https://climes.io/app/brands/perfora https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2021/10/27/110421-finlands-green-building-revolution https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2021/10/27/110421-finlands-green-building-revolution https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2021/10/27/110421-finlands-green-building-revolution https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/payments-ecosystem-services/ https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/payments-ecosystem-services/ https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/payments-ecosystem-services/ https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/carbon-border-adjustment-mechanism_en https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AGRI-AD-699239_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AGRI-AD-699239_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AGRI-AD-699239_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AGRI-AD-699239_EN.pdf https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/blogs/energy-transition/061021-voluntary-carbon-markets-pricing-participants-trading-corsia-credits https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/blogs/energy-transition/061021-voluntary-carbon-markets-pricing-participants-trading-corsia-credits https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/blogs/energy-transition/061021-voluntary-carbon-markets-pricing-participants-trading-corsia-credits https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/blogs/energy-transition/061021-voluntary-carbon-markets-pricing-participants-trading-corsia-credits https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/blogs/energy-transition/061021-voluntary-carbon-markets-pricing-participants-trading-corsia-credits https://www.fao.org/3/i2100e/i2100e01.pdf https://www.fao.org/3/i2100e/i2100e01.pdf https://www.fao.org/3/i2100e/i2100e01.pdf https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/GT https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/GT https://www.climatewatchdata.org/ghg-emissions?end_year=2020%26start_year=1990 https://www.climatewatchdata.org/ghg-emissions?end_year=2020%26start_year=1990 https://www.climatewatchdata.org/ghg-emissions?end_year=2020%26start_year=1990 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). Gellatly K and Dennis D (2011) Agricultural and related biotech- nologies. In: Young M. M., ed. Comprehensive Biotechnology. Amsterdam: Elsevier BV, 10–23. Giamouri E, Zisis F, Mitsiopoulou C, et al. (2023) Sustainable strategies for greenhouse gas emission reduction in small rumi- nants farming. Sustainability 15(5): 4118. Giller KE, Hijbeek R, Andersson JA, et al. (2021) Regenerative agriculture: An agronomic perspective. Outlook on Agriculture 50(1): 13–265. 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. Girish GD and Trivedi R (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). Gupta R, Malik D, Sankhe S, et al. (2022) Decarbonising India: Charting a Pathway for Sustainable Growth. Report, McKinsey & Company, Mumbai, October. Harrison BP, Gao S, Gonzales M, 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. Harriss-White B and Hardy A (2019) Towards lower-carbon indian agricultural development: An experiment in multi-cri- teria mapping. Review of Development and Change 24(1): 5– 30. High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices (2017) Report of the High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices. 29 May. Washington: World Bank. Hultman N, Lou J and Hutton S (2020) A review of community co-benefits of the clean development mechanism (CDM). Environmental Research Letters 15(5): 053002. Ishfaq M, Akbar N, Anjum SA, et al. (2020) Growth, yield and water productivity of dry direct seeded rice and trans- planted aromatic rice under different irrigation management regimes. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 19(11): 2656– 2673. Ishtiaque A, Krupnik TJ, Krishna V, et al. (2024) Overcoming bar- riers to climate-smart agriculture in South Asia. Nature Climate Change 14: 111–113. Jain M, Barrett CB, Solomon D, et al. (2023) Surveying the evi- dence on sustainable intensification strategies for smallholder agricultural systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 48: 6.1–6.23. Jat M, Gathala MK, Ladha JK, et al. (2009) Evaluation of preci- sion 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. Jayaraman T, Aparajay K, Devshali C, et al. (2023) Greenhouse gas mitigation and carbon markets in Indian agriculture: An ex-ante critical review. Economic & Political Weekly 58(43). Jindal R, Kerr J and Nagar S (2007) Voluntary carbon trading: Potential for community forestry projects in India. Asia-Pacific Development Journal 14(2): 107. Jones MW, Peters GP, Gasser T, et al. (2023) National contribu- tions to climate change due to historical emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide since 1850. Scientific Data 10(155. Kakraliya S, Singh U, Bohra A, 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. Kapri