Disputes In India’S Agroforestry Carbon Credit Generation Ecosystems. Detailed Explanation With Case Laws
1. Introduction: Agroforestry Carbon Credit Ecosystems
Agroforestry carbon credit generation involves integrating tree cultivation within agricultural lands to sequester carbon and earn carbon credits under voluntary or compliance carbon markets. Key components include:
Plantation and maintenance of trees alongside crops
Monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) of carbon sequestration
Certification under standards like Verra, Gold Standard, or national schemes
Contracts with project developers, aggregators, and buyers of carbon credits
Disputes typically arise due to:
Shortfall in carbon sequestration or MRV discrepancies
Delay in planting or project implementation
Breach of contract regarding land use or maintenance obligations
Payment disputes or failure to deliver carbon credits
Intellectual property disputes related to monitoring technologies
Misrepresentation or fraud in certification claims
2. Legal Framework Governing Arbitration
Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
Disputes are arbitrable if they involve rights in personam arising from commercial or contractual obligations
Non-arbitrable matters include statutory enforcement, criminal liability, and public law functions
Carbon credit projects are primarily commercial and technical, making disputes suitable for arbitration
Cross-border carbon credit transactions may additionally require arbitration clauses specifying:
Governing law
Arbitration seat (e.g., India or neutral jurisdiction)
Arbitration rules (e.g., ICC, SIAC, UNCITRAL)
3. Arbitrable vs Non-Arbitrable Issues
3.1 Arbitrable
Breach of service agreements with project developers or aggregators
Failure to achieve MRV targets or submit verification reports
Payment and milestone disputes
Intellectual property conflicts over monitoring or remote-sensing technologies
Misrepresentation or contractual fraud in carbon sequestration claims
3.2 Non-Arbitrable
Regulatory enforcement under environmental laws
Criminal liability for fraud, misreporting, or land-use violations
Public authority penalties for statutory non-compliance
Contractual consequences of regulatory actions, if provided in agreements, remain arbitrable.
4. Tribunal Approach in Agroforestry Carbon Credit Disputes
Tribunals generally:
Examine contracts, MRV protocols, and certification reports
Evaluate technical expert evidence on carbon sequestration, soil health, and growth rates
Consider project delays, weather-related risks, and change-in-law clauses
Apply reasonable-care and best-efforts standards, not absolute guarantees of carbon sequestration
Tribunals focus on commercial obligations, technical compliance, and contractual performance, rather than regulatory enforcement.
5. Key Case Laws Supporting Arbitration
5.1 Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation (2020)
Principle: Private contractual disputes are arbitrable.
Relevance: Contracts for agroforestry carbon credit generation are private commercial agreements.
5.2 Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. (2011)
Principle: Only rights in rem or exclusive statutory remedies are non-arbitrable.
Relevance: MRV and payment disputes are rights in personam.
5.3 A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam (2016)
Principle: Allegations of fraud do not automatically bar arbitration.
Relevance: Disputes alleging misrepresentation in carbon sequestration data remain arbitrable if contractual.
5.4 NHAI v. ITD Cementation India Ltd. (2015)
Principle: Public-private infrastructure contracts are arbitrable.
Relevance: Large-scale agroforestry carbon credit projects resemble PPP-style agreements.
5.5 McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. (2006)
Principle: Tribunals are final arbiters of technical and factual matters.
Relevance: Expert evaluation of carbon measurement, remote sensing, and growth rates is suitable for tribunals.
5.6 ONGC Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003)
Principle: Judicial interference is limited to patent illegality or public policy violations.
Relevance: Tribunal awards on agroforestry carbon credit disputes are generally upheld.
5.7 Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. v. DMRC (2022)
Principle: Courts defer to tribunal findings on complex technical matters.
Relevance: Determining MRV accuracy and project compliance is a technical evaluation best handled by arbitrators.
6. Interaction with Regulatory Framework
Agroforestry carbon credit projects operate under:
Environment protection and forestry laws
State or national agroforestry and carbon credit schemes
Certification standards (Voluntary or Compliance Market Standards)
Tribunals:
Do not adjudicate statutory penalties
May consider change-in-law clauses affecting carbon credit delivery
Allocate contractual risk arising from regulatory or certification delays
7. Remedies Typically Awarded
Tribunals may grant:
Damages for breach of MRV, performance, or SLA obligations
Fee adjustments or milestone penalties
Declaratory relief on IP or monitoring technology ownership
Indemnity for third-party losses if contractually agreed
Directions for project remediation or re-certification
8. Conclusion
Disputes arising from India’s Agroforestry Carbon Credit Generation Ecosystems are largely arbitrable because:
They involve private, commercial, and technical contracts
Rights are in personam
Tribunals have expertise to assess technical MRV and carbon credit compliance
Judicial intervention is limited to patent illegality or public policy violations
Arbitration enables efficient resolution, encourages adoption of carbon credit projects, and maintains contractual and environmental accountability.
RELATED Blog
comments