Carbon Farming in Türkiye: Challenges, Opportunities and Implementation Mechanism

Abstract

Carbon farming represents a strategic approach to enhancing agricultural sustainability while reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In Türkiye, agriculture accounted for approximately 14.9% of national GHG emissions in 2023, dominated by methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O). By increasing carbon storage in soils and vegetation, carbon farming can improve soil health, water retention, and climate resilience, thereby contributing to mitigation efforts and sustainable rural development. This study reviews and synthesizes international and national evidence on carbon farming mechanisms, practices, payment models, and adoption enablers and barriers, situating these insights within Türkiye’s agroecological and institutional context. The analysis draws on a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature, institutional reports, and policy documents published between 2015 and 2025. The findings indicate substantial mitigation potential from soil-based practices and livestock- and manure-related measures, yet limited uptake due to low awareness, capacity constraints, financial and administrative barriers, and regulatory gaps, highlighting the need for region-specific approaches. To support implementation and scaling, the study proposes a policy-oriented, regionally differentiated and digitally enabled MRV framework and an associated implementation pathway designed to reduce transaction costs, enhance farmer participation, and enable integration with emerging carbon market mechanisms.

1. Introduction

Climate change, characterized by rising global temperatures and more frequent extreme weather events, poses serious threats to ecosystems and human livelihoods [1]. The agricultural sector is particularly vulnerable due to changing temperature and precipitation patterns that increase the risks of droughts and floods. In this context, sustainable agricultural practices are vital for ensuring food security and ecosystem resilience while reducing GHG emissions [2]. Agriculture holds a dual role, as both a major source of GHG emissions and a potential carbon sink. Adopting sustainable land management and production methods is therefore fundamental to reduce emissions while increasing the capacity for carbon storage in soils and vegetation [2,3]. The Paris Agreement’s target of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C requires a transition to low-emission, climate-resilient production systems [4]. This transformation contributes to mitigation while improving soil health, biodiversity, and food security, increases in soil organic matter (SOM) further enhance water retention and agricultural efficiency [5,6]. In Türkiye, sustainable agricultural practices are critical for building climate resilience, especially in semi-arid regions that are vulnerable to land degradation, drought, and irregular precipitation [7]. Agriculture accounts for a notable share of national GHG emissions, mainly from livestock, fertilizer use, and soil management, yet it also holds strong mitigation potential through sustainable land use, organic farming, and efficient irrigation [8,9]. Aligning with the Paris Agreement and the European Green Deal, Türkiye can improve both emission reduction and rural resilience by integrating carbon farming into its agricultural strategies. These practices can improve soil fertility, combat desertification, and strengthen long-term food security under increasing climate pressure [7,10].

In 2023, agricultural emissions in Türkiye were estimated at 71.75 Mt CO₂e, accounting for 14.9% of the total emissions including Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) is included, and, and 13% excluding LULUCF is excluded. Forest land and cropland are the largest contributors to net LULUCF emissions [11]. Against this background, carbon farming has emerged as a practical pathway to address agricultural emissions in Türkiye. At the same time, it can strengthen climate resilience and deliver ecosystem service co-benefits. Against this background, carbon farming has emerged as a practical pathway to address agricultural emissions in Türkiye. At the same time, it can strengthen climate resilience and deliver ecosystem service co-benefits.

Carbon farming is a land management approach that aims to increase carbon storage in soils and vegetation while reducing GHG emissions [12,13]. Definitions vary between countries depending on climate and agricultural systems: in Australia, it focuses on reducing agricultural GHG emissions and increasing soil carbon through approved land management methods; in the European Union, it integrates agricultural and forest practices to sequester carbon sustainably; and in the United States, it is linked to climate-smart agriculture practices such as cover cropping, agroforestry, and conservation tillage [14,15,16]. These diverse experiences demonstrate how this approach can be tailored to local conditions worldwide to serve both mitigation and sustainability objectives.

Since the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol in 2005, and especially following the adoption of the Paris Agreement in 2015, carbon farming has gained increasing attention as a nature-based mitigation solution. It includes practices such as cover cropping, crop rotation, peatland restoration, and agroforestry, which enhance soil health and climate resilience [17]. While some methods may slightly reduce short-term yields, they contribute to long-term agricultural sustainability and ecosystem services [18,19]. Technological solutions, such as low-emission livestock housing, biogas plants, and nitrification inhibitors, can further reduce GHG emissions, particularly in the livestock sector. Yet these approaches may not always guarantee absolute reductions and must be carefully balanced with broader environmental and adaptation goals [17]. In the absence of adequate institutional and monitoring structures, mainstreaming carbon farming into national agricultural policies remains challenging. Despite the growing international literature on carbon farming, evidence specific to Türkiye remains fragmented across individual practices, policy instruments, and technical discussions on MRV systems. Existing studies rarely provide an integrated synthesis that connects mitigation potential, adoption barriers, institutional constraints, and operational MRV requirements within a single, policy-relevant framework. This fragmentation limits the translation of international experience into actionable national implementation pathways.