C (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). Kawasaki K (2023) Development of CO2 Emissions and Impact of Carbon Pricing Development of CO2 Emissions. Discussion paper, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, Japan. Kooten GC (2009) Biological carbon sequestration and carbon trading re-visited. Climate Change 95: 449–463. Kossoy A and Guigon P (2012) State and Trends of the Carbon Market. Annual Report, The World Bank, Washington DC, April. Krishnan A and Singhal S (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). Kumara K, Pal S, Chand P, 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. Lee J, Martin A and Wollenberg E (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. Lelechenko L (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). Li Z, Zhang Q, Li Z, et al. (2023) Responses of soil greenhouse gas emissions to no-tillage: A global meta-analysis. Sustainable Production and Consumption 36: 479–492. Lou J, Hultman N, Patwardhan A, et al. (2022) Integrating sustain- ability into climate finance by quantifying the co-benefits and market impact of carbon projects. Communications Earth and Environment 3: 137. Mahler DG, Yonzan N and Lakner C (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). Mangalassery S, Sjogersten S, Sparks DL, et al. (2014) To what extent can zero tillage lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from temperate soils? Scientific Reports 4: 4586. 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). Marchant GE, Cooper Z and Gough-Stone PJ (2022) Bringing technological transparency to tenebrous markets. Natural Resources Journal 62: 159–182. Mendelsohn RO, Litan RE and Fleming J (2021) A framework to ensure that voluntary carbon markets will truly help combat climate change. Report, The Brookings Institution, Washington DC, September. Michaelowa A, Shishlov I, Hoch S, et al. (2019) Overview and Comparison of Existing Carbon Crediting Schemes. Report, Nordic Environment Finance Corporation, Helsinki, February. Khurana et al. 15 https://egazette.gov.in/WriteReadData/2023/246825.pdf https://egazette.gov.in/WriteReadData/2023/246825.pdf https://egazette.gov.in/WriteReadData/2023/246825.pdf https://idronline.org/article/agriculture/monetising-carbon-credits-how-indian-farmers-can-benefit/ https://idronline.org/article/agriculture/monetising-carbon-credits-how-indian-farmers-can-benefit/ https://idronline.org/article/agriculture/monetising-carbon-credits-how-indian-farmers-can-benefit/ https://justagriculture.in/blog/solar-drying-in-agriculture/ https://justagriculture.in/blog/solar-drying-in-agriculture/ https://justagriculture.in/blog/solar-drying-in-agriculture/ https://sprf.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/carbon-farming.pdf https://sprf.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/carbon-farming.pdf https://sprf.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/carbon-farming.pdf https://eos.com/blog/the-rising-trend-soc-and-carbon-markets/#:~:text=As%20more%20and%20more%20farmers,in%20soil%20organic%20carbon%20sequestration https://eos.com/blog/the-rising-trend-soc-and-carbon-markets/#:~:text=As%20more%20and%20more%20farmers,in%20soil%20organic%20carbon%20sequestration https://eos.com/blog/the-rising-trend-soc-and-carbon-markets/#:~:text=As%20more%20and%20more%20farmers,in%20soil%20organic%20carbon%20sequestration https://eos.com/blog/the-rising-trend-soc-and-carbon-markets/#:~:text=As%20more%20and%20more%20farmers,in%20soil%20organic%20carbon%20sequestration https://eos.com/blog/the-rising-trend-soc-and-carbon-markets/#:~:text=As%20more%20and%20more%20farmers,in%20soil%20organic%20carbon%20sequestration https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/most-worlds-extreme-poor-live-middle-income-countries-not-long https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/most-worlds-extreme-poor-live-middle-income-countries-not-long https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/most-worlds-extreme-poor-live-middle-income-countries-not-long https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/most-worlds-extreme-poor-live-middle-income-countries-not-long https://local-eyes.nl/why-sustainability-is-the-next-frontier-of-last-mile-delivery/ https://local-eyes.nl/why-sustainability-is-the-next-frontier-of-last-mile-delivery/ https://local-eyes.nl/why-sustainability-is-the-next-frontier-of-last-mile-delivery/ 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). 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). 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). Mishra Y, Panda P, Mohanty U, et al. (2023) Gender mainstream- ing 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. Mrowczynska-Kaminska A, Bajan B, Pawlowski KP, et al. (2021) Greenhouse gas emissions intensity of food production systems and its determinants. Plos One 16(4): e0250995. Nair VD and Mukherjee A (2022) The use of biochar for reducing carbon footprints in land-use systems: Prospects and problems. Carbon Footprints 2(1): 6. Narain S (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). National Environment Agency (2023) Singapore Sets Out Eligibility Criteria for International Carbon Credits Under the Carbon Tax Regime. Government of Singapore, 4 October. Netter L, Luedeling E and Whitney C (2022) Agroforestry and reforestation with the gold standard-decision analysis of a vol- untary carbon offset label. