Journal of Agriculture and Ecology Research International

Agricultural carbon markets are increasingly proposed as instruments for financing greenhouse gas mitigation while supporting climate-resilient rural livelihoods. Their relevance to Northeast India is complicated by steep ecological gradients, flood-prone valleys, shifting-cultivation mosaics, community-governed forests and uneven access to measurement and market institutions. This critical narrative review examines whether locally plausible mitigation pathways can be translated into additional, durable and equitably distributed carbon credits, and distinguishes measured ecosystem carbon stocks from verifiable emission reductions or removals. Peer-reviewed studies and authoritative institutional records published up to 23 August 2026 were critically examined across agronomy, soil science, forest ecology, governance and environmental economics. Regional field studies indicate substantial variation in biomass recovery, soil carbon and agroforestry performance, but predominantly use cross-sectional comparisons or chronosequences that cannot independently establish project-level additionality. International evidence shows that sampling depth, counterfactual choice, climatic variability, leakage and reversal can materially distort credit estimates. Indian field evidence raises concerns about inclusion, payment timing and continued practice adoption. As documented in the national approved-methodology list updated in July 2026, the agriculture-specific method under the Carbon Credit Trading Scheme concerns methane recovery from livestock and manure management; it does not establish immediate eligibility for ordinary soil-carbon or upland agroforestry activities. The review proposes a tiered pathway linking locally legitimate land rights and baseline evidence to conservative monitoring, independent verification and transparent benefit-sharing. For the region, restoration and low-emission agriculture may offer genuine mitigation and adaptation gains, but creditable outcomes remain conditional on methodology eligibility, reliable counterfactuals, transaction economics and community consent. Better carbon data alone will not resolve institutional and distributive risks.