To address this gap, this study employs a systematic review of the literature and secondary data analysis to synthesize current knowledge on carbon farming practices and MRV systems and to inform the development of a draft MRV framework relevant to Türkiye. Sources include peer-reviewed journal articles, international and national institutional reports, and policy documents, including those from the IPCC, FAO, COWI, the European Commission, and Turkish government agencies. Publications from 2015 to 2025 were prioritized to capture contemporary approaches to carbon farming, mitigation strategies, and MRV methodologies. Inclusion criteria focused on studies providing empirical evidence or policy relevance related to carbon sequestration, GHG mitigation, agricultural sustainability, and MRV implementation, while non-peer-reviewed opinion pieces or inaccessible reports were excluded. Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched using keywords related to carbon farming and MRV. Records were screened in the title/abstract and full-text stages, duplicates were removed, and eligible evidence was synthesized. A thematic analysis was conducted to identify key topics and structure the literature review. Exploratory reading of the literature informed the derivation of coding categories, which guided the organization of studies under three main themes: (i) carbon farming mechanisms and payment models, (ii) carbon farming practices and mitigation potential, and (iii) barriers and enablers of adoption. Within each thematic category, findings from international contexts were critically evaluated for lessons potentially transferable to Türkiye, taking national agroecological and institutional characteristics into account. Based on this integrated synthesis, a draft MRV framework and its implementation pathway are proposed, with an emphasis on practical applicability, technological integration (e.g., remote sensing, GIS, and AI), and alignment with international standards and carbon credit markets.

Accordingly, the objectives of this study are threefold. First, it provides a structured review of international and national literature on carbon farming mechanisms, practices, and payment models, with a particular focus on their relevance to Türkiye’s agroecological conditions. Second, it critically examines the institutional, technical, and economic barriers limiting the adoption of carbon farming in Türkiye, drawing on both global experience and the national policy context. Third, based on this synthesis, the study develops a policy-oriented and implementation-focused MRV framework designed to support the integration of carbon farming into Türkiye’s emerging carbon market and agricultural policy landscape. The review is guided by a single implementation question: how can carbon farming practices be credibly scaled in Türkiye through a regionally differentiated, cost-effective MRV system linked to carbon-market eligibility?

2. Review and Synthesis of Carbon Farming Approaches, Mechanisms and Adoption Factors

2.1. Agricultural GHG Emissions and Carbon Farming in Türkiye

Agricultural emissions are mainly linked to livestock and soil-related activities in Türkiye. The fermentation represented the largest share in Türkiye’s National Inventory Document in 2025, followed by agricultural soils and manure management. Minor sources included urea application, rice cultivation, and field burning of agricultural residues [11]. By gas type, CH₄ accounted for 59.1% of agricultural emissions, N₂O for 38.8%, and CO₂ for 2.2%. The IPCC reports that land-based carbon farming measures exhibit highly variable mitigation potentials depending on the practice and context. For instance, grazing land management can achieve mitigation rates of approximately 0.11–0.80 t CO₂-eq ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹, whereas converting cropland to grassland may reach around 3.02 t CO₂-eq ha⁻¹ yr⁻¹ under favorable conditions [20]. Similarly, the FAO emphasizes the substantial mitigation potential of improved soil management, estimating that soils could sequester up to 20 Pg C over 25 years—equivalent to more than 10% of anthropogenic emissions—depending on baseline soil conditions and the adoption of conservation practices [21]. While actual outcomes vary across regions, management intensities, and baseline conditions, these IPCC and FAO estimates provide a useful reference for the mitigation potential of soil-focused carbon farming in semi-arid and Mediterranean agroecosystems like those in Türkiye. Agriculture through biological processes and fertilizer use remains a major source of national GHG emissions. Consequently, the sector must play a central role in achieving Türkiye’s emission reduction goals and transitioning toward low-carbon agricultural systems [11].

In line with Türkiye’s 2053 net-zero target, the widespread adoption of sustainable agricultural practices is essential. In this context, carbon farming presents a key opportunity to both enhance carbon sequestration and reduce GHG emissions. Through enhancing soil organic matter accumulation in soils and strengthening the natural carbon cycle, carbon farming simultaneously improves soil health, agricultural productivity, and climate resilience [2]. Research on carbon farming in Türkiye remains limited; however, several international and regional studies provide valuable insights into its potential national relevance. Lal [12] demonstrated that agricultural soils have significant carbon sequestration capacity, particularly through practices such as conservation tillage, organic amendments, and crop rotation. Studies on Mediterranean and semi-arid agroecosystems indicate that soil management practices such as cover cropping and reduced tillage can substantially increase soil organic carbon stocks, although sequestration capacity tends to be lower in drier regions compared to humid zones [22]. This finding closely aligns with the conditions observed in Central Anatolia, where regional differentiation plays a critical role in determining carbon storage outcomes [23,24]. Similarly, a recent study done in Eastern Anatolia found that the use of organic fertilizers and reduced tillage can help combat soil carbon loss [25]. From a governance perspective, European experiences emphasize that integrating carbon farming into broader agricultural and climate strategies is essential. The Technical Guidance Handbook prepared for the European Commission underscores that well-structured MRV systems are vital for scaling up carbon farming and ensuring credibility [17].

The broader literature also points to sector-specific opportunities. Gerber et al. [26] identify livestock as both a major source of methane and nitrous oxide emissions and an area with significant mitigation potential. Improved manure management, dietary modifications, and feed optimization emerge as effective strategies for emission reduction within Carbon Farming schemes. Collectively, these studies suggest that Türkiye possesses ecological and technical capacity to implement carbon farming, but institutional, financial, and informational gaps remain key barriers. Recent literature emphasizes that carbon farming holds strategic importance for Türkiye’s alignment with EU climate policies, yet its implementation faces major institutional and technical gaps. Although Türkiye has developed an EU-compatible MRV system, challenges remain around additionality, permanence, leakage risks, high certification costs, and limited long-term monitoring. Still, practices such as reduced tillage, cover crops, and biochar offer potential for high-quality credits and additional farmer income [27]. Recent analyses also point to the absence of a national carbon certification framework as a central policy gap, underscoring the need for a coherent regulatory approach [28].

