Two farmers. One crop. Similar soils.
But one sells a carbon credit for $10 per ton, while the other gets $30. The difference is not in the soil, but in the trust in the result.
A carbon credit has no fixed price per ton of CO₂. It is a market of trust. And trust is what determines how much the climate effect from the field is actually worth.
To understand where this difference comes from, it is worth breaking down the price of a carbon credit into its components.
Why the Question of Carbon Credit Pricing Has Become Critical Right Now
Just a few years ago, in the carbon credit market, the main thing was the word “credit” itself. The mere fact of its existence was already considered valuable. Companies bought them to declare climate responsibility, while the origin and project details often remained in the background.
Today, this logic no longer works. The market has matured, and buyers have matured with it. It is important for them not just to “offset emissions,” but to understand exactly how the climate effect was achieved, how reliable it is, and whether it will persist over time.
This is especially true for agricultural projects. Soil is a living system, and the result depends not on a single operation, but on a sequence of decisions: crop rotation, tillage, cover crops, residue management. For the buyer, this means one thing. Without transparent data and a clear management logic, such a credit becomes a risk.
That is why the price today is not formed “from the market average,” but from the quality of the project. One credit may be formally correct, but unattractive. Another costs more because the buyer understands exactly what they are paying for.
At this moment, the farmer faces a new reality for the first time. Income from carbon credits is not a bonus, but the result of management decisions made long before their sale.
What the Price of a Carbon Credit Actually Consists Of
The price of a carbon credit is not pulled out of thin air and is not formed by a single parameter. It consists of several factors that together answer the buyer’s main question: Can this result be trusted, and will it persist over time?
The first factor is the type of climate effect.
The market values emission reductions and carbon sequestration in soil differently. If we are talking about a real increase in organic carbon stocks, confirmed by data, such a result is usually valued higher than a one-time reduction in emissions from a single operation.
The second factor is the sustainability of the result.
It is important for the buyer not only that carbon “appeared” this year. It is equally important that it does not disappear in two seasons. The longer the project demonstrates stable dynamics and the clearer the field management, the higher the trust. And with it, the price increases.
The third factor is the risk of loss.
Agricultural projects always work with risks: weather, technology changes, force majeure. If these risks are not accounted for or ignored, the credit automatically becomes cheaper. If the project has risk management mechanisms and reserves, this directly affects its market attractiveness.
The fourth factor is data transparency.
Field boundaries, land use history, agricultural operations, and calculation logic must not only be collected, but also understandable to an outside observer. A credit that can be explained and verified always costs more than one that exists only “in a spreadsheet.”
And finally, the fifth factor is demand from specific buyers.
The market does not buy “tons of CO₂,” but solutions for their climate strategies. And it is those projects that meet these expectations that form the upper part of the price range.
Ultimately, the price of a carbon credit is not a characteristic of the field. It reflects the quality of the project and the approach to farm management.
Why Agricultural Carbon Credits Are Not All the Same
At first glance, many agricultural carbon projects look the same. They all talk about cover crops, minimal tillage, and carbon sequestration in soil. But it is at this stage that the main trap appears. External similarity does not mean equal value.
One project may exist mainly “on paper.” Data is collected fragmentarily, land use history is reconstructed approximately, and results are based on general assumptions. Formally, everything looks correct, but it is difficult to verify the field’s actual contribution to the climate effect.
Another project has a clear logic from start to finish. There is a baseline, it is clear what exactly changed in practices and how it affected the soil. It is also clear why the achieved effect can be reproduced in subsequent years. For the buyer, this is a fundamental difference.
The approach to risks also differs. In one case, they are simply ignored, as if “it will work out somehow.” In another, reserves, buffer mechanisms, and scenarios for weather or technological changes are built in. It is these details that often determine whether the buyer is willing to pay more.
