IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v165y2026ics0264837726000803.html

Funding models for scaling soil health: Assessing the economic viability and inclusiveness of carbon farming projects in Kenya

Author

Listed:
  • Schilling, Friederike

Abstract

Attracting private-sector investment in agriculture is crucial for scaling soil health and climate action, and sustainably transforming food systems. This study explores carbon farming projects under the voluntary carbon market and classifies them according to their source and conditions of finance. The analysis assesses how the resulting carbon farming funding models shape the economic viability and inclusiveness of carbon farming projects. Drawing on evidence from twelve projects in Kenya, four distinct funding models are identified: (1) donor-financed, (2) investor-financed with forward purchase agreements (FPAs), (3) private-sector led with equity financing, and (4) buyer-led. The comparative assessment reveals that while the donor-financed model supports initial project piloting and emphasizes community benefits, it risks donor dependence and high project costs. The investor-financed model provides stable funding but restricts potential future gains. The private-sector model offers marketing flexibility yet faces financial risks, while the buyer-led model centralizes power with investors, potentially undermining equitable benefit-sharing for farmers. Across all models, four cross-cutting insights emerge: (i) the terms of investment critically shape the distribution of risks and rewards; (ii) achieving scale early and reinvesting profits is key to economic viability; (iii) transparency in cost and revenue accounting underpins fair benefit-sharing; and (iv) reducing reliance on international intermediaries by empowering farmer-based organizations is essential for inclusive governance. These findings provide valuable insights into the operationalization of viable smallholder carbon farming projects for project developers, financers, and policymakers in Africa and beyond.