2.2. Carbon Farming as a Business Model

Carbon farming consists of agricultural practices that enable farmers to reduce GHG emissions or increase carbon sequestration. Beyond being an environmental strategy, carbon farming also represents an emerging business model. Within this framework, farmers are encouraged to adopt sustainable agricultural practices by receiving financial incentives in exchange for measurable carbon reductions or sequestration outcomes [17]. Carbon credit markets create opportunities for farmers to economically benefit from carbon farming activities. However, challenges persist regarding the functioning of these markets and the accessibility for small-scale farmers [29]. The pricing of carbon credits, as well as the measurement and verification processes, often involve complex and costly procedures that can discourage farmer participation. To enhance inclusiveness and fairness, mechanisms should be developed to facilitate access to carbon credit markets, particularly for smallholders. Farmer cooperatives and intermediary institutions can play a critical role in aggregating small-scale projects and reducing transaction costs, as revealed in a recent technology adoption study among Turkish farmers [30]. In addition, policy measures are necessary to ensure the equitable distribution of carbon credit revenues and to strengthen farmers’ confidence in carbon market participation [31].

2.3. Carbon Farming Payment Models

Farmers can generate income from carbon-farming through three main payment mechanisms, each differing in structure, monitoring requirements, and financial risk. These models are commonly used in international carbon farming schemes.

• Action-Based Payments: In this model, farmers are compensated for adopting specific agricultural practices or technologies that are assumed to contribute to emission reduction. The Agri-Environment-Climate Payments (Pillar 2) under the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) are a prominent example. The main advantage of this mechanism stems from its low administrative and monitoring requirements, making it easier to implement. However, because payments are linked to actions rather than verified outcomes, the actual GHG reduction achieved may remain uncertain [17].
• Result-Based Payments: Result-based schemes reward farmers based on measurable and verified carbon sequestration outcomes. This approach is considered more performance-oriented and flexible, yet it depends heavily on complex and costly MRV systems. Additionally, the fluctuation of carbon prices can expose farmers to significant financial risk, particularly in volatile market conditions [32].
• Hybrid Payments: Hybrid models combine both action-based and result-based elements. Farmers receive upfront payments to cover initial implementation costs, while additional rewards are linked to verified emission reductions. This approach helps mitigate economic risk for farmers while ensuring measurable environmental benefits and stronger accountability [33,34].

2.4. Carbon Farming Mechanisms and Models

Carbon farming payments are delivered through different implementation mechanisms, which vary in terms of funding sources, payment structures, and MRV requirements. These mechanisms reflect the diversity of stakeholders, ranging from public institutions to private companies and voluntary market actors, engaged in supporting carbon farming.

• Land-Management Practice Payments: Publicly supported programs, such as the European Union’s CAP, incentivize farmers to adopt sustainable land management practices. This model offers low administrative costs and low financial risk, making it accessible for many farmers. However, as it generally follows an action-based payment structure, the actual GHG reduction outcomes may remain uncertain, and the system’s sustainability depends largely on public funding [17].
• Corporate Supply Chains: Private companies in the food and agriculture sectors increasingly integrate carbon farming into their supply chains. For example, Arla Foods conducts annual Climate Check audits covering over 200 parameters (e.g., feed, energy, manure management), calculates farm-level carbon emissions, and rewards farmers through its FarmAhead™ Sustainability Incentive program based on performance scores. This mechanism channels private sector finance into carbon farming but also poses risks such as limited transparency and high MRV costs [35,36].
• Voluntary Carbon Markets: Voluntary carbon markets allow farmers to implement specific carbon reduction or sequestration projects that generate tradable carbon credits. These markets have the potential to mobilize private sector investment in carbon farming, although participation is often limited by price volatility, high verification costs, and access barriers for small-scale farmers [37,38]. Voluntary carbon markets generally operate through two main structures: (i) intermediary-based models, where brokers or institutions connect farmers with buyers, and (ii) direct exchange-based systems, where farmers trade verified carbon credits directly with purchasers. Intermediary mechanisms may help reduce economic uncertainty by facilitating credit transactions, but can also increase management costs and limit transparency in project-level financial flows [39]. Direct exchange models, such as those certified by Verra VCS, Gold Standard, or puro.earth, typically require more rigorous MRV systems, yet provide greater traceability and potentially more flexible trading opportunities.

Each of these mechanisms, whether publicly funded, corporate-driven, or market-based, offers distinct advantages and challenges in terms of financing, accessibility, and MRV implementation. Understanding these differences is essential for designing effective, transparent and inclusive carbon farming systems that align with environmental and economic objectives [34] as seen in Figure 1.

2.5. Soil-Based Practices

The soil constitutes one of the largest terrestrial carbon pools, and soil-based practices form the core of carbon farming strategies. The preservation and enhancement of soil organic carbon (SOC) strengthen both carbon sequestration and soil health and increase the yield, aligning agricultural systems with adaptation and mitigation objectives under climate change [40,41]. Within this framework, several practices stand out: conservation or reduced tillage, cover cropping, crop rotations, and the use of organic inputs. Conservation tillage reduces carbon losses from soil respiration, while cover crops increase organic matter input and support soil microbial activity. Crop rotations, especially those including legumes, enhance soil fertility through biological nitrogen fixation, thereby indirectly improving carbon sequestration. A long-term field experiment (2006–2014) in Adana, Türkiye found no-tillage increased soil aggregate mean weight diameter by 137–204% and raised surface SOC (0–15 cm) compared to conventional tillage, demonstrating its role in carbon storage [42]. Biochar and organic compost further stabilize soil carbon [5,43]. Recent evidence shows biochar benefits extend beyond croplands: in managed grasslands/turf systems, it improves growing-medium properties and nutrient efficiency [44]; in urban green spaces, combined biochar and compost enhances soil physicochemical properties, nutrient availability, and microbial carbon sequestration [45]; and in alpine grasslands, it boosts SOC, nutrient availability, water retention, microbial activity, and vegetation resilience [46]. Across croplands and grasslands, protecting grasslands from plowing, restoring degraded croplands, and optimizing grazing intensity further support a positive carbon balance. Together, these strategies enhance soil structure, water retention, ecosystem resilience, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions while generating co-benefits for sustainable agriculture [47,48].

