The regenerative agriculture market has made remarkable progress. We can now measure, verify, and certify soil carbon removals with increasing accuracy while quantifying the broader benefits of regenerative agriculture on soil health, biodiversity, water and the resilience of farming systems to climate shocks. But beneath the surface of these achievements lies a fundamental, unresolved question: once carbon is stored in the soil, what ensures it stays there?
Today, the market's answer relies on monitoring programmes and buffer pools. These tools can detect reversals (the release of carbon previously stored in the soil) and correct them at programme level. But detection is not prevention. And as new regulatory frameworks prepare to raise the bar on permanence requirements, the gap between what standards demand and what the market truly needs is becoming impossible to ignore.
This article explores why soil carbon permanence is the next frontier of the regenerative agriculture market, what's changing on the regulatory side, and how a new financial mechanism, which we’ve called the Permanence Fund, offers a concrete, scalable solution that others might find useful and want to build on.
The current approach to soil carbon permanence centres on two pillars: ongoing monitoring and programme integrity mechanisms like buffer pools. In theory, monitoring tracks whether carbon remains stored in the soil over time. Buffer pools set aside a percentage of investments in the Regen Ag transition to compensate for any reversals detected across the programme.
On paper, this sounds good. In practice, it has a flaw: it is entirely reactive. These mechanisms can identify reversals that happen and adjust the programme's accounts by cancelling units accordingly. But they do nothing to stop those gains from being reversed in the first place.
Think of it this way: it's like installing smoke detectors in a building, but not helping the occupier to fireproof it. You've focused on detecting the problem, but not reducing the chance it happens in the first place.
At the heart of the permanence challenge is a simple economic reality. Farmers are paid to transition to regenerative practices and to generate soil carbon removals alongside benefits in areas like biodiversity and water. But once that initial payment is made, the market typically offers no ongoing financial incentive to maintain those practices over subsequent years.
The assumption is that agronomic benefits from perhaps five years of transition, such as improved soil health, better water retention, and reduced soil erosion, will be sufficient to keep farmers on course. For some, this may be true. But for many, especially those operating on thin margins, external pressures like volatile commodity prices or pest and climatic pressures can tip the balance. Five years is perhaps one full crop rotation, still a relatively short timescale in farming terms. Without additional financial motivation, therefore, the risk of reversal remains structurally embedded in the market.
Two major regulatory developments are set to reshape the agricultural landscape in Europe. The European Union's Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) is expected to finalise its requirements for agriculture by the first half of 2026 and the GHG Protocol's Land Sector and Removals Standard (LSRS) has now been published.
Both frameworks converge on a critical point: for soil carbon removals to be considered permanent, they must be subject to ongoing monitoring. This is a significant step forward. It signals that regulators and standard-setters recognise that simply requiring upfront commitments to 40 or more years of monitoring can create a false sense of comfort, while also reflecting that they understand the inherent impermanence risk in storage of carbon in the soil.
However, neither the CRCF nor the LSRS will prescribe how removal programmes should align farmer incentives with these permanence requirements. They will tell the market how to monitor, but not how to prevent.
This is a structural gap. When these standards go live, market attention will rightly shift from "what are the rules?" to "how do regenerative programmes respond and adapt to evolving regulatory requirements ?". Programmes that can only point to monitoring and buffer pools will be missing a key ingredient. At Soil Capital, we consider that our responsibility is to proactively build mechanisms to prevent reversals, not just detect them, and therefore be better positioned to manage them..
Go deeper: Want to understand the full implications of the CRCF and LSRS for your regenerative agriculture strategy? We hosted a webinar where we break down the latest updates from both frameworks and introduce the Permanence Fund in detail.
👉 Watch the replay: CRCF & LSRS — What the latest updates mean for regen ag strategies
Soil Capital’s Permanence Fund is designed to solve the incentive gap at its root. Rather than relying solely on agronomic benefits to keep farmers engaged, it creates a direct financial reward for maintaining soil carbon removals over the long term. Here's how it works:
For companies investing in regenerative agriculture, the credibility of their sustainability claims depends on the durability of the results they finance. Every reversal, whether corrected at programme level or not, weakens the narrative and creates reporting complications.
By financially incentivising farmers to maintain their practices, the Soil Capital Permanence Fund structurally reduces this risk. It transforms long-term impact from a passive hope into an active, funded commitment. This means stronger, more defensible claims for buyers, backed by a mechanism that goes beyond the market standard.
With the CRCF and LSRS set to raise permanence requirements, buyers who wait for regulations to take effect risk scrambling to adapt. Those who act now, by choosing programmes that already address the incentive gap, position themselves ahead of the curve. By sharing details of how we are tackling this upfront, we hope to see a much wider market engagement on this topic and similar structures emerge.
The Permanence Fund is not a theoretical concept or a future roadmap. It is already live and integrated into Soil Capital's offering and it is the first programme to financially reward farmers for long-term permanence. Not in theory. In practice.
We believe the best way to prepare for new standards is to start building now.
Whether you're looking to reduce the environmental footprint of your supply chain/shed or contribute to the regenerative transition beyond it, the Permanence Fund strengthens every Soil Capital Unit you purchase.
Explore our two pathways to climate action:
🌱 Insetting: Reduce your Scope 3 emissions by investing in regenerative agriculture within your supply shed.
Discover our Insetting offer
🌍 Contribution: Support regenerative farmers locally and contribute to global net zero, regardless of your supply chain/shed.
Discover our Contribution offer
Ready to future-proof your climate and regen ag strategy?
Get in touch with our team.