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Climate Change 27: 17. Nozaki Y (2021) Rise of Carbon Farming in India. Report, Mitsui & Co. Global Strategic Studies Institute, Tokyo, April. Opanda S (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). 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). Park CY, Yamamoto Y and Doong MAL (2023) European Union Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism: Economic Impact and Implications for Asia. Brief, Asian Development Bank, Philippines, November. Pathak H, Bhatia A. and Jain N (2014) Greenhouse Gas Emission from Indian Agriculture: Trends, Mitigation and Policy Needs. New Delhi: Indian Agricultural Research Institute. Paul C, Bartkowski B, Donmez C, et al. (2023) Carbon farming: Are soil carbon certificates a suitable tool for climate change mitigation? Journal of Environmental Management 330(8): 117142. Payen FT, Moran D, Cahurel J, et al. (2023) Why do French wine- growers adopt soil organic carbon sequestration practices? Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 6: 994364. Perdan S and Azapagic A (2011) Carbon trading: Current schemes and future developments. Energy Policy 39(10): 6040–6054. Powlson DS, Sterling CM, Jatt ML, et al. (2014) Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation. Nature Climate Change 4: 678–683. 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/PressRelease IframePage.aspx?PRID=1967476 (accessed 1 March 2024). Raghunathan K, Kannan S and Quisumbing AR (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. Raina N, Zavalloni M and Viaggi D (2024) Incentive mechanisms of carbon farming contracts: A systematic mapping study. Journal of Environmental Management 352: 120126. Raipurkar KS (2023) Statistics of biogas development in India: A review. International Journal of Researches in Biosciences, Agriculture and Technology 1(11): 111–126. Ranjan S and Sow S (2020) Drip irrigation system for sustainable agriculture. Agriculture and Food: E-Newsletter 2(12): 33023. Rapsomanikis G (2015) The economic lives of smallholder farmers. Report, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, December. Ritchie H and Roser M (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). Ritchie H, Roser M and Rosado P (2020) CO2 and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/co2- and-greenhouse-gas-emissions (accessed 3 November 2023). Ritchie H, Roser M and Rosado P (2023) Greenhouse gas emis- sions. Available at: https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse- gas-emissions (accessed 13 March 2023). Robe IO (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). Rodriguez C, Carlsson G, Englund J, et al. (2020) Grain legume- cereal intercropping enhances the use of soil-derived and bio- logically fixed nitrogen in temperate agroecosystems. A meta-analysis. European Journal of Agronomy 118: 126077. Rose S, Khatri-Chhetri A, Stier M, 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). Ruzzante S, Labarta R and Bilton A (2021) Adoption of agricul- tural technology in the developing world: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. World Development 146(1): 105599. Sapkota TB, Vetter SH and Jat M (2019) Cost-effective opportun- ities for climate change mitigation in Indian agriculture. Science of the Total Environment 655: 1342–1354. Sarkar A and Dash S (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. Seeberg-Elverfeldt C (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. Shakoor A, Shahbaz M, Farooq TH, et al. (2021) A global meta-analysis of greenhouse gases emission and crop yield 16 Outlook on Agriculture 0(0) https://www.mofpi.gov.in/sites/default/files/fpo_policy_process_guidelines_1_april_2013.pdf https://www.mofpi.gov.in/sites/default/files/fpo_policy_process_guidelines_1_april_2013.pdf https://www.mofpi.gov.in/sites/default/files/fpo_policy_process_guidelines_1_april_2013.pdf https://www.mofpi.gov.in/sites/default/files/fpo_policy_process_guidelines_1_april_2013.pdf https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2000331 https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2000331 https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=2000331 https://mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/press_releases_statements/Statement_13_2023-24_01Sept2023.xls https://mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/press_releases_statements/Statement_13_2023-24_01Sept2023.xls https://mospi.gov.in/sites/default/files/press_releases_statements/Statement_13_2023-24_01Sept2023.xls https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/climate-change/india-s-new-climate-targets-bold-ambitious-and-a-challenge-for-the-world-80022 