“Providers” refers to companies or organizations that offer carbon programs, quantify or verify carbon reductions or sequestration, or facilitate the generation, sale, or retirement of carbon assets.

“Farmers” means those persons and companies engaged in growing crops, raising livestock, and producing food, fiber, or fuel products. Farmers include growers, ranchers, and livestock producers.

“Carbon assets” refers to carbon offsets, carbon reductions, or measured carbon outcomes established by the Provider’s carbon program.

“Quantification” refers to the measurement, verification, and monitoring of carbon assets.

Farmer education is a vital component of transparency and trust in agricultural carbon programs. Providers should work to develop and support educational efforts that help Farmers, advisors, and industry stakeholders understand the fundamentals of carbon markets. This includes how carbon assets are generated, what data is collected, and how carbon assets are verified and sold. 

Contracts for agricultural carbon programs should be written in clear, straightforward language that enables Farmers to understand the full scope of their commitments. Providers should consolidate key terms into a single agreement that outlines required practices, data collection, and the process by which carbon assets are quantified, verified, and monetized. Contracts should also explain long-term obligations such as length of participation, monitoring, and restrictions on future farming activities. Contracts should not include non-disclosure agreements that prevent Farmers from discussing the program with others. It should be clear to participants what elements of the program can change without impact or updates to the contract.

There are two ownership concerns with carbon programs that should be addressed by providers.

First, providers should explain how a carbon program impacts or restricts ownership and control of the land or operation.  Similarly, Farmers should understand whether ownership of land is required for participation, or whether opportunities are available to landlords and tenants.  Providers should also clarify the implications for program continuation when the land or farm is sold or transferred to a new owner. 

Second, providers should clearly explain ownership of carbon assets to ensure Farmers understand what is being claimed, sold, or retained. Contracts should specify when and how the carbon asset is transferred from the farmer to the provider and what rights are transferred.  If no assets are being created from farm data, that should also be clearly understood. It should also be clear whether data is being retained for the development of environmental assets in the future, within and beyond the contract timeframe.

Providers must clearly explain quantification of carbon assets. Providers should disclose how carbon assets are measured, verified, and monitored as well as the point in time and with what requirements these measurements begin (i.e. baselining). At each stage in the process, Farmers should understand what data is required, what field-level or on-farm activities are required, how environmental assets are calculated, and what ongoing monitoring or verification obligations may apply during the crop year contracted, and in the years following. 

Transparency requires providers to proactively disclose how the carbon program operates beyond the contract. Farmers should be informed about what is being measured, verified, and sold, who is involved in verification and sale, and whether additional claims, such as co-benefits, are being marketed. Providers should disclose use of the Farmers’ agricultural data in training modeling or providing analytics. Providers should explain whether participation may exclude Farmers from other carbon programs.  

Carbon programs should strive to offer farmers flexibility in participation and transfer when it is possible without sacrificing program integrity.

First, providers should clarify if the program prohibits future changes to agronomic practices that qualify the farmer for the program.  If possible, Farmers should have flexibility to adapt practices as needed over time to meet agronomic needs even if there is a negative impact to carbon assets within the crop year. Example: Required tillage due to unforeseen agronomic challenges.

Secondly, providers should strive for flexibility to allow individual crop years or crop types to participate in multiple programs so long as double counting of the carbon assets is not a concern.  Example: Crop rotation where Corn in year 1 is in Program A and Soybeans in year 2 are in Program B.

Thirdly, carbon assets should be transferable to a new provider if the provider ceases the carbon program whenever assets are viable in the market and/or there is a program capable of receiving them. Providers should explain whether specific fields, crops, or those associated with different crop years can be opted into alternative programs, and what limitations apply. Farmer participation should not restrict future choices unless those restrictions are made clear. 

Farmers should know with whom they are contracting. Providers should disclose whether data sharing with the Provider includes business partners, affiliates, or parent companies. 

Providers should clearly define the types of third parties that may access or use Farmer data or carbon-related information and provide specific entities upon request.  Providers should ensure such third parties uphold consistent data standards. This includes entities involved in quantification, verification, credit issuance, marketing, and sales. Providers should disclose the identity and role of each data partner, including: 

o   Promoters: Entities that are not the program developer or provider, but who are actively promoting and enrolling Farmers in the program.

o   Quantifiers: Organizations responsible for measuring, modeling or calculating carbon assets

o   Verifiers: Organizations outside of the provider that validate carbon claims based upon established protocols

o   Market facilitators: Platforms or brokers involved in selling or retiring credits 

o   Trusted advisors: Individuals authorized by the farmer to support participation 

o   Carbon or Land Registries: Central locations established to record and track carbon assets such as the Climate Action Reserve or Gold Standard

If alternative terms are used, Providers should define them clearly in the contract. Farmers must have access to which organizations are involved in the carbon program, what data is shared, and how each partner contributes to the process. 

Providers should clearly explain how and when Farmers are paid for participation in carbon programs. Contracts must define the payment structure, including whether compensation is based on practice adoption, verified outcomes, or credit sales. Providers should also disclose whether Farmers receive a share of credit sale proceeds, and if so, how pricing and deductions are determined. Payment terms should be transparent, predictable, and aligned with the farmer’s role in generating carbon assets. Farmers must be able to evaluate the financial value of participation and compare across programs.

Farmers should be allowed to terminate their participation in a carbon program or halt the generation of carbon assets at any time. Contracts should clearly define the procedures for termination, including any notice requirements, data handling obligations, and financial penalties and implications for previously issued credits and payments made to the Farmer. Farmers must understand what happens to their ag data, verification records, and any remaining responsibilities or monitoring which may be required after termination. Longterm impacts to the landowner, if the landowner is not the farmer, should also be clearly identified.

The undersigned for the support of The Transparency Principles for Ag Carbon, established February 2026

The National Corn Growers Association

Indigo Ag

GROWMARK

American Farmland Trust

Bayer Crop Science

BounceAg