Suggested Citation

  • Schilling, Friederike, 2026. "Funding models for scaling soil health: Assessing the economic viability and inclusiveness of carbon farming projects in Kenya," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:165:y:2026:i:c:s0264837726000803
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2026.107996
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837726000803
    Download Restriction: Full text may be restricted for ScienceDirect subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2026.107996?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wytske Chamberlain & Ward Anseeuw, 2019. "Inclusive businesses in agriculture: Defining the concept and its complex and evolving partnership structures in the field," Post-Print hal-05173745, HAL.
    2. Bredemeier, Birte & Herrmann, Sylvia & Sattler, Claudia & Prager, Katrin & van Bussel, Lenny G.J. & Rex, Julia, 2022. "Insights into innovative contract design to improve the integration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    3. Sonja Vermeulen & Deborah Bossio & Johannes Lehmann & Paul Luu & Keith Paustian & Christopher Webb & Flore Augé & Imelda Bacudo & Tobias Baedeker & Tanja Havemann & Ceris Jones & Richard King & Matthe, 2019. "A global agenda for collective action on soil carbon," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 2(1), pages 2-4, January.
    4. Schoneveld, George C., 2022. "Transforming food systems through inclusive agribusiness," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    5. Sattler, Claudia & Trampnau, Susanne & Schomers, Sarah & Meyer, Claas & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: How do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 31-45.
    6. Mechthild Donner & Hugo de Vries, 2021. "How to innovate business models for a circular bio‐economy?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 1932-1947, May.
    7. Markus Giger & Emily Mutea & Boniface Kiteme & Sandra Eckert & Ward Anseeuw & Julie G. Zaehringer, 2020. "Large agricultural investments in Kenya's Nanyuki Area: Inventory and analysis of business models," Post-Print hal-05176714, HAL.
    8. Kragt, M.E. & Gibson, F.L. & Maseyk, F. & Wilson, K.A., 2016. "Public willingness to pay for carbon farming and its co-benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 125-131.
    9. Pagiola, Stefano & Arcenas, Agustin & Platais, Gunars, 2005. "Can Payments for Environmental Services Help Reduce Poverty? An Exploration of the Issues and the Evidence to Date from Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 237-253, February.
    10. Raphael Amit & Christoph Zott, 2001. "Value creation in E‐business," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(6‐7), pages 493-520, June.
    11. Schoneveld, George C. & Weng, Xiaoxue, 2023. "Smallholder value creation in agrifood chains: Value network approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    12. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    13. World Bank & Kenya Private Sector Alliance, 2024. "A Carbon Market Guidebook for Kenyan Enterprises," World Bank Publications - Reports 41384, The World Bank Group.
    14. Joachim von Braun & Kaosar Afsana & Louise O. Fresco & Mohamed Hassan, 2021. "Food systems: seven priorities to end hunger and protect the planet," Nature, Nature, vol. 597(7874), pages 28-30, September.
    15. Chamberlain, Wytske & Anseeuw, Ward, 2019. "Inclusive businesses in agriculture: Defining the concept and its complex and evolving partnership structures in the field," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 308-322.
    16. Oberlack, Christoph & Blare, Trent & Zambrino, Luca & Bruelisauer, Samuel & Solar, Jimena & Villar, Gesabel & Thomas, Evert & Ramírez, Marleni, 2023. "With and beyond sustainability certification: Exploring inclusive business and solidarity economy strategies in Peru and Switzerland," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    17. Grieg-Gran, Maryanne & Porras, Ina & Wunder, Sven, 2005. "How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1511-1527, September.
    18. Cacho, Oscar J. & Lipper, Leslie & Moss, Jonathan, 2013. "Transaction costs of carbon offset projects: A comparative study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 232-243.
    19. Giger, Markus & Mutea, Emily & Kiteme, Boniface & Eckert, Sandra & Anseeuw, Ward & Zaehringer, Julie G., 2020. "Large agricultural investments in Kenya’s Nanyuki Area: Inventory and analysis of business models," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    20. Wunder, Sven & Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 834-852, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ola, Oreoluwa & Menapace, Luisa & Benjamin, Emmanuel & Lang, Hannes, 2019. "Determinants of the environmental conservation and poverty alleviation objectives of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 52-66.
    2. Brownson, Katherine & Guinessey, Elizabeth & Carranza, Marcia & Esquivel, Manrique & Hesselbach, Hilda & Madrid Ramirez, Lucia & Villa, Luis, 2019. "Community-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services (CB-PES): Implications of community involvement for program outcomes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    3. Kumar, Pushpam & Kumar, Manasi & Garrett, Lucy, 2014. "Behavioural foundation of response policies for ecosystem management: What can we learn from Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 128-136.
    4. Bruelisauer, Samuel & Villar, Gesabel & Oberlack, Christoph, 2026. "Sustainability governance diversifies: unpacking private-sector governance strategies in coffee and cocoa value chains," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    5. Ina, Porras & Bruce, Alyward & Jeff, Dengel, 2013. "Monitoring payments for watershed services schemes in developing countries," MPRA Paper 47185, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Driss Ezzine-de-Blas & Sven Wunder & Manuel Ruiz-Pérez & Rocio del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez, 2016. "Global Patterns in the Implementation of Payments for Environmental Services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, March.
    7. George A Dyer & Robin Matthews & Patrick Meyfroidt, 2012. "Is There an Ideal REDD+ Program? An Analysis of Policy Trade-Offs at the Local Level," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-12, December.
    8. Hao Wang & Sander Meijerink & Erwin van der Krabben, 2020. "Institutional Design and Performance of Markets for Watershed Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-26, August.
    9. Campanhão, Ligia Maria Barrios & Ranieri, Victor Eduardo Lima, 2019. "Guideline framework for effective targeting of payments for watershed services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 93-109.
    10. Liu, Zhaoyang & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2018. "Meta-Analysis of Livelihood Impacts of Payments for Environmental Services Programmes in Developing Countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 48-61.
    11. Neitzel, K. Christoph & Caro-Borrero, Angela Piedad & Revollo-Fernandez, Daniel & Aguilar-Ibarra, Alonso & Ramos, Alya & Almeida-Leñero, Lucia, 2014. "Paying for environmental services: Determining recognized participation under common property in a peri-urban context," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 46-55.
    12. García-Amado, Luis Rico & Pérez, Manuel Ruiz & Escutia, Felipe Reyes & García, Sara Barrasa & Mejía, Elsa Contreras, 2011. "Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services: Equity and additionality in a case study from a Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas, Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2361-2368.
    13. Bremer, Leah L. & Farley, Kathleen A. & Lopez-Carr, David & Romero, José, 2014. "Conservation and livelihood outcomes of payment for ecosystem services in the Ecuadorian Andes: What is the potential for ‘win–win’?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 148-165.
    14. Bedelian, Claire & Ogutu, Joseph O. & Homewood, Katherine & Keane, Aidan, 2024. "Evaluating the determinants of participation in conservancy land leases and its impacts on household wealth in the Maasai Mara, Kenya: Equity and gender implications," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    15. Wang, Pu & Poe, Gregory L. & Wolf, Steven A., 2017. "Payments for Ecosystem Services and Wealth Distribution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 63-68.
    16. Diswandi, Diswandi, 2017. "A hybrid Coasean and Pigouvian approach to Payment for Ecosystem Services Program in West Lombok: Does it contribute to poverty alleviation?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 138-145.
    17. Jespersen, Kristjan & Gallemore, Caleb, 2018. "The Institutional Work of Payments for Ecosystem Services: Why the Mundane Should Matter," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 507-519.
    18. Narloch, Ulf & Drucker, Adam G. & Pascual, Unai, 2011. "Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services for sustained on-farm utilization of plant and animal genetic resources," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1837-1845, September.
    19. Lliso, Bosco & Pascual, Unai & Engel, Stefanie, 2021. "On the role of social equity in payments for ecosystem services in Latin America: A practitioner perspective," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    20. Teo Dang Do & Anchana NaRanong, 2019. "Livelihood and Environmental Impacts of Payments for Forest Environmental Services: A Case Study in Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-22, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:165:y:2026:i:c:s0264837726000803. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.