https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/climate-change/india-s-new-climate-targets-bold-ambitious-and-a-challenge-for-the-world-80022 https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/climate-change/india-s-new-climate-targets-bold-ambitious-and-a-challenge-for-the-world-80022 https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/climate-change/india-s-new-climate-targets-bold-ambitious-and-a-challenge-for-the-world-80022 https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/new-buyers-market-guide/carbon-credit-pricing/ https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/new-buyers-market-guide/carbon-credit-pricing/ https://8billiontrees.com/carbon-offsets-credits/new-buyers-market-guide/carbon-credit-pricing/ https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/08801ab7-en/1/3/1/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/08801ab7-en%26_csp_=cdae8533d2f4a8eebccf87e7e1e64ccd%26itemIGO=oecd%26itemContentType=book#section-d1e2781-64de0238c4 https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/08801ab7-en/1/3/1/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/08801ab7-en%26_csp_=cdae8533d2f4a8eebccf87e7e1e64ccd%26itemIGO=oecd%26itemContentType=book#section-d1e2781-64de0238c4 https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/08801ab7-en/1/3/1/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/08801ab7-en%26_csp_=cdae8533d2f4a8eebccf87e7e1e64ccd%26itemIGO=oecd%26itemContentType=book#section-d1e2781-64de0238c4 https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/08801ab7-en/1/3/1/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/08801ab7-en%26_csp_=cdae8533d2f4a8eebccf87e7e1e64ccd%26itemIGO=oecd%26itemContentType=book#section-d1e2781-64de0238c4 https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/08801ab7-en/1/3/1/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/08801ab7-en%26_csp_=cdae8533d2f4a8eebccf87e7e1e64ccd%26itemIGO=oecd%26itemContentType=book#section-d1e2781-64de0238c4 https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1967476 https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1967476 https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1967476 https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#per-capita-greenhouse-gas-emissions-where-do-our-emissions-come-from https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#per-capita-greenhouse-gas-emissions-where-do-our-emissions-come-from https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#per-capita-greenhouse-gas-emissions-where-do-our-emissions-come-from https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector#per-capita-greenhouse-gas-emissions-where-do-our-emissions-come-from https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/wp14195.pdf https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/wp14195.pdf https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/115962 https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/115962 under no-tillage as compared to conventional tillage. Science of the Total Environment 750: 142299. Sharma M, Kaushal R, Kaushik P, et al. (2021) Carbon farming: Prospects and challenges. Sustainability 13(19): 11122. Sherry K (2018) How Blockchain Can Make Carbon Markets More Accessible. Available at: https://www.ecosystemmarket place.com/articles/how-blockchain-can-make-carbon-markets- more-accessible/ (accessed 7 November 2023). Siedenburg J and Brown S (2015) Voices from the field – carbon markets and rural poverty as seen from Madagascar and Mali. Climate and Development 8(1): 10–25. Singh N and Chaturvedi V (2023) Understanding Carbon Markets: Prospects for India and Stakeholder Perspectives. Report, Council on Energy, Environment and Water, New Delhi, February. Smit B and Pilifosova O (2018) Adaptation to Climate Change in the Context of Sustainable Development and Equity. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/wg2TARchap 18.pdf (accessed 22 November 2022). Smith P, Soussana JF, Angers D, 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. 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). Spencer B, Lawler J and Lowe C (2016) Case studies in co-benefits approaches to climate change mitigation and adap- tation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 60(4): 1–21. Sydney EB, NovakSydney AC, Carvalho JC, et al. (2019) Potential carbon fixation of industrially important microalgae. In: Biofuels from Algae (Second Edition). Elsevier, 67–88. Tang K (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. Tang X, Zhang C, Yu Y, et al. (2021) Intercropping legumes and cereals increases phosphorus use efficiency; a meta-analysis. Plant and Soil 460: 89–104. Thakur D, Chander M and Sinha S (2017) Whatsapp for farmers: Enhancing the scope and coverage of traditional agricultural extension. International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology 6(4): 2190–2201. The Gold Standard (2023a) Impact Registry. Available at: https:// registry.goldstandard.org/projects?