GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard

Big picture (why this matters for vineyards)

This new Standard is the first clear, globally agreed framework for how farms and food & drink value chains should measure, report and manage carbon on land — including soil carbon, biomass, and removals — in a way that stands up to scrutiny .

For vineyards, this is a big step forward because it:

• Formally recognises soil and perennial biomass as carbon sinks
• Allows carbon removals from improved land management to be reported
• Strongly supports regenerative practices

---

What’s NEW

1. Soil carbon gains can count as ‘carbon removals’ — with conditions

For the first time in a GHG Protocol standard:

• Increases in soil organic carbon and vineyard biomass can be counted as CO₂ removals, not just ’emissions avoided’
• This applies to existing agricultural land, not only land-use change

But:

• You must measure net carbon stock change (what increased minus what was lost)
• Claims must be conservative, traceable, and monitored over time

This can give empirical data to reinforce regen viticulture as a climate solution.

---

2. Clear separation between emissions, removals, and anecdotal evidence

The Standard is strict about not mixing things up:

• Soil carbon increases = removals
• Reduced tillage, cover crops, compost, grazing, etc. = management actions
• Carbon credits ≠ inventory reporting

You can:

• Report removals in your GHG inventory

You cannot:

• Automatically turn them into offset claims or credits

This protects serious producers from being undercut by weak claims.

---

3. Permanence and reversals are now front and centre

If you claim carbon removals:

• You must monitor them over time
• If carbon is later lost (e.g. soil disturbance, drought, land sale), that loss must be reported as a reversal

For vineyards this means:

• Long-lived perennial systems are a strength
• Stable regenerative systems are favoured over short-term interventions

---

4. Traceability really matters (especially for buyers of grapes/wine)

The closer you can link carbon outcomes to specific vineyards or regions, the more accurate (and valuable) the reporting:

• Best: field / parcel / block / vineyard level
• OK: defined sourcing region
• Weakest: national or global averages

This strongly incentivises:

• Parcel/block-level soil monitoring
• Long-term grower–buyer relationships
• Data sharing along the value chain

---

What the Standard is ADVISING (guidance, not hard rules)

A. Focus on stock change, not ‘practice checklists‘

The Standard does not say:

“Cover crops = X tonnes CO₂”

Instead it says:

Measure what actually changed in soil and biomass carbon.

So for regenerative viticulture:

• Cover crops, compost, reduced tillage, grazing, hedgerows only matter if they increase carbon stocks
• Practice adoption ≠ automatic climate benefit

This pushes the sector toward outcomes-based measurement, not box-ticking .

---

B. Use the best data you can — and improve over time

You’re encouraged to:

• Start with models + default factors if needed
• Move toward direct soil sampling, calibrated models, and vineyard-specific data
• Be transparent about uncertainty

This makes the system workable for small and medium producers, not just corporates.

---

C. Watch out for “carbon leakage”

If carbon gains in vineyards:

• Reduce yields significantly, or
• Push grape production elsewhere

Then the displaced production (and its land-use impact) may need to be counted as leakage.

For viticulture, this reinforces:

• The importance of maintaining productive yields
• Regeneration that supports, not undermines, long-term viability

---

Practical advice for vineyard owners & managers (simple version)

1. What to measure (minimum viable approach)

Start with:

• Baseline soil organic carbon (topsoil at least)
• Vineyard area and block boundaries
• Key management changes (cover crops, tillage, inputs, grazing)

Over time, add:

• Repeat soil sampling (same depth, same locations)
• Woody biomass where relevant (trunks, hedgerows, agroforestry)
• Yield data (to show no major displacement effect)

---

2. What practices are most aligned with the Standard

The Standard doesn’t endorse practices explicitly, but it clearly favours systems that:

• Build stable soil carbon
• Reduce disturbance
• Maintain or improve productivity
• Are long-lived and monitored

This strongly aligns with:

• Permanent cover cropping
• Reduced or no tillage
• Compost and organic amendments
• Integrated grazing
• Hedgerows, trees, and perennial ground cover

---

3. How to talk about carbon (safely)

Good language:

• “Measured increases in soil carbon stocks”
• “Reported land-management CO₂ removals in our GHG inventory”
• “Monitored annually with conservative assumptions”

Avoid:

• “Carbon neutral wine” (without full lifecycle accounting)
• “Offsets from our vineyard soils”
• One-off claims without monitoring

---

Bottom line for regenerative viticulture

This Standard is a quiet but major win for regenerative vineyard systems:

• Soil carbon sequestration is now formally recognised
• Long-term, perennial systems are rewarded
• Rigour protects credible producers
• Simple entry points exist, with a pathway to better data

It shifts the conversation from “trust us, we farm regeneratively” to
“here’s what changed in the carbon stocks, and how we know.”