Social Europe

  • EU Forward Project
  • YouTube
  • Podcast
  • Books
  • Newsletter
  • Membership

Environmental stewardship yes, ‘carbon farming’ no

Wijnand Stoefs 22nd March 2023

Preserving nature, restoring soils and safeguarding biodiversity is essential—but calling it carbon removal is harmful.

carbon removal,carbon farming,nature
Reforestation is certainly critical, including to stem biodiversity loss—but it is no substitute for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions (Dietrich Leppert / shutterstock.com)

The European Commission’s proposed Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) should have helped determine what constitutes valid carbon-dioxide removals in the European Union. But the draft certification, monitoring and accounting system has many shortcomings. A fatal flaw is the strong focus on the wrong types of removals, including ‘carbon farming’, gaining momentum in associated policy debates.

To be considered true carbon removal, a process needs to remove CO2 directly from the atmosphere and store it permanently—at the very least for two centuries. Carbon farming is an extremely broad and volatile concept, covering very different types of nature-based activities (mainly storing carbon in vegetation and soils) with very different estimated durations of storage lumped together. All lead to carbon being stored temporarily in carbon sinks vulnerable to human and natural disturbances.

Major benefits

Carbon farming is something of a misnomer because the real benefits of nature-based practices are to the broader environment and society, as well as landowners. Close-to-nature forestry practices not only safeguard biodiversity but also increase the resilience of forests and help protect against pests. Soils with higher carbon content are better at retaining water (protecting against droughts and floods), suffer less erosion, improve biodiversity, greatly reduce the need for pollution-intensive fertilisers and enhance fertility. Such practices in general increase the capacity of our landscapes to withstand the ever-worsening impacts of the climate breakdown and can play a big adaptation role.

These are often referred to as ‘co-benefits’ by policy-makers and stakeholders keen to foreground the climate perspective. But that is the wrong way around: the ability to sequester carbon is the co-benefit, while these myriad environmental, social and economic benefits are more than reason enough to incentivise such good stewardship.

While carbon farming sounds like a no-regrets option with plenty of winners, there is a risk that no one wins at all if approached from a climate-centric perspective. Carbon credits from carbon farming are not a good tool for tackling the climate crisis, for three reasons.



Don't miss out on cutting-edge thinking.


Join tens of thousands of informed readers and stay ahead with our insightful content. It's free.



Carbon sequestration

First, take soil carbon sequestration—the reversing of a historic loss of carbon from soils due to soil degradation by intensive agriculture. Monitoring, verifying and reporting is extremely expensive and comes with huge uncertainties. We cannot accurately measure how much is being sequestered and we will not know if and when carbon leaks back into the atmosphere—let alone how much.

Anything that is certified as a removal risks being used to label products, companies or even the entire EU as ‘net zero’ or ‘climate neutral’. Using vulnerable carbon sinks in this way puts the union’s climate targets at risk, because the certified removals may exist only on paper or quickly seep back into the atmosphere, so the target is not achieved in the real world—with potentially catastrophic consequences.

Secondly, activities leading to temporary removals are already widely used to offset permanent emissions—claiming a false equivalence between climate-heating pollution that stays in the atmosphere for centuries and carbon stored merely for years or decades. This distracts corporations, consumers and policy-makers from addressing the climate impacts of the goods and services they respectively sell, buy and regulate. The climate crisis is acute—there is no time to waste on offsetting emissions.

Slowing down mitigation

Thirdly, these nature-based credits often cost less than reducing emissions, the pressing priority. Crediting carbon farming thus risks slowing down mitigation. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is clear on this: both removals and emissions reductions are needed, but as complements, not substitutes.

From the perspective of farmers and forest owners, certification as proposed by the commission risks being a double-edged sword. While they might receive some financial benefit after successfully (though not without burden and costs) proving that the carbon content in their biomass had increased, they would also need to assume responsibility (and potential financial liability) for any carbon re-released.

The risk of reversals for nature-based solutions, especially soils, is extremely high. These can be caused not only by changes in practices (even by future generations of farmers and land managers) but also by increasingly frequent natural disturbances, such as fires, droughts, flash floods, pests and invasive species. Such disturbances will be exacerbated by the climate crisis itself—compounding the risks for farmers. Moreover, a similar scheme in France has led to only around 60 per cent of funds reaching farmers—the rest mainly ended up in the pockets of intermediaries.

Squaring the circle

For once, a circle can be squared—by taking a step back from carbon credits for non-permanent removals (including carbon storage in products). These need exact quantification and long-term monitoring and someone has to be liable for any reversals.

Policy-makers need to think beyond markets and instead focus on a viable alternative—finance linked to activity rather than (questionable) results. The EU, its member states and the private sector can support farmers and foresters to adopt and maintain good practices for the environment and the climate.

This approach has many advantages. First, no quantification or estimation of carbon for highly reversible storage methods means no units can be used wrongly, such as for ‘greenwashing’ or artificially hitting EU targets. Secondly, no issuance of credits means no liability for farmers: if they change practices again, then they choose no longer to receive support. Finally, supporting best practices would not punish early movers (such as organic farmers or close-to-nature foresters) or farmers in geographic areas with less potential for carbon sequestration, while putting the right benefits in the spotlight.

Funding key

The key question remains funding. Buying carbon credits to compensate for permanent emissions (‘offsetting’) doesn’t help us address the climate crisis—but better alternatives exist.