There is another point that farmers often underestimate. Some projects are created without a clear understanding of who will buy this credit and why. As a result, they enter the market with a minimum price and compete with each other on the principle of “who is cheaper.” Others immediately target a specific buyer request. And this is directly reflected in the price.
That is why the price difference between two agricultural credits often has nothing to do with soil fertility or crop. It is almost always about the quality of project management.
What This Means for the Farmer and How Not to Devalue Your Carbon Credit at the Start
For a farmer, a carbon credit is not a one-time opportunity, but a long-term asset. Its value is established long before the first contract. That is why price losses most often occur at the project preparation stage.
The first typical mistake is the lack of systematic data.
When agricultural operations are not recorded regularly and field history is reconstructed “from memory,” the project immediately looks weaker in the buyer’s eyes. Even if the practices are correct, without data they are difficult to prove. And therefore, difficult and expensive to sell.
The second mistake is short-term thinking.
The expectation of quick income often pushes toward simplified solutions: minimum measurements, minimum checks, minimum commitments. As a result, the credit may appear faster, but its price is almost always lower, and sometimes unstable from year to year.
The third mistake is not understanding the buyer’s request.
A farmer may sincerely be doing “everything right,” but if the project does not meet what the market is looking for, it ends up in the lower price segment. Today, buyers want not just a climate effect. They care about a transparent history of its origin, clear management logic, and confidence in the future result.
In contrast, those farms that from the very beginning approach the carbon project as an element of business management gain a different position in the market. They sell not “tons of CO₂,” but a predictable, verified, and understandable result.
Working Through a Developer: How Not to Lose the Quality of a Carbon Project
Although a farmer can independently act as a carbon project developer without involving third-party companies, in practice most farms enter such projects through specialized developers. They collect data, prepare documentation, work with standards, auditors, and registries. For the farm, this seems logical: it is a complex topic, better to hand it over to professionals.
Here it is important to correctly understand the zone of responsibility.
The project developer usually immediately states in the contract that they do not guarantee either the number of carbon credits issued or their future price. This is an honest position. The volume of credits is determined by the actual climate effect, and the price is formed by the market and buyer demand. No developer can guarantee these indicators in advance.
But there is another side that is often forgotten.
It is the developer who is responsible for the quality of data collection, structuring, and preparation. And this directly affects both the number of credits issued and which price segment they will fall into.
If data is collected superficially and there is no complete land use history, clear logic of agricultural practices, and verification capability, the project immediately loses value. Even if the farmer did everything right in the field. The market only sees what is documented and proven.
There is also a riskier situation when data begins to be “adjusted” to the desired result in the project. For example, indicating agricultural practices that did not actually occur, or exaggerating the effect of changes to show higher indicators.
In the short term, this may look attractive. But in the long term, it almost always ends the same way. Credits either do not pass the audit and are not issued, or manipulations are discovered during checks. After this, such credits become toxic to buyers.
As a result, the farmer loses not only time, but also trust in their farm as a source of climate results.
That is why, even when working through a developer, it is important for the farmer to understand the basic requirements for a quality carbon project. Not to do someone else’s work, but to ask the right questions and see risks at the start. Because responsibility for the reputation of the result ultimately still lies with the field.
From Field to Market
Here it is worth looking more broadly—at the market itself. Today, carbon credits in agriculture on the American market are already traded in forward contracts at $60–80 per ton of CO₂e. In Europe, the price reaches around €40 per ton of CO₂e. This is not a “price out of thin air,” but the result of trust in the quality of projects, data, and management systems.
Ukraine is just beginning this journey. Right now, its reputation as a supplier of agricultural carbon credits is being formed. The main task at this stage is not to chase quick numbers, but to demonstrate high project quality. Because trust is easy to lose at the start, and it takes years to restore.
What’s Next?
In the next column, we will examine who actually buys agricultural carbon credits, why it matters to them which field the climate effect comes from, what major deals have already taken place in the market and in what direction it is moving overall, and how a farmer can find “their” buyer.
