Woodland Carbon & Peatland Codes
Carbon Codes: Questions Answered
Straight answers to the questions people actually ask.
Including the awkward ones. If something is a genuine limitation of the module we would rather say so here than let it be discovered later.
Questions answered
What people ask about Carbon Codes
Does this replace the software I already use?
Not necessarily. Agrivencia integrates with authoritative sources and mainstream packages rather than insisting on replacing them. Where an incumbent does one job well, the platform connects to it; where the job spans several systems and nobody does it, the platform does it.
Will it work where I have no signal?
Yes. Field capture in Carbon Codes is offline first, storing locally and synchronising when a connection returns. Only around a fifth of UK farms report reliable signal across the whole holding, so this is a design assumption rather than a feature.
What happens when the scheme rules change?
Scheme rules are held as data rather than code, so a rate change, a cap change or a window closure is a content update that takes effect the same day. The platform also alerts you to what the change does to your own position.
Who owns the data I put in?
You do. The Farm Data Charter gives you a complete export in open formats at any time, and every instance of data sharing requires an explicit, revocable consent that is visible in your account.
Does it work if I farm across a border?
Yes, and that is one of the main reasons the platform exists. A business with land in more than one nation sees one reconciled view rather than two portals, with obligations and deadlines from both administrations in a single calendar.
Can my agronomist or land agent use it too?
Yes. You grant scoped, time-limited access per holding and per module, and you can revoke it in one click. Advisers never get a shared password or a blanket view.
What is the biggest limitation of this module?
Pending units mistaken for saleable inventory. Mitigated by explicit separation in every view. We would rather state that plainly than let you discover it after signing.
Everything included
The full capability list, grouped
Record and plan3
- Project eligibility assessment against code requirements including additionality
- Project registration and documentation assembly
- Validation process management with validator coordination
Operate and monitor3
- Carbon sequestration modelling by species, yield class and management
- Pending Issuance Unit and verified unit position tracking, clearly distinguished
- Monitoring schedule with field survey and evidence capture
Comply and evidence3
- Verification event management and unit issuance recording
- UK Land Carbon Registry position reconciliation
- Price benchmarking against disclosed transaction data with caveats stated
Analyse and improve3
- Buyer matching and sale process management
- Permanence, reversal and buffer pool obligation tracking
- Stacking assessment against public scheme payments and biodiversity units
Detail
The short version
The UK carbon codes are credible, standardised and widely misunderstood, principally because the pipeline of pending units dwarfs the number actually verified. This module manages project registration, validation, monitoring and verification, shows the true unit position, and provides the price benchmarking and buyer matching that make a sale possible on informed terms.
On interim data the Woodland Carbon Code recorded 907 validated projects across 45,467 hectares carrying around 14.17 million Pending Issuance Units but only about 12,700 verified Woodland Carbon Units, because most projects are too young to have sequestered measurable carbon. The Peatland Code recorded 408 registered projects covering 58,860 hectares. Average prices — £28.32 for woodland and £39.57 for peatland units in 2025 — rest on voluntary disclosure and, in the peatland case, are skewed by a small number of large transactions.
Everything Carbon Codes records is written into the same platform data spine as every other module, which is why a single entry can satisfy an operational need, a scheme evidence requirement, an assurance clause and a carbon activity line at once. That is the whole design premise: the work is already being done, and it is the recording of it that is duplicated.
How we handle evidence
Where these figures come from
Agrivencia grades every figure it publishes. Primary legislation, official statistics and audit reports are treated as authoritative. Levy body and professional body data is treated as reliable. Commercial trackers and trade press are treated as indicative and labelled as such. Where sources conflict, the conflict is shown rather than resolved silently.
- Authoritative Legislation, statutory instruments, official scheme rules, national audit and public accounts reporting, departmental annual reports and accredited official statistics.
- Reliable Parliamentary committee evidence, peer-reviewed research, independent economic institutes and levy body analysis.
- Supporting Professional bodies, land agents, certification schemes and industry associations.
- Indicative Commercial market trackers and trade press, used for corroboration only and always labelled.
Payment rates, caps and windows in UK farm support change frequently and sometimes without notice. Nothing on this platform is a substitute for the current published scheme rules or for professional advice.
Free download
Pending Versus Verified: What a UK Carbon Code Project Is Actually Worth
A practical handbook, written for UK farm businesses, with the sources cited and the working shown. No sales call attached — the guide is the point.
See Carbon Codes running on your own holding
Thirty minutes, using your parcels, your schemes and your enterprises rather than a sample farm. No obligation and no sales script — if it does not fit your business we will say so.
- Free tier available
- No card required
- Your data stays yours