MRV Approaches in Rice Projects: Trade-offs as You Scale
As rice carbon projects move from pilots to larger programmes, monitoring & verification increasingly determines whether a project remains viable. What begins as a technical requirement often becomes one of the main operational and cost bottlenecks. Understanding how different monitoring approaches work in practice is therefore critical for developers, implementers, and buyers navigating scale.
3 monitoring approaches in rice projects
Most rice projects today fall into one of three broad monitoring archetypes:
-
Traditional monitoring relies on periodic field visits, paper or spreadsheet-based logbooks, and photo evidence collected by field teams. Data is typically gathered at set points in the season, verified through manual checks, and consolidated for reporting.
-
Digital MRV (dMRV) moves these workflows into software platforms. Logbooks, photos, and activity records are digitised, improving organisation and auditability. However, the underlying data still depends largely on farmer self-reported information and photos.
-
dMRV with remote sensing introduces remote observation into the process. Satellite data is used to monitor observable practices such as flooding and drainage over time, triangulated with field data where direct observation is not possible, reducing reliance on self-reported data and field visits, and enabling consistent coverage across large areas.
Accuracy trade-offs
In rice systems, accuracy in monitoring is driven less by the care taken during data collection and more by when and how often practices are observed. Water management can change rapidly within a season, and methane emissions are highly sensitive to the timing of flooding and drainage events. This creates a structural challenge for MRV approaches that rely on periodic observation. Different MRV designs address this challenge in different ways, each with distinct trade-offs in confidence, assumptions, and evidentiary strength.
-
Traditional MRV - High confidence at the moment of field visits, but limited visibility between visits. Changes in practices that occur outside scheduled monitoring are not directly observed, requiring assumptions to fill temporal gaps in emissions estimation.
-
DMRV - Improves data management, traceability, and audit trails while reducing administrative errors. However, if evidence is still collected at fixed intervals, temporal gaps remain, and assumptions about practice timing are still required.
-
DMRV with remote sensing - Increases temporal coverage by enabling more frequent observation of key, observable practices such as flooding and drainage. This reduces reliance on assumptions around timing, while field data is used to capture non-observable inputs where satellites cannot provide insight.
Scalability & cost trade-offs
As rice carbon projects scale, monitoring design directly shapes both cost behaviour and operational feasibility. Different MRV approaches do not just differ in price, they differ in how costs grow as hectare coverage increases.
Operational costs (e.g. digitisation, QAQC, field visits, staff co-ordination) that are manageable on a small scale can become non-viable when projects grow, if there is limited ability to secure any kind of economies of scale. This dynamic is largely fueling the drive towards dMRV platforms in rice projects.
Beyond operational costs, the economics of adding remote sensing capabilities to a project are uniquely complex. Detecting water management practices accurately requires tasked (paid) imagery. This means that there are more up-front costs, but fewer marginal costs for hectares enrolled within the scope of a single imaging area. This means the economics look very different for small (<1500 ha), and geographically sparse projects - compared to larger, geographically dense projects.
- Traditional MRV - Relies heavily on field visits, manual evidence collection, and staff coordination. As projects expand, monitoring costs increase roughly in proportion to area covered. More hectares require more people, more travel, more photos, and more QA/QC effort, making large-scale deployment increasingly resource-intensive and difficult to sustain.
- DMRV - Improves efficiency by digitising workflows, reducing administrative overhead, and embedding basic quality checks into data collection. While this lowers cost per hectare compared to fully manual systems, scalability remains constrained because field visits and manual inputs still scale with project size.
-
DMRV with remote sensing - Shifts the cost structure. Satellite-based monitoring introduces higher fixed costs upfront, but significantly lowers marginal costs as projects expand. Additional hectares can be monitored with minimal incremental effort, allowing cost per hectare to decrease as scale increases and making large-area programmes economically viable
What is the best approach?
Scaling MRV is less about identifying a single “perfect” solution and more about deciding where complexity should sit within a project.
-
Traditional monitoring places most complexity in field operations. Coordination of field teams, supervision, evidence handling, and manual QA/QC all intensify as projects grow, increasing operational risk and cost.
-
DMRV reduces administrative friction by improving workflows and auditability. However, when evidence remains largely self-reported, project teams often still carry the burden of reconciling gaps and inconsistencies during validation and verification.
-
Combining dMRV with remote sensing shifts complexity upstream into the monitoring system itself. This approach demands robust methods, validation, uncertainty reporting, justifiable coverage and clear documentation so outputs are interpretable by a VVB.
The practical implication is that MRV design is a strategic decision, not a technical afterthought. Teams effectively trade operational complexity for system and documentation complexity, and these trade-offs become more consequential as projects move beyond pilot scale. There is no universal solution. Local cultivation conditions, implementation capacity, and verification expectations all shape what is feasible, while investors and offtakers increasingly arrive with explicit requirements around MRV rigor and technology choices.
In practice, the right MRV approach is the one that aligns local farming realities with verification and buyer expectations at the scale a project intends to reach. Understanding how MRV dynamics change as projects expand helps teams choose approaches that remain robust, credible, and supportable over time.
At CarbonFarm, we support rice projects using a combined digital MRV and satellite monitoring approach that enables triangulation between independent remote observations and field data. This design improves integrity, supports scalable monitoring, and reduces reliance on manual reporting as projects grow. Organisations interested in developing rice projects or strengthening their monitoring and verification frameworks are invited to contact info@carbonfarm.tech to learn more.