2.6. Land Use & Agroforestry

Land-use change and agroforestry systems offer integrated approaches that combine carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, and the enhancement of rural livelihoods. Agroforestry, by incorporating trees and shrubs into cropland or grassland systems, increases both aboveground and belowground biomass carbon storage. It also offers multiple co-benefits such as shade, shelter, microclimate regulation, and diversification of farm income [49,50,51,52,53,54]. Furthermore, reforestation, afforestation, and the restoration of degraded lands significantly enhance the carbon sequestration potential of the LULUCF sector [55]. Promising agroforestry applications include olive-based systems, vineyard–forest interface zones, and alley cropping practices [34]. A recent study in the Tatlıçay catchment, located in the transition zone of Türkiye from the Black Sea region to inner Anatolia, indicates that land use and land cover strongly influence soil properties and carbon dynamics. Soil characteristics such as SOM, SOC, pH, bulk density (BD), and texture vary across land uses. Forested and well-vegetated areas generally maintain higher SOM and SOC compared to croplands or degraded lands. For instance, mean SOM was 9.40% in Uludağ fir forest soils versus 1.75% in cultivated soils, and BD was higher in croplands (1.44 g cm⁻³) than in forests (0.40 g cm⁻³). SOC in Scotch pine and Uludağ fir forests ranged from 18.45–115.72 Mg ha⁻¹ and 61.76–348.1 Mg ha⁻¹, respectively, illustrating the impact of long-term cultivation and land use on soil carbon storage and structure [56].

2.7. Livestock and Manure Management

The livestock sector is a major source of GHG emissions, particularly methane (CH₄) from enteric fermentation and nitrous oxide (N₂O) from manure management. Nevertheless, it also provides considerable mitigation potential through the application of carbon farming practices. Strategies such as enhancing feed efficiency, using dietary additives (e.g., tannins, nitrification inhibitors, lipids), and applying bio-filtration techniques can contribute significantly to reducing enteric CH₄ emissions [26]. Effective manure management further supports mitigation efforts through practices like anaerobic digestion for biogas production, composting, and the timely application of manure to croplands. These measures not only reduce emissions but also improve nutrient cycling [57]. A study in İzmir, Türkiye, estimated livestock GHG emissions at 2826.5 tCO₂eq—53% from enteric fermentation, 39% from CH₄ manure management, and 8% from N₂O manure management—and found that sustainable manure practices like biogas production could cut emissions by 30% [58].

Additionally, the integration of livestock into mixed crop–livestock systems enhances nutrient recycling and increases soil organic matter through manure inputs. When combined with rotational grazing and improved grassland management, such approaches promote soil carbon sequestration, thereby contributing to both mitigation and productivity goals. However, technological solutions in the livestock sector require careful balancing. While intensive technologies may effectively reduce emissions, they can also lead to higher energy consumption, adverse ecosystem impacts, and animal welfare concerns. Therefore, the selection and design of mitigation measures must consider both environmental integrity and practical feasibility [17,57,59,60]. Key livestock and manure management practices include [61]:

• Direct reduction of enteric CH₄ emissions through feed additives and improved feed efficiency;
• Reduction of N₂O emissions via improved manure storage, treatment, and anaerobic digestion for biomethane production;
• Animal and feed management strategies aimed at enhancing productivity;
• Improvement of reproductive performance to increase efficiency and reduce emissions per unit of output.

2.8. Irrigation Related Practices: Carbon-Water Nexus

Irrigation plays a key role ensuring global food security [62] and adapting agricultural systems to the impacts of climate change [31], while simultaneously accounting for 70% of global water withdrawals and 80–90% of water consumption [63,64]. In Türkiye, optimizing irrigation is increasingly important to prevent groundwater depletion and maintain productivity under rising water stress [65,66]. In addition, irrigation itself can be a source of GHG emissions due to the dependence of water pumping on energy inputs such as fossil fuels and electricity. It can also increase soil-based emissions of gases such as N₂O and CH₄, especially under saturated soil conditions. Despite these drawbacks, the overall carbon footprint of irrigation can be reduced by more efficient or reduced water application, which can partly offset associated emissions [31,67,68,69]. A two-year field experiment on irrigated silage maize in Ankara, Türkiye, showed that full irrigation (100%) resulted in the highest cumulative CO₂ (1470.4 and 1129.6 kg ha⁻¹; $p<0.01$) and N₂O (0.54 and 0.50 kg ha⁻¹; $p<0.001$) emissions, peaking after irrigation events, while soils acted as a net CH₄ sink with greatest uptake under full irrigation ($-1.79$ and $-3.17$ kg ha⁻¹; $p<0.01$), indicating that excessive irrigation amplifies agricultural GHG emissions [70].

