LAND-BASED CARBON REMOVAL PAYMENT SCHEMES

Land-based carbon removal payment schemes pay farmers, forest owners or land managers to adopt practices that increase carbon stored in soils or vegetation. Governments, companies and nonprofit organisations may pay for an approved practice, a verified carbon gain, or both. Eligible activities can include agroforestry, hedgerows, soil management, peatland restoration and new woodland. Payments should deduct emissions caused by the activity and address carbon later lost. Unlike general land-management grants, this lever ties payment to a carbon-storing practice or result. Activities that mainly prevent land emissions, including much peatland restoration, qualify only for any separately demonstrated net removal.

The choices concern eligible land, managers and practices, whether payment rewards an action or carbon gain, and how long the agreement lasts. Practice payments are simpler, but the same action can store different amounts in different places. Results payments link money more closely to carbon, but require a baseline showing what would otherwise happen, measurements or models and independent checks. Agreements should address fire, harvesting, management changes and who replaces carbon later lost. Other decisions include owner and tenant consent, environmental effects, community rights, overlapping finance, carbon-credit ownership, access for smaller holdings and how removals are separated from avoided emissions.

These payments can make it affordable to build soil carbon, expand tree cover or restore peatlands where net carbon gains can be demonstrated, while providing land managers with income as carbon accumulates. Practice payments can reach smaller holdings before slow carbon changes are measurable. Results payments link funding to verified tonnes, while group applications spread advice, sampling and contracting costs. Schemes could expand participation and improve evidence about land removals. The amount and durability of removal still depend on local conditions and continued management.

Payments can reward changes that would happen anyway or overstate the carbon stored. Drought, fire, harvesting or changed management can reverse gains after payment. Complex measurement and contracts may exclude small farms, tenants and communities. High rates can displace food production or nature, while weak safeguards can harm water, biodiversity or land rights. If funding and credit sales are not coordinated, several parties may claim the same climate benefit.

Effective evaluation would compare paid practices and predicted carbon gains with soil samples, forest measurements and field or satellite observations. Participation, payment distribution, reversals and access by farm size and tenure reveal whether the scheme works fairly. Persistent overestimation, carbon loss or exclusion of smaller holdings should lead to revised models, rates, safeguards or contract length.

Engagement should establish which practices are workable, who controls the land, how benefits are shared and what evidence participants can provide. Land managers, tenants, Indigenous peoples and local communities bring practical and rights-based knowledge. Scientific expertise tests carbon estimates, while funders, lenders and conservation groups help resolve affordability, credit ownership and effects on food, water and biodiversity.

International and supranational institutions can create payment funds or common programme rules within their mandates. National, regional and state governments can finance schemes through agricultural, forestry, land-use or climate budgets and determine contracts, safeguards and claims. Municipal governments can pay for practices on land they own or where local spending powers apply, but usually operate at smaller scale. Companies and philanthropic organisations can finance voluntary schemes through contracts with land managers.