The regenerative agriculture market has made remarkable progress. We can now measure, verify, and certify soil carbon removals with increasing accuracy while quantifying the broader benefits of regenerative agriculture on soil health, biodiversity, water and the resilience of farming systems to climate shocks. But beneath the surface of these achievements lies a fundamental, unresolved question: once carbon is stored in the soil, what ensures it stays there?
Today, the market's answer relies on monitoring programmes and buffer pools. These tools can detect reversals (the release of carbon previously stored in the soil) and correct them at programme level. But detection is not prevention. And as new regulatory frameworks prepare to raise the bar on permanence requirements, the gap between what standards demand and what the market truly needs is becoming impossible to ignore.
This article explores why soil carbon permanence is the next frontier of the regenerative agriculture market, what's changing on the regulatory side, and how a new financial mechanism, which we’ve called the Permanence Fund, offers a concrete, scalable solution that others might find useful and want to build on.
The current approach to soil carbon permanence centres on two pillars: ongoing monitoring and programme integrity mechanisms like buffer pools. In theory, monitoring tracks whether carbon remains stored in the soil over time. Buffer pools set aside a percentage of investments in the Regen Ag transition to compensate for any reversals detected across the programme.
On paper, this sounds good. In practice, it has a flaw: it is entirely reactive. These mechanisms can identify reversals that happen and adjust the programme's accounts by cancelling units accordingly. But they do nothing to stop those gains from being reversed in the first place.
Think of it this way: it's like installing smoke detectors in a building, but not helping the occupier to fireproof it. You've focused on detecting the problem, but not reducing the chance it happens in the first place.
At the heart of the permanence challenge is a simple economic reality. Farmers are paid to transition to regenerative practices and to generate soil carbon removals alongside benefits in areas like biodiversity and water. But once that initial payment is made, the market typically offers no ongoing financial incentive to maintain those practices over subsequent years.
The assumption is that agronomic benefits from perhaps five years of transition, such as improved soil health, better water retention, and reduced soil erosion, will be sufficient to keep farmers on course. For some, this may be true. But for many, especially those operating on thin margins, external pressures like volatile commodity prices or pest and climatic pressures can tip the balance. Five years is perhaps one full crop rotation, still a relatively short timescale in farming terms. Without additional financial motivation, therefore, the risk of reversal remains structurally embedded in the market.
Two major regulatory developments are set to reshape the agricultural landscape in Europe. The European Union's Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) is expected to finalise its requirements for agriculture by the first half of 2026 and the GHG Protocol's Land Sector and Removals Standard (LSRS) has now been published.
Both frameworks converge on a critical point: for soil carbon removals to be considered permanent, they must be subject to ongoing monitoring. This is a significant step forward. It signals that regulators and standard-setters recognise that simply requiring upfront commitments to 40 or more years of monitoring can create a false sense of comfort, while also reflecting that they understand the inherent impermanence risk in storage of carbon in the soil.
However, neither the CRCF nor the LSRS will prescribe how removal programmes should align farmer incentives with these permanence requirements. They will tell the market how to monitor, but not how to prevent.
This is a structural gap. When these standards go live, market attention will rightly shift from "what are the rules?" to "how do regenerative programmes respond and adapt to evolving regulatory requirements ?". Programmes that can only point to monitoring and buffer pools will be missing a key ingredient. At Soil Capital, we consider that our responsibility is to proactively build mechanisms to prevent reversals, not just detect them, and therefore be better positioned to manage them..
Go deeper: Want to understand the full implications of the CRCF and LSRS for your regenerative agriculture strategy? We hosted a webinar where we break down the latest updates from both frameworks and introduce the Permanence Fund in detail.
👉 Watch the replay: CRCF & LSRS — What the latest updates mean for regen ag strategies
Soil Capital’s Permanence Fund is designed to solve the incentive gap at its root. Rather than relying solely on agronomic benefits to keep farmers engaged, it creates a direct financial reward for maintaining soil carbon removals over the long term. Here's how it works:
For companies investing in regenerative agriculture, the credibility of their sustainability claims depends on the durability of the results they finance. Every reversal, whether corrected at programme level or not, weakens the narrative and creates reporting complications.
By financially incentivising farmers to maintain their practices, the Soil Capital Permanence Fund structurally reduces this risk. It transforms long-term impact from a passive hope into an active, funded commitment. This means stronger, more defensible claims for buyers, backed by a mechanism that goes beyond the market standard.
With the CRCF and LSRS set to raise permanence requirements, buyers who wait for regulations to take effect risk scrambling to adapt. Those who act now, by choosing programmes that already address the incentive gap, position themselves ahead of the curve. By sharing details of how we are tackling this upfront, we hope to see a much wider market engagement on this topic and similar structures emerge.
The Permanence Fund is not a theoretical concept or a future roadmap. It is already live and integrated into Soil Capital's offering and it is the first programme to financially reward farmers for long-term permanence. Not in theory. In practice.
We believe the best way to prepare for new standards is to start building now.
Whether you're looking to reduce the environmental footprint of your supply chain/shed or contribute to the regenerative transition beyond it, the Permanence Fund strengthens every Soil Capital Unit you purchase.
Explore our two pathways to climate action:
🌱 Insetting: Reduce your Scope 3 emissions by investing in regenerative agriculture within your supply shed.
Discover our Insetting offer
🌍 Contribution: Support regenerative farmers locally and contribute to global net zero, regardless of your supply chain/shed.
Discover our Contribution offer
Ready to future-proof your climate and regen ag strategy?
Get in touch with our team.