Generating carbon credit through improved irrigation water management has recently become a fast-growing climate change mitigation strategy. Key approaches include reducing energy-related emissions by replacing fossil fuel-powered pumps with renewable or energy-efficient systems and lowering soil-based emissions through optimized water use in rice and other crops. Chandra [31] highlights six practical methods, including off-grid solar pumps, renewable energy certificates, drip irrigation, treadle pumps, Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD), and Direct Seeding of Rice (DSR), which collectively reduce CO₂, CH₄, and N₂O emissions. Beyond energy savings, efficient irrigation also helps maintain soil organic carbon compared to conventional practices [71] and ensures water security [64,72].

Carbon sequestration, recognized for its cost effectiveness and reliance on natural processes [73], not only plays a crucial role in mitigating climate change, but also improves soil fertility, enhances water retention and boosts agricultural productivity [48,74,75]. While terrestrial carbon storage lowers atmospheric CO₂, it can increase N₂O and CH₄ emissions [76,77]. These risks can be mitigated through water-efficient irrigation, controlled flooding, optimized scheduling, and complementary carbon farming practices such as conservation tillage, cover cropping, mulching, and organic amendments. The combination of these strategies enhances soil organic carbon storage while limiting soil conditions that favor CH₄ and N₂O emissions, highlighting the integrated benefits of sustainable irrigation and carbon-focused management in climate-smart agriculture [77,78].

2.9. Barriers and Enablers of Carbon Farming Adoption

The adoption of carbon farming practices is influenced by a complex interplay of socio-economic, institutional, and environmental factors. Research suggests that farmers generally perceive these practices positively, largely due to the associated benefits for soil health, productivity, and overall farm profitability. Improvements in soil quality and reductions in erosion are frequently cited as key motivators [29,79,80,81], while the potential for increased yields and additional income streams further encourages adoption [82,83]. In addition, farmers’ individual motivations, risk perceptions, and land characteristics largely determine their willingness to integrate new practices into existing systems [84]. Empirical behavioral studies among Turkish farmers indicate that adoption of climate-smart practices is shaped by perceived economic benefits, risk considerations, and access to extension services. While conventional farmers recognize the usefulness of sustainable practices, adoption is constrained by costs and knowledge gaps, which can be alleviated through subsidies, group certification, targeted training, and extension programs [85,86]. Larger farms tend to adopt innovations more readily due to resource access, whereas smaller, risk-averse farms require tailored financial and technical support. Reducing barriers to resources and expertise is key to translating intentions into action, with financial mechanisms such as low-interest loans or subsidies enhancing perceived behavioral control [30,87,88].

Local studies align with the international literature indicating that limited access to information, insufficient extension services, and policy instability often discourage experimentation with novel or uncertain approaches [89]. The absence of localized evidence and weak communication of environmental and economic benefits can further reduce farmer confidence [90]. In Mediterranean and semi-arid regions, where natural carbon sequestration potential is lower, farmers frequently question the cost-effectiveness of new techniques [22]. Short-term economic viability frequently outweighs environmental objectives under conditions of uncertainty. The adoption of new practices may require substantial upfront investment, including costs for new equipment, additional labor, and chemical inputs, which can limit farmers’ willingness or ability to implement SOC sequestration measures [91,92]. High initial costs, bureaucratic hurdles, limited information, inadequate training, and the need for long-term commitment also contribute to skepticism about the feasibility of carbon farming [93]. Costs associated with project registration, verification, and recurring implementation, alongside the involvement of multiple intermediaries, can also diminish the share of benefits reaching farmers and introduce additional financial and administrative challenges for project developers [31,94]. Furthermore, uncertainty surrounding carbon credit prices and the long-term stability of voluntary markets reduces the attractiveness of participation [90].

Evidence indicates that stronger incentive mechanisms and regulatory support can significantly improve farmers’ willingness to adopt sustainable practices [95]. Capacity-building measures, such as training, technical assistance, and peer-to-peer learning facilitated by cooperatives or farmer organizations, help bridge knowledge gaps and foster trust [96]. At the policy level, integrating carbon farming into broader climate and rural development strategies is essential. Financial incentives should be complemented by recognition of co-benefits such as improved soil health, biodiversity conservation, and water retention capacity. These short-term, tangible benefits can strengthen farmers’ motivation to participate. As emphasized by Paustian et al. [48] and Lal [10], soil-based practices that enhance organic matter not only improve productivity and resource efficiency but also promote long-term sustainability, aligning mitigation and adaptation objectives simultaneously.

Across the reviewed literature, several converging patterns emerge regarding the performance and adoption of carbon farming practices. Soil-based measures such as reduced tillage, cover cropping, and organic amendments are consistently identified as relatively low-cost options with multiple co-benefits, including improved soil structure, water retention, and resilience. Livestock-related measures and improved manure management also show mitigation potential, although their effectiveness depends strongly on management intensity, baseline conditions, and access to advisory services. A commonly reported finding across studies is that MRV requirements and associated transaction costs represent a major constraint to scaling up carbon farming, particularly for small and medium-sized farms. At the same time, the literature highlights important divergences driven by agroecological and institutional contexts. Reported mitigation outcomes vary substantially across climatic zones, with lower soil carbon sequestration rates typically observed in semi-arid and Mediterranean regions compared to humid systems. Differences also arise in the feasibility of market-based approaches, as regions with limited institutional capacity and fragmented farm structures face greater challenges in meeting MRV requirements and accessing carbon markets. These contrasts underscore the need for regionally differentiated policy and MRV designs, providing a rationale for the implementation-focused framework developed in this study.

