by Kristjan Luha, Co-Founder of eAgronom
In 2026, the carbon market is gradually transitioning away from the old standard of climate commitments. The market trajectory was, until recently, defined in markedly aspirational terms by net-zero targets, sustainability roadmaps and public pledges to reduce emissions but no longer. Investors, regulators, customers and auditors want hard proof, and now they’re asking directly for it.
Agriculture is ground zero of this shift in standards. The bulk of food companies’ carbon footprint is classified as Scope 3, particularly at the farm level. Farming accounts for between 70% and 90% of total greenhouse gas emissions in many agri-food chains, putting it in the bullseye of the emissions reduction target.
It’s also a constant source of uncertainty. Climate claims are plenty sophisticated, the data behind them less so. Agricultural emissions reporting still relies on averages, generic emission factors, supplier questionnaires and broad assumptions. These tools do not demonstrate measurable change at farm level. A regional average fails to indicate whether a specific farmer has reduced nitrogen use, improved soil health or adopted cover crops, precisely the information essential to the management decisions that determine agricultural emissions outcomes.
The satellite conundrum
Carbon cannot be measured cleanly from a distance, even by satellites.
Satellite technology has been undeniably transformative for agricultural monitoring, as it’s able to identify field boundaries, monitor crop growth, detect vegetation cover, track land-use change, and provide valuable insights into farm landscapes at scale. However, satellites still provide an incomplete picture, unable to capture the agricultural emissions driven by management decisions.
A satellite shows a vegetation-covered field, not how much nitrogen fertilizer was applied and when, what type was used, when it was applied, whether inhibitors were included, how deeply the soil was tilled, what machinery was used, or how a crop rotation has evolved over multiple seasons. Changes in soil carbon below ground are similarly invisible.
These details, however, are often the primary drivers of emissions and removals and they render strictly satellite-derived data insufficient.
Primary data and inevitable complexities
Primary data is the foundation of real evidence. It’s the information sourced directly from the farm: crops grown, planting and harvest dates, fertiliser applications, tillage operations, fuel use, crop protection activities, yields, cover crops and residue management practices. It also includes soil characteristics, soil carbon measurements, sampling results and other information for understanding how management decisions influence emissions outcomes. Differences in fertiliser efficiency, soil type, tillage intensity, crop rotations and management practices significantly alter greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration outcomes. Absent primary data, those differences disappear into vague averages.
Primary data is the new prerequisite for credibility. To achieve said credibility, that data needs to be traceable, auditable and linked to cohesively documented practices and robust methodologies.
It’s also layered. No single dataset can convey credible measurement, reporting and verification (MRV). Crop and rotation data explain how land is managed over time; tillage information provides insight into soil disturbance and carbon dynamics. This extends to fuel and machinery data, soil characteristics, yield data and geospatial information to connect climate outcomes with specific supply chains and products.
There is no avoiding this complexity, it’s just a reflection of the biological realities of farming. No single sensor will suffice for a living system shaped by weather, soil conditions, management decisions, crop rotations, and local context. Optimising out of this complexity will end in numbers that may appear precise but fail to represent reality.
False confidence
A satellite-only system certainly has its appeal, appearing to promise scalability and cost-efficiency. Programmes that rely exclusively on remote sensing (as satellites do) nevertheless risk creating false confidence.
There’s plenty of room for error. Visual signals get mistaken for verified practice and models assign carbon benefits that weren’t delivered. Emissions drivers can go undetected. Farmers who genuinely improve their practices may be under-recognised, while others may receive credit for outcomes that cannot be substantiated.
Carbon accounting aside, it damages farmer trust. Regenerative agriculture depends on farmers adopting new practices, taking risks, and sharing operational information. If farmers feel they are being surveilled and judged solely through remote observation, they won’t engage. Trust will not be built exclusively from orbit.
The better model was always a hybrid one
The future of agricultural MRV will combine automated remote sensing with on-the-ground measurement. Any workable hybrid model will include sophisticated technology with agronomy, farmer participation and independent verification.
Much of the data needed for credible carbon accounting already exists. It’s waiting to be properly analysed within tractors, farm management software, machinery systems, invoices, soil tests, and field records. A workable hybrid system will connect and validate these data sources, albeit without piling more paperwork on farmers.
In light of the new demands for real proof, this is where the industry ought to be heading.
The array of data points from automated data collection, machinery integrations, satellite imagery, soil information, and agronomic models can work together within a single trusted framework without removing farmers from the process. The goal was always to remove unnecessary administration while improving data quality and auditability (and without sacrificing farmer control over said data).
Credibility or nothing
The carbon market has fallen into the trap of overcompensating with technology, when what’s really needed is a better hybrid model comprising technology, agronomy, and trust.
Satellites are and will remain a vital part of agricultural carbon markets, necessary to providing independent monitoring and scalable evidence. But they should be treated as just one piece of the larger credible MRV system pie.
If you’re a food company making Scope 3 claims or a carbon credit buyer evaluating projects, your job doesn’t end at the satellite data. You must validate everything that supports the satellite data. You have to gather the evidence for whatever the satellite data claims to prove.
That evidence exists in the form of primary farm records, soil data collections, management practice verification, and farmer involvement. Audits and methodology evaluation are a given, indispensable to determining and maintaining overall process integrity.
Climate outcomes happen on farms, not on maps. It only follows that credibility also comes from the ground up.
Read more: New Satellite Imagery Analysis Shows Significant Results From Peatland Restoration
