Carbon markets are often discussed in technical terms such as carbon credits, verification systems and international standards. For smallholder farmers, however, their value lies in the practical benefits they deliver on the farm.
A carbon project is meaningful when it helps farmers restore depleted soils, conserve water, protect crops from extreme weather and strengthen household incomes. While carbon credits may provide additional income, they should be treated as one outcome of the project and not the sole measure of its success.
Vi Agroforestry has spent more than 15 years developing and managing agricultural carbon projects with smallholder farmers. Its experience through the Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project (KACP) and the Livelihoods Mount Elgon Project offers practical evidence of what these projects can achieve, as well as the difficulties that must be addressed.
Since 2009, the project has worked with approximately 30,000 farmers organised into 1,730 groups, who adopted practices such as agroforestry, composting, keeping soil covered, reducing unnecessary soil disturbance and improving water management. Project monitoring recorded higher crop productivity alongside increased carbon storage in soil and trees.
The significance of these results extends beyond carbon. Compost helps restore soil fertility and can reduce reliance on purchased fertilizer, trees provide fodder, fruit, fuelwood and shade while protecting the soil, and ground cover slows moisture loss and reduces erosion. These are direct farm benefits, particularly as farmers face irregular rainfall, prolonged dry periods and rising input costs.
KACP also exposed the demands of producing credible carbon credits with farmers continuing to apply the agreed practices, while groups and field officers maintain records. Project teams collect and verify data, and independent auditors examine farm activities, soil information, maps and participation records before validating the claimed results.
The Livelihoods Mount Elgon Project provides further evidence of how carbon interventions can be integrated into farming livelihoods. The project works with about 16,000 smallholder farmers in Bungoma and Trans Nzoia counties, combining sustainable agriculture, agroforestry and dairy development.
Farmers are supported to prepare compost, mulch their fields, rotate crops, plant cover crops and establish trees. They also receive support in soil and water conservation, while dairy farmers learn about fodder production, animal feeding and farm management.
These interventions address identifiable problems such as how loss of soil fertility reduces harvests, runoff carries away topsoil during heavy rainfall, while inadequate fodder limits milk production during dry periods.
The project’s impact must nevertheless be examined alongside its shortcomings. Implementation has faced logistical problems including changes in scope and disruption during the COVID-19 pandemic. An environmental and social audit identified delays in delivering inputs, limited youth participation, land-tenure barriers affecting women, drought-related water shortages and insufficient communication about carbon-credit processes.
These findings are important because development impact cannot be demonstrated by reporting successes alone, and independent assessment, disclosure of weaknesses and corrective action are necessary to establish whether a project is delivering what it promised.
The experience also shows that farmers cannot be treated merely as suppliers of carbon credits. They provide the labour required to dig terraces, prepare compost, plant seedlings, protect trees and maintain farming practices over many years. They also carry risks when seedlings die, drought reduces production, inputs arrive late or land must be prioritised for immediate food needs.
Benefits should therefore include more than eventual carbon payments. Seedlings, training, extension support, healthier soils, improved production, stronger farmer groups and market access can deliver value before credits are issued. Where carbon sales generate revenue, farmers must understand how costs are deducted, how benefits are divided and when payments can reasonably be expected.
The recent Letter of Approval issued to KACP after it met Kenya’s national carbon-market requirements marks progress, but approval alone is not proof of impact. The stronger test is whether participating farmers experience lasting improvements in their land, production and resilience.
It is therefore important to appreciate that agricultural carbon markets will earn farmers’ trust only when that work is recognised, the evidence is openly reported and the value created is shared fairly.
The writer is the Resource Mobilization and Communication Officer at Vi Agroforestry Kenya, Leah.Ngungu@viagroforestry.org
