Can agriculture access carbon markets?
The links between the agricultural sector and climate change are complex. Agriculture is responsible for 13.51 TP3T of global greenhouse gas emissions. It mainly emits methane and nitrous oxide, two gases with high global warming potential. However, it is also one of the sectors most affected by the consequences of climate change. Some authors believe that agricultural losses could cause a drop of more than 21 TP3T of global GDP by 2030. On the other hand, the agricultural sector has significant climate change mitigation potential. This potential could reach six billion tons of CO2 equivalent per year, or approximately 131 TP3T of global emissions. This potential comes mainly from the ability to sequester atmospheric carbon in biomass and soils, thanks to photosynthesis management and certain agricultural practices.
However, the rules of the Kyoto Protocol are not conducive to harnessing this potential. Indeed, soils are not recognized as carbon sinks. This is justified by the reversibility of sequestration: a change in agricultural practices or an accident, such as a forest fire, can release the stored carbon. While the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism allows developing countries to generate carbon credits that can be sold on international carbon markets, within this framework, only agroforestry projects and those aimed at reducing agricultural methane or nitrous oxide emissions are authorized. Furthermore, the validation procedures are long and cumbersome.
Voluntary markets are not based on the rules of the Kyoto Protocol, but agricultural projects are still very few in number. They represent approximately 3% of transactions. This can be explained by several factors. On the one hand, the quantities of carbon sequestered in the soil vary greatly, in time and space, depending on agricultural practices, soil type, and climate. A precise link between an agricultural practice and a quantity of carbon sequestered is difficult to establish. The ex-post measurements essential for identifying valuable carbon credits require time and significant resources. On the other hand, transaction costs linked to the dispersion of actors and the reversibility of sequestration are high and limit the number of profitable projects, particularly in developing countries.
Enhancing agricultural potential will not only come from changing market rules or techniques, but also from a political will to include the agricultural sector in mechanisms to combat climate change. This will is emerging but has not yet been consolidated. Including the agricultural sector would encourage the development of more sustainable production systems, provide a way to compensate farmers for an environmental service, and help integrate the issue of climate change into development trajectories.
Special attention must continue to be paid to countries in the South, especially the least developed countries. Indeed, including agriculture in the climate regime must not conflict with the fight against food security, agricultural development, and the economic and social development of the poorest countries. Compromises will likely be necessary.
