Every company, NGO, and government program working in agriculture today faces the same question: How do we prove that what we are doing is really working?
We talk about decarbonization, soil regeneration, and sustainable sourcing, but behind all of it lies a quiet struggle: to measure, verify, and trust the data coming from the field.
The data problem no one talks about
Most sustainability programs collect data that is either incomplete, inconsistent, or disconnected from what happens on the ground.
Farmers record by hand, consultants summarize by averages, and organizations rely on outdated or fragmented systems.
The issue is not the lack of effort. It is the lack of structure.
Field data is often incompatible with international frameworks like ISO 14064, ISO 14067, or SBTi FLAG, which makes it difficult to verify or compare results across projects.
This is why so many agricultural and climate programs struggle to attract long-term financing.
Without a credible and consistent data trail, even strong projects remain invisible to investors and policymakers.
The cost of weak data
When agricultural data is weak, everyone loses.
Farmers do not get recognized for the climate benefits they create.
NGOs cannot report their impact with confidence.
Corporates cannot include verified results from the field in their sustainability reports or climate disclosures.
This slows down what we call supply-chain decarbonization, or Scope 3 for corporates, and it also limits the ability of NGOs to scale and sustain their impact.
The challenge is shared. It affects everyone working toward agricultural resilience and climate accountability.
What we are learning from the field
At Happy Ground, we have learned that data integrity starts small.
It begins with asking what can be measured consistently by farmers and how those same indicators can align with scientific and reporting frameworks.
We work with agronomists to design field templates that capture soil health, fertilizer use, and yield changes.
Each dataset is then structured to align with ISO 14064 and SBTi FLAG, creating a direct bridge between field practice and compliance-ready reporting.
The same data can then serve multiple purposes:
For farmers, it builds visibility and informed decision-making.
For NGOs, it verifies the outcomes of sustainability programs.
For corporates, it strengthens climate disclosure and accountability.
Building a shared foundation for trust
Data integrity is not about technology alone.
It is about creating a shared language that connects farmers, NGOs, and corporates around measurable progress.
If we want to scale regenerative agriculture, carbon removal, or any climate solution, we need data that can travel from field notebooks to international reports without losing its meaning.
That is what turns good projects into credible ones, and credible projects into fundable ones.
Sources
ISO 14064 (2018): Specification with guidance for greenhouse gas quantification and reporting.
ISO 14067 (2018): Guidance for carbon footprint of products.
SBTi FLAG (2023): Land-use guidance for agricultural emissions and removals.
FAO (2022): Measuring and monitoring GHG emissions from agriculture: field methodologies and data gaps.
Lehmann et al. (2021): Soil carbon monitoring frameworks for climate-smart agriculture.
