The global carbon market received a strong signal after the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Technical Advisory Board approved carbon credits under Verra’s VM0051 methodology for use in the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation.
This decision brings rice methane reduction projects into a major aviation compliance market. It also opens a new demand channel for agricultural carbon credits, especially for airlines seeking eligible offsets.
The move shows growing recognition that agricultural methane cuts can play a bigger role in global climate goals. It also strengthens the position of rice projects, which have long faced challenges in carbon finance.
VM0051, launched in early 2025, supports improved water and crop management in rice farming. It helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions while improving water use, farm efficiency, and farmer benefits.
With CORSIA eligibility now confirmed, rice carbon credits may emerge as a stronger and more mainstream carbon market asset.
Rice Farming Moves Closer to Mainstream Carbon Markets
Rice production has long carried a large climate footprint. Flooded rice fields release methane, one of the most potent greenhouse gases.
- According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, rice paddies emit around 60 million metric tons of methane every year, accounting for roughly 10% to 12% of global methane emissions.
Most of these emissions come from Asia, where rice remains central to food systems and rural economies. At the same time, rising food demand could push emissions even higher in the coming decades.
VM0051 Brings Scalable Rice Methane Solutions
This created a clear need for scalable solutions, yet carbon finance in rice remained limited for years. But VM0051 aims to change this.
The methodology allows project developers to reduce emissions through improved water and crop management. Farmers can adopt practices such as alternate wetting and drying, better nitrogen management, shorter cultivation cycles, and lower-emission rice varieties. Some projects may also use innovative approaches, such as methanotrophic bacteria or avoiding residue burning.
These measures cut methane emissions while improving resource efficiency.
CORSIA Expands Demand for Rice Credits
CORSIA eligibility gives these credits a potential compliance buyer base, which changes the commercial outlook significantly. Airlines can use eligible credits to help meet offsetting obligations, provided projects also secure required host country authorization.
This link between aviation and agricultural methane reduction could help move rice carbon projects from a niche activity into a larger market segment.
Inside the New Framework of VM0051
The approval also draws attention to how much the methodology has evolved.
Verra designed VM0051 to replace an older Clean Development Mechanism methodology that was retired in 2023. The newer framework includes stronger safeguards, broader project options, and more rigorous emissions accounting.
- Additionality requirements have been strengthened to show projects go beyond normal farming practices.
- Dynamic baselines help reflect changing weather conditions. The methodology also requires monitoring of methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide emissions linked to project activities. This broader accounting matters because carbon markets are placing greater weight on integrity.
- Flexible quantification approaches, including biogeochemical models, give developers more options for emissions measurement. Digital MRV tools, including remote sensing and machine learning, can also help improve monitoring and verification.
These features make the methodology more aligned with what today’s market increasingly expects.
- Importantly, VM0051 does more than support methane reduction. It recognizes a broader set of practices, including improved fertilizer management, biochar use, reduced biomass burning, and efficient fossil fuel use in operations.
- Furthermore, projects must also protect against soil organic carbon losses, an important safeguard in agricultural systems. This wider scope can help developers design stronger projects while improving potential emission reductions.
Credit quality remains central to buyer confidence. In a market shaped by growing scrutiny, methodologies with stronger science and stronger controls tend to attract more attention.
Airlines Could Unlock New Demand for Rice Carbon Credits
The biggest market impact may come from demand. CORSIA eligibility often changes the value proposition of a carbon credit. Access to compliance demand can support liquidity, improve price support, and increase buyer interest.
This is where rice credits may benefit, and countries in South and Southeast Asia could become central to this growth story.
The Verra Registry currently includes eight projects using VM0051, with an estimated annual issuance of more than 1.73 million carbon credits. It remains a relatively small supply base compared with larger project categories in the carbon market.
If airlines begin sourcing these credits, developers may have stronger incentives to expand project pipelines, particularly across major rice-growing economies.
Rice Credits Offer More Than Compliance Value
- The appeal goes beyond compliance demand alone. Many buyers increasingly seek credits linked to broader sustainability outcomes. Rice methane projects can offer multiple benefits alongside emissions reductions, including improved water management, lower pollution, and stronger farmer livelihoods.
- Some projects may also support women’s access to training and financial services, adding social value that could strengthen buyer interest.
- These features may help position rice credits not only as compliance instruments but also as attractive assets in the wider voluntary carbon market.
Market participants will also watch whether CORSIA eligibility supports stronger pricing for these credits.
Historically, compliance-linked credits often receive more market attention than credits limited to voluntary demand. If this pattern holds, VM0051 credits could see stronger commercial interest going forward.
Methane Reduction Gains a Larger Role in Carbon Markets
The approval also fits a larger trend in climate markets. Methane has moved closer to the center of climate strategy. Policymakers, investors, and corporate buyers increasingly view methane reduction as one of the fastest ways to slow warming in the near term.
Thus, this shift has raised interest in projects focused on methane abatement.
Much of this attention has centered on oil and gas, waste, and livestock. Rice cultivation now gains importance because agriculture has often lagged behind other sectors in the carbon market scale.
Forestry, renewable energy, and engineered carbon removal have captured much of the attention. Agricultural methodologies have often faced challenges tied to measurement, fragmentation, and project implementation. And VM0051 significantly addresses some of these barriers through stronger science and digital tools.
The ICAO decision, furthermore, may help reinforce confidence that agriculture can supply credible credits on a larger scale. It may also encourage greater innovation in agricultural carbon methodologies beyond rice.
Developers, registries, and policymakers will likely watch closely to see whether this model expands into broader methane-focused opportunities.
A Turning Point for Rice-Based Carbon Finance
For years, rice carbon credits had strong potential but weak market momentum. Projects faced technical hurdles, limited buyer familiarity, and funding constraints. This approval shifts that outlook.
By adding VM0051 credits to the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation under the ICAO, a clearer link is created between compliance demand and agricultural methane cuts.
This could accelerate project growth, investment, and adoption of improved rice practices, while pushing agricultural credits closer to mainstream carbon markets.
Future expansion depends on supply, demand, and approvals, but the signal is clear: rice methane credits are entering a larger market phase.
The post Verra’s VM0051 Gains CORSIA Eligibility, Boosting Rice Carbon Credit Demand appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
EU carbon credit claims changed on 27 September 2026, the day the Directive (EU) 2024/825 began to apply across the European Union. The change is narrow. It changes how a company can talk about the credits it buys. A product can no longer be called neutral on the strength of compensation alone; however, every specific, evidenced statement about what a company measured, reduced, and funded stays fully available.
