CRCF & LSRS: What the latest updates mean for Regen Ag Strategies?

How to navigate Land Sector and Removals Standard (LSRS) implementation while securing your climate change mitigation programme?

With the LSRS now published and taking effect next year, companies are verifying how they account for emissions, removals, traceability, and permanence.

This webinar will provide:

Strategic Clarity on LSRS Implementation

• How to ensure if your current GHG initiatives meet the new standard
• What Soil Capital's full LSRS alignment means for your reporting credibility and audit readiness
• Which traceability pathway (physical vs. impact) fits your supply traceability and procurement strategy

A Solution about the Permanence Risk

• FIRST REVEAL: The Soil Capital Permanence Fund—an industry-first financial safeguard
• How this mechanism protects your investments from storage reversals

‍

Q&A with the audience

‍

1. How does the Permanence Fund protect farmers from "Unavoidable Reversals"?

Carbon accounting distinguishes between two types of carbon loss (reversals). Understanding this distinction is vital for fair liability structures:

• Avoidable Reversals: Carbon losses caused by human agency (e.g., a farmer changing tillage practices). Our Permanence Fund specifically targets these, aligning farmer incentives with corporate assurance needs.
• Unavoidable Reversals: Losses caused by uncontrollable events (e.g., severe droughts or wildfires). These are covered by a separate buffer account, as mandated by the LSRS and CRCF standards.

The Logic: By isolating avoidable reversals, we ensure that monitoring is directly linked to the farmer’s actions, fostering a shared incentive structure that builds trust in the regenerative movement.

2. What are the primary gaps in the CRCF and LSRS protocols?

While quantification methods are robust, the most significant gap is traceability and supply chain connectivity.

• Scope 3 Integration: Agribusinesses need clearer guidance on how to integrate field-level carbon removals into Scope 3 emissions reporting and CSRD disclosures.
• The Rotation Gap: Soil regeneration is a "whole-rotation" process, yet many companies only seek to verify specific crops. Future protocols must better bridge the gap between selective cropping and holistic, landscape-level strategies.

3. Soil Carbon Monitoring: Annual vs. 5-Year Cycles

The latest standards clarify monitoring frequency, offering flexibility while maintaining scientific rigor:

• Continuous Accounting: Carbon storage must be monitored for every year of the project sequentially.
• Flexible Fieldwork: While data is annual, the actual calibration and verification (physical soil sampling) can be performed in sequential blocks—such as every five or ten years. This allows the system to adjust for the natural variability of crop rotations.

4. How are CRCF and LSRS impacting models like Regrow and CoolFarm Tool?

New quantification requirements are forcing climate models to evolve toward higher transparency and accuracy:

• Emissions vs. Removals: Models must now explicitly separate greenhouse gas emissions from carbon removals.
• The Shift to Tier 3: There is an industry-wide acceleration toward Tier 3 modeling, which prioritizes real-world, site-specific empirical data over broad regional averages.