On the 18th of March, the Open Geospatial Carbon Registry project hosted a panel discussion at the European Carbon Farming Summit in Padova, Italy. This article briefly summarizes some of the findings from the one-and-a-half-hour interactive session with stakeholders.
The transition toward regenerative agriculture is not just a shift in farming practices; it is a compound of language, power, and socio-economic conditions. A recent session at the European Carbon Farming Summit, the Open Geospatial Carbon Registry (OGCR) project tested the foundational assumptions of carbon markets to validate its sociotechnical approach.
Participants underwent a "live polling exercise" to assess and comment on key statements about the OGCR framework. The session "Co-Benefits for Whom? Exploring Underlying Assumptions in the Design of an Intergenerational Open Geospatial Carbon Registry" uncovered the underlying power dynamics between farmers, technologists, supply chains, and policymakers.
Distinguishing "Data Sovereignty" vs. "Exploitation": Whoever defines the terminology often dictates the priority aspects of the system. The OGCR project intentionally relies on the CARE data principles (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics) to guide its technological assumptions.
A central aspect of this is "sovereign data," an assumption that farmers prefer granular control over their own land's data. When the audience, which consisted primarily of researchers, NGOs, farmers, and MRV/tech developers, was asked via Slido what "sovereign data" brought to mind, the predominant responses centered around the concepts of "ownership" and "control"
This exposes deep-rooted concerns about exploitation. Farmers expressed that while they are open to sharing environmental data as a public good, they deeply fear that supply chains will use it to expose their economic vulnerabilities during negotiations. In simple terms, data is not viewed as a neutral byproduct of farming but as a critical aspect for ensuring farmers' autonomy.
The Myth of Technological Neutrality The OGCR's fourth assumption posited that highly technical, open-source solutions such as APIs, hybrid machine learning, and blockchain would inherently establish transparency, fight greenwashing, and build trust. However, the Slido results challenge the idea that tech is the solution to all problems.
When asked what other ingredients are required if the tech is solved, the audience emphasized governance structures and data quality. Session participants recognized that without transparent governance and ethical guidelines (like protecting long-term storage and use), technology alone cannot bridge the trust gap between land managers and the institutions demanding their data.
De-centering Carbon and focusing on co-benefits While many actors, in particular corporations, are driven by ESG or similar reporting systems to prove their commitment to sustainability and nature-based solutions, farmers and Slido participants completely reframed the conversation.
When asked which co-benefits they would like to see monetized, Slido participants largely wrote "water," "biodiversity," and "soil health".
Furthermore, the discourse from farmers on the panel framed their practices not as "carbon offsetting," but as building "climate resilience" against extreme weather events. This reveals a clash of paradigms: a top-down, reductionist corporate discourse that seeks to commodify a single element (carbon) for Scope 3 reporting, versus a holistic, localized discourse that values the entire interconnected ecosystem.
Who Owns the Narrative? The Call for "Place and Landscape" The ultimate question the session sought to answer was who gets to author the rules. The OGCR’s second assumption asked who should drive the system design.
Overwhelmingly, respondents voted for "place and landscape," actively decentering governments and corporations. Leading regenerative farmers are frequently acting as uncompensated research and Lighthouses, lacking the financial support to consistently participate in policy and software design.
If the OGCR is to succeed in its mission to safely shield landholders and support a just transition, the project must actively democratize its MRV infrastructure so that the very language, design, and economic mechanisms of carbon registries are authored by the "place and landscape" actors themselves.
By looking at these Slido interactions, it is evident that building a carbon registry is less about solving a math equation for soil carbon storage and more about navigating complex human relationships, restoring trust, and shifting the balance of power back to the stewards of the land.
Top comments (0)