3. Policy and MRV Implications for Carbon Farming in Türkiye

3.1. Adaptability and Policy Context

According to the Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (2024–2028), Türkiye has approximately 24 million hectares of cultivated land and 14.6 million hectares of pastures and meadows. The average SOC content is relatively low compared to the European average, presenting both a challenge and an opportunity for expanding carbon farming practices [97]. Enhancing SOC through practices such as conservation tillage, cover cropping, agroforestry, rotational grazing, and biochar application can strengthen agricultural productivity while contributing to climate change mitigation. Research by Marakoğlu et al. [98] indicates that transitioning from conventional tillage to direct seeding (no-till) in legume-cereal rotations reduces diesel fuel consumption by approximately 57%, lowering inputs from 6.46 L/da to 2.79 L/da. This supports the inference that while the adoption of carbon farming in Türkiye is constrained by high upfront costs and financial uncertainty, the economic justification for these practices in semi-arid regions is robust when evaluating avoided operating costs (OPEX) rather than only carbon market revenues. However, their adoption remains limited due to low farmer awareness and insufficient technical support. Rotational grazing, highly relevant for the extensive pastures of Eastern Anatolia, can improve both livestock productivity and pasture quality, but it depends on effective land management [47] and training programs. The regional feasibility of carbon farming in Türkiye is largely shaped by agroecological diversity.

• In the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions, agroforestry and biochar applications fit well with perennial crop systems and high biomass availability.
• In Central Anatolia and Marmara, conservation tillage and cover cropping are better suited due to widespread cereal cultivation and existing subsidy schemes.
• In Eastern Anatolia, rotational grazing holds the greatest potential for sustainable livestock management.

These examples demonstrate the necessity of region-specific approaches rather than a “one-size-fits-all” model for carbon farming. Awareness of carbon farming among farmers remains limited, and technical capacity within local administrations is inadequate. The absence of clear policy direction and comprehensive MRV frameworks also creates uncertainty for both farmers and potential investors, aligning with the global literature [89].

Economic feasibility constitutes a central barrier to participation in carbon farming, particularly for small-scale producers. High administrative costs and complex certification procedures, along with implementation and MRV-related transaction costs—including enrollment, documentation, data collection, and verification—can substantially reduce net returns, especially for smallholders. As emphasized in the global literature on low-carbon transitions, adoption in capital-intensive sectors with long investment horizons depends not only on environmental benefits but also on upfront investment requirements, access to finance, operational adjustments, and the balance between existing revenue streams and future low-carbon opportunities [99]. These considerations underscore the need for low-cost MRV approaches aligned with existing agricultural support schemes. At the same time, evolving carbon regulations may reshape market and investment incentives, adding uncertainty for emerging carbon market mechanisms.

Beyond cost-related constraints, several technical and implementation-related barriers limit the effectiveness and scalability of carbon farming in Türkiye. Mitigation outcomes are highly context-specific: changes in soil carbon sequestration and N₂O emissions depend on baseline SOC levels, soil properties, climate conditions, and management intensity, and mitigation gains may level off over time. At the farm level, demonstrating additionality can be challenging under heterogeneous baseline practices and existing support schemes, while leakage risks may arise if production shifts across regions or farm types. Structural constraints—including fragmented land holdings, limited access to appropriate machinery and inputs, high MRV and verification costs, regional disparities in extension and advisory services, as well as gaps in digital infrastructure for data collection and reporting—can further reduce participation.

These challenges underscore the importance of aligning Türkiye’s existing agricultural support policies with carbon farming objectives. While current schemes can encourage practices that improve productivity and deliver mitigation and resilience co-benefits, some area- or input-based subsidies may unintentionally reinforce existing production patterns and discourage practice change or long-term soil investment. Moreover, rising input costs in agriculture may limit farmers’ willingness and ability to invest in new equipment or adopt practice changes required for carbon farming, while increasing rural-to-urban migration reduces access to agricultural labor. Together, these dynamics highlight the need for a more holistic policy approach to support the transition toward carbon farming in Türkiye. Such risks can be mitigated through policy measures that link support to verifiable practices, provide targeted transition assistance, enable cooperative or aggregator models, and align advisory services and record-keeping systems with MRV requirements. Unlocking Türkiye’s potential for carbon farming requires coordinated national efforts to:

• Provide financial incentives, training and extension services for farmers;
• Integrate carbon farming into existing agricultural subsidy schemes;
• Establish transparent and reliable carbon credit certification systems.

By linking environmental benefits with tangible economic returns, these practices can advance the commitments of Türkiye under the Paris Agreement while improving food security, biodiversity and rural resilience.

3.2. Secondary Legislation (Drafts Under Development in Türkiye)

On 9 July 2025, Türkiye adopted its Climate Law (Law No. 7552), published in the Official Gazette [100]. The Law establishes the legal foundation for the Turkish Emissions Trading System (TR ETS), designating it as one of the country’s key mitigation instruments and defining the principles for its operation. The TR ETS is aligned with the Medium-Term Programme (2024–2026) and the Green Deal Action Plan, thereby supporting Türkiye’s 2053 net-zero target. According to the Climate Law, the TR ETS will be implemented through a phased and inclusive approach. It will cover emission-intensive sectors, serve as both a planning and implementation tool for mitigation, and ensure that revenues are allocated toward low-carbon development and a just transition. The Law delegates responsibilities to relevant institutions and grants a legal mandate for secondary legislation to define essential design elements such as cap-setting methodologies, sectoral scope, allowance allocation, and compliance periods. A Draft TR ETS Regulation has already been published for public consultation [101]. In parallel, Türkiye has prepared several draft secondary regulations to complement the Climate Law and establish the legal and institutional structure for carbon markets and sustainable finance, including:

• Draft Regulation on Carbon Credit and Offsetting;
• Draft Regulation on the Turkish Emissions Trading System (ETS).

These drafts are currently under public consultation and are expected to form the core of Türkiye’s emerging carbon market system. Their integration with carbon farming practices and comprehensive MRV systems will be fundamental to ensure transparency, financial accessibility, and alignment with international mechanisms such as the EU Green Deal and the Paris Agreement. International assessments also highlight the need for the TR ETS to address potential carbon leakage risks while creating mechanisms for private-sector participation and potential linkages with voluntary carbon crediting systems [102]. Based on this evidence and the identified national constraints, the following strategic actions are recommended:

• Develop a practical policy guide to support the integration of carbon farming into legal and institutional structure.
• Prepare an implementation roadmap, outlining preparatory and operational steps.
• Establish a comprehensive MRV system to monitor carbon farming activities.
• Formulate a national strategy and long-term action plan for carbon farming implementation.
• Promote private-sector participation through public–private partnerships for carbon credit trading, financial instruments, and technology development.
• Facilitate integration of agricultural stakeholders into carbon markets and strengthen technical and investment capacities.
• Enhance institutional capacity and provide training for staff within relevant ministries and local agricultural agencies.

While these policy and institutional measures provide an enabling environment for carbon farming, their success ultimately depends on robust monitoring and verification systems. Therefore, the next subsection focuses on developing an MRV framework tailored to Türkiye’s agricultural and climatic diversity, ensuring transparency, data integrity, and access to carbon markets.

3.3. MRV Framework Proposal for Carbon Farming in Türkiye: Core Components and Implementation Pathway

The success of carbon farming requires the development of comprehensive MRV systems. These systems enable accurate monitoring of carbon sequestration and emissions reduction, facilitate farmer participation in carbon credit markets, and ensure transparency and accountability [103,104,105]. Revenues from carbon credits provide additional income for farmers while supporting the economic and environmental sustainability of agricultural production. However, Türkiye’s regional diversity poses challenges to MRV implementation. Each region’s climate, soil structure, and farming practices require locally adapted MRV frameworks. Instead of a single national model, flexible and region-specific approaches should be developed [89]. Emerging technologies such as remote sensing, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and artificial intelligence (AI) provide significant potential to enhance MRV efficiency. These tools enable precise soil carbon measurements, real-time monitoring, and data-driven analysis [106]. Yet, challenges such as high infrastructure costs and limited farmer adaptation to digital tools persist. Overcoming these obstacles requires government incentives, private sector investment, and multi-stakeholder collaboration, all of which are critical to establishing a credible and inclusive MRV framework [89].

To enable practical implementation of the proposed MRV framework, a phased approach is recommended. In the initial phase, pilot projects in representative agroecological regions should focus on low-cost and high-feasibility practices, relying on a combination of farmer self-reporting, existing administrative data, and limited field measurements for calibration purposes. In subsequent phases, digital tools and model-based estimation methods can be progressively integrated to reduce monitoring and reporting burdens, provided that uncertainty is transparently managed and institutional roles are clearly defined. This approach directly addresses the technical and practical barriers identified in earlier sections, particularly high MRV-related transaction costs, limited digital capacity, and constraints on smallholder participation. As MRV costs remain a major barrier to scaling up, aggregation mechanisms, standardized protocols, and public co-financing in the early stages are essential. A gradual scale-up informed by pilot results would enable integration with Türkiye’s carbon credit market while maintaining environmental integrity and farmer participation, consistent with the phased and inclusive implementation principles set out in Türkiye’s Climate Law and draft secondary carbon market legislation.

A well-functioning MRV system is critical for ensuring the integrity, transparency, and effectiveness of carbon farming in Türkiye. The proposed framework is designed to capture emissions and sequestration data accurately while providing a robust foundation for integrating agricultural activities into carbon markets.

