Across East Africa, small-scale farmers are using proven methods to protect their soils, such as minimum tilling, intercropping, cover crops, agroforestry and biochar. These methods are helping them adapt to climate pressures while improving productivity. Yet, for many farmers, carbon markets remain distant and uncertain.
Despite progress, prices remain insufficient to support a viable business model, verification systems are complex and resource-intensive and payments come one to two years later, long after farmers have done the work. For small-scale farmers already navigating climate pressures, production and market volatility, and evolving sustainability requirements, these factors make their participation in carbon markets both promising and challenging.
Over the past five years, our collaboration with small-scale farmers has helped us to gain a more nuanced understanding of the conditions under which carbon farming can be viable, fair and accessible. Through our National Postcode Lottery-funded Climate Heroes project, engaging 50,000 small-scale coffee farmers in Kenya and Uganda, and earlier pilots with Rabobank, we have seen firsthand both the opportunities and the obstacles.
Evidence from our work points to a key insight: carbon farming can deliver meaningful impact when models are structured around farmers’ needs, capacities and incentives, not exclusively around markets. So, what have we learned?
Carbon income alone cannot sustain small-scale farmers
When we began our pilot in Uganda in 2020, 1,104 small-scale coffee farmers practicing agroforestry collectively sequestered around 1,771 tonnes of CO₂. At a payment rate of €21.50 per tonne, it generated meaningful but modest returns; helpful, but not transformative.
The real value lay elsewhere. Agroforestry improved soil moisture, stabilized yields, provided shade and diversified incomes. Coffee yields for some of our target farmers increased by up to 30%, creating lasting benefits that outlived the carbon payment cycles.
“I have planted bluegrass to curb soil erosion during rainy seasons. During dry seasons, I use maize plant residue and tree leaves—Cordia Africana, and fig trees—to mulch the coffee to conserve soil moisture. All these practices combined are geared towards improving our farm’s resilience to climate change and ultimately improving my farm’s productivity.”
Beverlyne Rasoa Mbirira (30), a young coffee farmer from Trans Nzoia County, Kenya
This experience reinforces an important principle: carbon farming should strengthen existing production systems. Carbon payments should be complementary, not central, to our small-scale farmers’ business model.
Clear communication builds trust
Clear and consistent communication with small-scale farmers has proven just as important as the technical design and delivery of our carbon farming initiatives. The inherent nature of carbon markets is complex. Without shared understanding among all stakeholders, mistrust can surface and derail even the best initiatives. Early in our work, we learned that investing resources in clear, consistent communication and accessible dialogue with farmers was non-negotiable.
Through farmer councils and grievance channels, we built spaces where farmers could ask questions, clarify timelines and raise their concerns openly. These platforms have proved instrumental in curbing misinformation and sustaining confidence. This was especially useful in moments when the verification and credit issuance processes extended payment timelines or some farmers fell short of the one-CRU requirement for payment disbursement.
Transparency and honesty about the nature of carbon markets, especially around pricing, payment conditions and timelines, are crucial. When expectations are realistic, trust is maintained; when they are not, it erodes quickly.
Financing early stages remains a structural challenge
Carbon farming requires upfront investments in seedlings, training, data collection, sensitization and ongoing monitoring. These costs are borne long before farmers see any ecological or financial returns, making the timing and investment critical factors in whether they adopt and sustain carbon farming practices.
“Establishing ideal agroforestry systems costs about €175 per farmer in the first three years, with recurrent maintenance costs ranging from €16 to €30 annually. Without early financing, very few farmers would participate, regardless of how promising the long-term benefits may be.”
Christopher Amodo, Project Manager, Climate Heroes project.
While we were able to secure limited pre-financing, enabling 26,400 farmers out of 33,300 applicants in Kenya and Uganda (2024/25) to receive pre-financing in the form of tree and fruit seedlings, this remains the exception, not the norm. If small-scale carbon farming is to succeed, financing models need to provide upfront investment and recognize that benefits, both financial and ecological, take time to mature.
Long-term relationships matter in short-term projects
Carbon projects are designed for the long term, with contracts often spanning 15–20 years, far beyond typical development funding cycles.
In our case, we leveraged our long-standing work in coffee, relationships that predated our carbon farming initiatives. Existing ties with cooperatives, farmer leaders and community groups provided a foundation of trust that has made engagement possible.
“Our partnership with Solidaridad has strengthened farmer livelihoods, enhanced environmental sustainability, and positioned Ndugu Coffee more competitively in global markets through climate-smart agriculture and carbon market integration,” shares Mr. Agume Bless, Operations Director at Ndugu Coffee.
“At the outset, the Climate Heroes project was difficult to understand, particularly the carbon trading component. However, through trainings and sensitization led by Solidaridad, Ndugu Coffee farmers have become more climate-resilient, achieving improved yields and increased adoption of agroforestry practices.”
He goes on to share that “more than 500 farmers have now received payments for the carbon stored on their farms, providing a new revenue stream. For its part, the project council, serving as the community’s governance and accountability structure, plays a central role in capturing farmers’ perspectives and guiding key implementation decisions.
The lesson is simple: relationships and local institutions are the real infrastructure of carbon projects.
Local capacity is essential for lasting impact
Carbon farming brings new technical demands: data collection, verification and reporting. At the start, these requirements felt overwhelming for both our field teams and local partners.
We responded by investing in capacity development, training local staff in carbon project management, establishing digital data systems and supporting cooperatives to track performance.
Over time, we saw farmers and TOTs/lead farmers take greater ownership of monitoring and record-keeping. This shift from dependency to self-reliance is crucial. Projects last only as long as the capacity built to sustain them. Our Training of Trainers (ToT) approach has also proved invaluable. By equipping cooperative leaders to train and mentor farmers, information and motivation continue to flow even after project cycles end. Cooperatives will also take an active role in coordinating project councils, distributing agroforestry seedlings, disseminating best practices and supporting payment-related processes.
Scaling requires coordination, not just replication
Expanding from a 1,000-farmer pilot to 50,000 revealed a new set of challenges: data consistency, equitable benefit-sharing and maintaining quality across diverse geographies.
We learned that scaling is less about replication and more about coordination. Partnerships with governments, agricultural extension systems and private sector actors helped us integrate carbon farming into existing value chains and policy frameworks.
This collaborative approach is helping ensure that scaling does not come at the cost of quality or equity.
Inclusion strengthens outcomes
Women play a central role in East Africa’s agriculture, yet land insecurity and social norms often limit their participation in carbon initiatives.
Security of land tenure has posed a challenge for women farmers. Land is largely owned by men, which limits the number of women who can directly be engaged in carbon farming.
“Much as the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) forms are signed by household members, when payment starts flowing, the men tend to dominate the decision-making as landowners on whose land the enterprises are located. Women largely depend on co-benefits (firewood from wood stacks), while men take the lion’s share of the financial benefits.”
Land Care Network, a key informant
To address this, we adapted our approach, engaging both spouses in project enrollment, tailoring training schedules to women’s availability and supporting inclusive community leadership structures. These adjustments led to higher women’s participation and greater household-level adoption of agroforestry practices.
The takeaway is clear: gender equity strengthens both social and environmental outcomes.
A shared path forward
The experience of Solidaridad and its partners underscores an important reality: there is no single blueprint for small-scale carbon farming. Success depends on context, trust and a willingness to adapt.
- For development partners, it means designing projects that are transparent and responsive.
- For donors and investors, it means funding early-stage costs and rewarding co-benefits beyond carbon.
- For policymakers, it means creating clear and fair frameworks that protect small-scale farmers and encourage innovation.
Designing for People and Planet
Carbon markets are evolving rapidly, and so must our approaches. Carbon farming has the potential to deliver a double dividend: reducing emissions while strengthening rural livelihoods. But realizing that potential requires a shift from viewing small-scale farmers as credit suppliers to seeing them as equal partners in climate action.
At Solidaridad, our work continues to evolve alongside our learning. We remain convinced that carbon farming, when approached with transparency, inclusion and investment, can become a powerful tool for both adaptation and mitigation.
Looking ahead, our new strategy builds on these lessons. We aim to strengthen farmer agency, institutionalize equitable practices and invest in systems that facilitate participation and fairly value the climate contributions of small-scale farmers. The question is no longer whether farmers can engage—they already are—but whether carbon markets can evolve to sustain their participation, reward their efforts and maximize both climate and livelihood outcomes.