Climate Farmers, a leading nonprofit in Europe’s regenerative agriculture movement and co-developer of its soil carbon credit methodology, has made a surprising decision to step away from carbon credits and carbon markets altogether. According to cofounder Ivo Degn, the choice was not due to a failure of the regenerative mission, but rather because the carbon market structure itself isn’t designed to support true ecological regeneration. Despite the growing urgency to reform food systems amid climate instability, Degn argues that the complexity and nuance of soil-based farming cannot be captured by the current carbon accounting frameworks.
Research from the European Alliance for Regenerative Agriculture (EARA) shows that regenerative farms across Europe are consistently more productive, resilient, and efficient than conventional ones. Yet, the carbon credits system fails to adequately support this progress. Degn points out fundamental problems in how soil carbon is measured and monetized—many current models only account for the top 30 cm of soil and ignore critical biological processes like root exudates. This leads to outcomes being inferred from practices rather than measured directly. Droughts, for example, can obscure real progress, penalizing farmers not for poor practices but for adverse weather.
This disconnect undermines the integrity of carbon credits, which were meant to compensate farmers for ecological benefits. Even companies like Soil Capital that strive for credibility acknowledge that carbon-centric approaches fall short across Europe’s diverse landscapes. Although infrastructure for carbon markets has grown—featuring registries, verification protocols, and certifications—it is built on oversimplified assumptions that ignore soil ecosystem complexity.
Climate Farmers, once a key player in shaping Europe’s carbon accounting frameworks, found that scaling regenerative efforts often came at the expense of integrity. Degn states that the market rewards scale, not quality, and that “integrity comes at too high a cost.” Rather than continue with a flawed model, Climate Farmers is shifting its strategy toward outcome-based funding models that are ecologically sound and farmer-friendly.
Degn and his team are now exploring simpler, scalable ecological metrics such as satellite proxies for photosynthesis, soil cover, and biodiversity. These indicators offer a less invasive, more cost-effective alternative to carbon sampling, and may serve as a foundation for future EU agricultural policy. Degn envisions performance-based payments grounded in reality—not simulations.
Meanwhile, critics like Lisa Sachs from Columbia University argue that voluntary carbon credits markets are fundamentally flawed. She describes them as a fiction that allows polluters to claim neutrality through offset purchases, often with exaggerated or unverifiable impact. Rather than serving systemic change, the current patchwork of developers and brokers siphons financial and political resources from where they’re most needed: direct investment in regenerative land use.
Ultimately, soil should be seen not merely as a carbon sink but as strategic infrastructure essential to food, water, and climate resilience. Climate Farmers’ withdrawal from the carbon credits system represents not a retreat but a pivot—toward systems that reflect ecological complexity, reward farmers fairly, and finance genuine regeneration. The path forward must prioritize ecosystem function over offset abstraction, embracing financial systems that are as interconnected as the landscapes they aim to restore.