• Measuring–Monitoring: The carbon storage and GHG mitigation potential of agricultural activities must be systematically measured. Key components include soil carbon, biomass, fertilizer use, and enteric fermentation. Continuous monitoring should be conducted through remote sensing, GIS sensors, and AI applications. To complement digital monitoring, farmer-based declaration systems should be supported by local verification mechanisms, ensuring the reliability of field-level data.
• Reporting: Data collected from the field must be reported regularly and in compliance with national and international standards. The national reporting framework should align with IPCC methodologies and international mechanisms such as the European Green Deal. Moreover, it should be integrated with Türkiye’s agricultural production planning and farmer registration systems to ensure coherence and data interoperability.
• Verification: All field-level measurements and reports must be verified by independent institutions to guarantee accuracy and transparency. Verification should be carried out by nationally and internationally accredited bodies, prioritizing traceability, data reliability, and transparency throughout the process.
• Regional Approach and Pilot Applications: Given Türkiye’s diverse climatic and soil conditions, customized MRV protocols must be developed for different agro-ecological regions. Pilot projects should initially be implemented in Aegean, Central Anatolia, and Southeastern Anatolia, representing distinct climatic zones. These pilots will serve as testing grounds for regional applicability, helping to refine methodologies and generate data for the eventual development of a national MRV system.
• Digital Infrastructure and Technology Integration: A strong digital infrastructure is important for the efficient operation of Türkiye’s MRV system. Utilizing AI-powered analytical tools, remote sensing, and data integration platforms will ensure accurate and timely measurement of carbon stock changes. Mobile applications and online reporting tools should facilitate farmer participation and improve transparency across all stages of the data management process.
• Institutional Cooperation and Capacity Building: Effective MRV implementation requires institutional coordination among the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Ministry of Environment, Urbanization and Climate Change, TurkStat, and academic institutions. Collaboration with NGOs, cooperatives, and farmer organizations will strengthen data accuracy and enhance field-level implementation. Training programs and extension services are necessary to increase farmers’ technical knowledge and active participation in MRV processes.
• Financial and Policy Incentives: Ensuring the sustainability of MRV systems demands strong financial support mechanisms. Programs such as Rural Development Investments Support Program, Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance in Rural Development (IPARD), and new production-based incentive models should provide rewards for farmers adopting carbon farming practices. Integrating MRV outputs with carbon markets will enable farmers to generate additional income from verified emission reductions. The credibility of carbon credit trading requires rigorous monitoring and verification. Impact investment can also serve as a key financial driver. Such investments prioritize not only financial returns but also environmental and social benefits, making carbon farming and MRV systems particularly attractive for sustainable finance portfolios.
• Türkiye’s Carbon Farming MRV Mechanism: At present, Türkiye lacks a comprehensive national MRV infrastructure dedicated to carbon farming. This gap remains a key constraint to scaling up carbon farming and ensuring reliable data for carbon markets. Developing a standardized national MRV framework should therefore be a top priority. This framework must establish clear MRV protocols, supported by technology-based data collection and analysis tools. In addition, financial incentives and capacity-building programs should be developed to increase farmer participation. Addressing the high cost and complexity of current MRV procedures in voluntary markets [107] will require transparent governance and fair data management principles to build trust among farmers [89]. Considering Türkiye’s regional variability, flexible MRV approaches should be implemented progressively, starting with regional pilot projects and expanding toward a national system aligned with international standards [2].

Based on these considerations, a Draft Framework for Türkiye’s Carbon Farming MRV System has been proposed, summarized conceptually in Figure 2.

Although this study is grounded in Türkiye’s agroecological, institutional, and policy context, the proposed MRV and policy framework is designed around modular and transferable principles. Core elements—such as practice-based baselines, tiered MRV approaches, aggregation mechanisms to reduce transaction costs, and linkage to carbon credit markets—are not country-specific and are broadly applicable to other emerging and middle-income countries with fragmented farm structures and evolving carbon market institutions. Transferability would require country-level calibration of baseline emission factors, incentive structures, data availability, and institutional capacity, rather than a redesign of the framework itself. In this sense, the proposed approach offers a flexible template that can be adapted to diverse national contexts where agriculture plays a significant role in climate mitigation and where MRV cost, data reliability, and farmer participation remain key constraints.

4. Conclusions

This study reviews and synthesizes international and national evidence on carbon farming practices, adoption barriers, and institutional and policy contexts to inform the proposal of a Türkiye-specific MRV framework and its implementation pathways. The analysis highlights three key findings: (i) carbon farming in Türkiye has significant mitigation and adaptation potential, particularly through soil-based practices and improved livestock and manure management, yet adoption is constrained by economic, institutional, and technical barriers; (ii) scalability depends on cost-effective, regionally adapted MRV systems that reduce transaction costs and support farmer participation; and (iii) policy coherence—especially alignment with agricultural support schemes and emerging carbon market mechanisms—is essential to ensure environmental integrity and economic viability.

The successful implementation and scaling of carbon farming in Türkiye require coordinated action among policymakers, farmers, financial institutions, private sector actors, NGOs, and research institutions. These actors play complementary roles: policymakers design and coordinate regionally differentiated strategies; financial institutions and private companies enable access to finance and market linkages; NGO support awareness-raising and technical training; and universities contribute scientific research and innovation. Effective coordination across these stakeholders is critical for the long-term adoption and effectiveness of carbon farming practices. In this context, carbon farming can become both feasible and scalable through a combination of targeted subsidies, technical assistance, support programs, and carbon credit mechanisms. When coherently designed, these instruments can increase farmer participation while contributing to sustainable rural development and climate-resilient agricultural growth. The enactment of the Climate Law on 9 July 2025 (Law No. 7552) is expected to significantly increase demand for carbon farming within the agricultural sector, making the timely completion of secondary legislation and related legal and institutional arrangements—particularly those linked to carbon farming and the Turkish Emissions Trading System—essential for meeting Türkiye’s climate commitments and accelerating the transition toward sustainable agriculture. Beyond its policy relevance, this study contributes to the emerging literature on MRV-based carbon farming by providing one of the first comprehensive frameworks tailored to Türkiye’s agricultural context. While the reliance on secondary data is an inherent limitation of its review-based approach, the study bridges global methodologies with Türkiye-specific challenges and needs, offering a reference for future empirical and policy-oriented research and supporting the development of practical MRV frameworks and implementation pathways.

Future research can further strengthen and operationalize the proposed framework in several ways. Empirical studies are needed to examine farmer adoption behavior and responses to specific carbon farming practices and incentive mechanisms in Türkiye, as well as to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of different approaches across agricultural basins. Evaluations of pilot studies involving cross-sector partnerships would also provide valuable insights into institutional design, coordination mechanisms, and long-term participation. While this study offers a guiding framework and implementation pathways, further research could systematically link specific carbon farming practices with corresponding MRV indicators, monitoring methods, and data requirements. This includes the development and validation of indicator definitions, measurement and sampling protocols, data quality and verification standards, inter-institutional data flows, and cost and feasibility assessments for different applications. Advancing this research agenda will be critical for adapting MRV systems to Türkiye’s data infrastructure and institutional context and for enabling robust, scalable, and credible carbon farming implementation.