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.
More and more small and medium-sized businesses are hearing the same question from their larger customers: What is your carbon footprint? That question now travels down entire supply chains, and it arrives next to tender requirements, certification criteria, and rising customer expectations.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits