Q1. Could you start by giving us a brief overview of your professional background, particularly focusing on your expertise in the industry?

I am a development and sustainability professional with a broad background in agribusiness, rural livelihoods, climate-smart agriculture, and carbon accounting, including carbon footprint measurement and ESG-aligned programs. My experience covers designing and implementing large-scale government and donor-funded projects, as well as building partnerships that create lasting value from farmers to leadership teams. I have worked across sectors such as climate action, carbon removal, circularity, climate-smart agriculture, market-based climate solutions, nature-based solutions, agroforestry, fisheries, livestock farming, rural livelihoods, and innovative approaches like biochar and other nature-based interventions.

I have led and supported programs that engage small and marginal farmers, FPOs/FPCs, agri-startups, aggregation models, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), and public institutions to strengthen sustainable value chains, improve farm productivity, and enhance income resilience. 

Skilled in aggregation of F&V, integrated Supply Chain Management (SCM), Large Scale Contract Farming, Business Development, and Capacity Building. Techno-commercial professional with an understanding of climate-tech and fresh supply chain. 

My experience includes program management, stakeholder engagement, policy coordination, and impact measurement, with a strong priority on integrating sustainability, inclusion, and technology into agri-development and climate action initiatives.

Q2. Which Indian and global carbon-market policies are most overestimated by investors in terms of near-term credit supply—and where is policy intent running ahead of execution capacity?

In my experience, the near-term supply potential of the Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM) in India is often overestimated. While there is strong policy intent, including mechanisms like the Indian Carbon Market and the Green Credit Programme, actual execution is limited by weak enforcement, underdeveloped monitoring and verification systems, and a lack of institutional readiness.

Globally, Article 6 of the Paris Agreement is another area where expectations have outpaced reality. Despite optimism following COP28, implementation timelines stay uncertain, with bilateral agreements slowed by unresolved technical, accounting, and authorization issues.

From what I have seen, afforestation and nature-based credits show the widest gap between expectations and actual delivery. Complexities around land tenure, risks to permanence, high monitoring costs, and the need for strong social safeguards all make it difficult to issue credits at scale. In reality, I expect less than 30 percent of the projected supply to materialize by 2027, both in India and globally.

Q3. Which carbon project types in India are most mispriced today relative to durability, additionality, and reversal risk—and how is the market getting that wrong?

In my view, renewable energy credits, especially for wind and solar, are currently overpriced when considering their actual additionality. With grid parity, falling capital costs, and strong policy support, many of these projects would proceed even without carbon revenues. However, the market still tends to price them as if they are high-quality credits.

Conversely, household-level interventions, for example, improved cookstoves and biogas systems, are underpriced. Despite higher MRV complexity, these projects demonstrate strong additionality, long-term durability (7–10 years), and measurable social and health co-benefits.

In my experience, agricultural methane reduction projects represent the market’s most overlooked area. Despite carrying greater reversal risks, being highly dependent on farmer practices, and presenting significant monitoring challenges, these projects are typically priced similarly to industrial ones. Consequently, buyers favour scalability and ease over genuine climate outcomes, resulting in persistent mispricing.

Q4. What has actually worked in driving sustained farmer adoption of regenerative practices—and what consistently fails despite strong incentives? Why?

In my experience, sustained adoption of regenerative practices depends more on trust-based mechanisms than on financial incentives alone. Peer-to-peer learning, demonstration plots, and support from local champions consistently outperform top-down advisory approaches. Farmers are more likely to adopt new practices when they can see the benefits for themselves, when changes are incremental, and when these practices fit within their existing systems.

I have seen that programs often fail when they impose complex monitoring requirements, delay carbon payments, or require abrupt changes in farming practices. Most farmers work with very thin margins and cannot take on multi-year risks or navigate administrative hurdles for uncertain future returns.

The main challenge is liquidity. Regenerative agriculture needs upfront investment and patience, but most farmers are focused on maintaining consistent income. In my experience, programs that overlook this reality tend to fail, no matter how attractive the incentives may seem on paper.

Q5. If carbon prices stagnate for the next 3–5 years, which regenerative-agriculture and NbS models remain economically defensible—and which collapse without policy or buyer support?

In my view, the most economically defensible models are those that generate their own cash flows. Agroforestry systems that produce timber or fruit, integrated crop-livestock systems that boost productivity, and practices that reduce fertilizer and water costs all fall into this category. For these models, carbon revenue is an added benefit, not the main driver.

On the other hand, I have found that models such as standalone soil carbon projects, conservation-only easements, mangrove restoration without associated livelihoods, and long-gestation afforestation projects are not viable without external support. These models rely on carbon prices above 15 US dollars per ton, which is much higher than what the voluntary market currently offers.

The decisive factor is unit economics. Only projects with stacked revenue streams and near-term farmer benefits remain viable under prolonged price stagnation.

Q6. Digital MRV is often positioned as a silver bullet. In smallholder systems, how do verification costs actually scale, and at what point do projects become commercially viable without subsidies?

Digital MRV significantly reduces expenditures but does not eliminate structural constraints in smallholder systems. Even with remote sensing and AI, credible verification typically costs USD 2–5 per hectare per year when ground-truthing is included.

Because landholdings are so fragmented, aggregation is essential. In my experience, projects below 5,000 hectares are not viable due to high monitoring and transaction costs. To achieve commercial viability without subsidies, aggregation needs to exceed 10,000 hectares and carbon prices must reach 15 to 20 US dollars per ton, which is higher than current market rates.

I have seen that buyers remain cautious about purely satellite-based or blockchain-driven verification models, which means hybrid approaches are often necessary and these bring costs back in. While digital monitoring can improve efficiency by 40 to 60 percent, it does not fundamentally change the economics for smallholder projects.

Q7. If you were an investor looking at companies within the space, what critical question would you pose to their senior management?

What does your business look like at USD 5 per ton of carbon—and how do you achieve profitability without assuming price appreciation or perpetual subsidies?

Follow-ups include:

• What proportion of revenue comes from non-carbon income streams?
• How is farmer engagement sustained during multi-year payment delays?
• How concentrated is buyer risk?
• At what scale do MRV costs fall below USD 3 per hectare?

Red flags include models dependent on high future carbon prices, policy shifts, or unrealistic adoption assumptions. The strongest companies monetize productivity gains and ecosystem services today; pure carbon plays are still speculative bets rather than durable businesses.