From the private sector, revenues can derive from polluter-pays instruments (such as the EU Emission Trading System) and corporate contributions to climate action not associated with consequent ‘carbon-neutral’ claims. But restoring and protecting nature is, ultimately, a public good.

Public resources will thus be needed if the EU is to reach its environmental goals and bear its fair share of global efforts to tackle the biodiversity crisis and climate breakdown. Public funding can come from existing schemes—such as by ‘greening’ the Common Agriculture Policy—from public-procurement processes or from new streams to help reach the targets of the EU’s Nature Restoration Law or the upcoming Soil Health Law.

Creating junk removal credits just to attract funding through voluntary carbon markets will not help the EU or its farmers and forests. Political will and foresight is needed to prevent these mistakes being made.

Wijnand Stoefs
Wijnand Stoefs

Wijnand Stoefs is lead expert on carbon removals at Carbon Market Watch.

Harvard University Press Advertisement

Social Europe Ad - Promoting European social policies

We need your help.

Support Social Europe for less than €5 per month and help keep our content freely accessible to everyone. Your support empowers independent publishing and drives the conversations that matter. Thank you very much!

Social Europe Membership

Click here to become a member

Most Recent Articles

u42198346ae 124dc10ce3a0 0 When Ideology Trumps Economic InterestsDani Rodrik
u4219834676e9f0d82cb8a5 2 The Competitiveness Trap: Why Only Shared Prosperity Delivers Economic Strength—and Resilience Against the Far RightMarija Bartl
u4219834676 bcba 6b2b3e733ce2 1 The End of an Era: What’s Next After Globalisation?Apostolos Thomadakis
u4219834674a bf1a 0f45ab446295 0 Germany’s Subcontracting Ban in the Meat IndustryŞerife Erol, Anneliese Kärcher, Thorsten Schulten and Manfred Walser

Most Popular Articles

u4219834647f 0894ae7ca865 3 Europe’s Businesses Face a Quiet Takeover as US Investors CapitaliseTej Gonza and Timothée Duverger
u4219834674930082ba55 0 Portugal’s Political Earthquake: Centrist Grip Crumbles, Right AscendsEmanuel Ferreira
u421983467e58be8 81f2 4326 80f2 d452cfe9031e 1 “The Universities Are the Enemy”: Why Europe Must Act NowBartosz Rydliński
u42198346761805ea24 2 Trump’s ‘Golden Era’ Fades as European Allies Face Harsh New RealityFerenc Németh and Peter Kreko

Foundation for European Progressive Studies Advertisement

Spring Issues

The Summer issue of The Progressive Post is out!


It is time to take action and to forge a path towards a Socialist renewal.


European Socialists struggle to balance their responsibilities with the need to take bold positions and actions in the face of many major crises, while far-right political parties are increasingly gaining ground. Against this background, we offer European progressive forces food for thought on projecting themselves into the future.


Among this issue’s highlights, we discuss the transformative power of European Social Democracy, examine the far right’s efforts to redesign education systems to serve its own political agenda and highlight the growing threat of anti-gender movements to LGBTIQ+ rights – among other pressing topics.

READ THE MAGAZINE

Hans Böckler Stiftung Advertisement

WSI Report

WSI Minimum Wage Report 2025

The trend towards significant nominal minimum wage increases is continuing this year. In view of falling inflation rates, this translates into a sizeable increase in purchasing power for minimum wage earners in most European countries. The background to this is the implementation of the European Minimum Wage Directive, which has led to a reorientation of minimum wage policy in many countries and is thus boosting the dynamics of minimum wages. Most EU countries are now following the reference values for adequate minimum wages enshrined in the directive, which are 60% of the median wage or 50 % of the average wage. However, for Germany, a structural increase is still necessary to make progress towards an adequate minimum wage.

DOWNLOAD HERE

S&D Group in the European Parliament advertisement

Cohesion Policy

S&D Position Paper on Cohesion Policy post-2027: a resilient future for European territorial equity

Cohesion Policy aims to promote harmonious development and reduce economic, social and territorial disparities between the regions of the Union, and the backwardness of the least favoured regions with a particular focus on rural areas, areas affected by industrial transition and regions suffering from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps, such as outermost regions, regions with very low population density, islands, cross-border and mountain regions.

READ THE FULL POSITION PAPER HERE

ETUI advertisement

HESA Magazine Cover

With a comprehensive set of relevant indicators, presented in 85 graphs and tables, the 2025 Benchmarking Working Europe report examines how EU policies can reconcile economic, social and environmental goals to ensure long-term competitiveness. Considered a key reference, this publication is an invaluable resource for supporting European social dialogue.

DOWNLOAD HERE

Eurofound advertisement

Ageing workforce
The evolution of working conditions in Europe

This episode of Eurofound Talks examines the evolving landscape of European working conditions, situated at the nexus of profound technological transformation.

Mary McCaughey speaks with Barbara Gerstenberger, Eurofound's Head of Unit for Working Life, who leverages insights from the 35-year history of the European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS).

Listen to the episode for free. Also make sure to subscribe to Eurofound Talks so you don’t miss an episode!

LISTEN NOW

Social Europe

Our Mission

Team

Article Submission

Advertisements

Membership

Social Europe Archives

Themes Archive

Politics Archive

Economy Archive

Society Archive

Ecology Archive

Miscellaneous

RSS Feed

Legal Disclosure

Privacy Policy

Copyright

Social Europe ISSN 2628-7641

BlueskyXWhatsApp