From Residue to Removal: Rethinking Integrity in Biochar Carbon Credits

CBEA Members during the Monthly call

The April 2026 CBEA Monthly Call brought together practitioners, developers, and thought leaders across the circular bioeconomy space for a deep dive into one of the most critical—and often misunderstood—concepts in carbon markets: additionality.

Led by Charles Waweru, Director of Carbon Project Development at Verst Carbon and a CBEA member, the session explored the theme: “From Residue to Removal: Additionality and the Integrity of Biochar Carbon Credits.”

What emerged was not just a technical discussion, but a necessary reframing of how Africa’s growing biochar sector must position itself in a rapidly evolving global carbon market.

At the heart of the presentation was a simple but uncompromising principle: a carbon credit only exists if the removal would not occur without carbon finance. This is the essence of additionality—the gatekeeper of credibility in carbon markets. Biochar projects, especially in Africa, often tell compelling stories. Agricultural residues are transformed into valuable inputs, soils are restored, and carbon is durably stored. Yet, as Charles emphasized, a compelling sustainability narrative is not enough. Carbon markets operate on far stricter terms. For any project to generate carbon credits, it must successfully pass three non-negotiable stages: additionality, verification, and issuance. If any one of these fails, the entire credit collapses. There is no partial recognition for good intentions or strong narratives—only rigor and proof.

Bridging Two Worlds: Circular Economy vs Carbon Markets

One of the most striking insights from the session was the clear distinction between circular economy value creation and carbon market eligibility. Within the circular economy, biochar presents a powerful win-win solution—waste is transformed into value, soils are improved, and environmental benefits are evident. However, carbon markets operate on a fundamentally different question. It is not about whether a solution is beneficial, but whether it would happen anyway without carbon finance. This distinction creates both a tension and a responsibility for project developers. It is no longer enough to design projects that deliver impact; they must also demonstrate causality. Developers must bridge these two worlds by proving that carbon finance is the decisive factor enabling the activity to occur.

The Four Tests That Define Additionality

To assess this, Charles outlined the four classical tests used across carbon standards, each acting as a filter for credibility. The regulatory test examines whether the activity is already required by law; if it is, additionality typically fails. However, in contexts where enforcement is weak, projects may still demonstrate additionality by providing evidence that the regulation is not effectively implemented.

The financial test focuses on whether the project is viable without carbon revenue, often assessed through Internal Rate of Return (IRR) analysis. This places significant importance on strong financial modeling. The barriers test considers whether non-financial challenges—such as limited access to technology, regulatory hurdles, or lack of technical knowledge—would prevent implementation without carbon finance. Even if a project appears financially viable, these barriers can still justify additionality.

Finally, the common practice test evaluates whether the activity is already widespread. If it is common, it is unlikely to be additional. However, in many African contexts where practices like residue burning remain dominant, transitioning to biochar production can still clearly pass this test.

Why Biochar Makes Additionality More Complex

Unlike many carbon removal pathways, biochar operates at a complex intersection of technology, markets, and policy. One of its defining characteristics is the presence of multiple revenue streams. Projects can generate income from energy produced through pyrolysis, the sale of biochar products for various applications, and carbon credits. This creates a nuanced challenge: the same project can appear additional or non-additional depending on how these revenue streams are valued and modeled.

Adding to this complexity is the wide diversity of technologies used in biochar production, ranging from traditional kilns to advanced industrial systems. This variation makes benchmarking difficult, particularly when determining what qualifies as common practice. Regulatory overlap further complicates the landscape, as biochar projects often fall under waste management, agricultural policy, and climate frameworks simultaneously. A project may pass additionality under one regulatory lens but fail under another, making comprehensive regulatory mapping essential.

A Fragmented Standards Landscape

The session also highlighted how different carbon standards approach additionality in varied ways. Verra carbon registry applies a structured, stepwise testing approach, while Puro. Earth emphasizes financial additionality and regulatory surplus. Isometric introduces strong thresholds around common practice and incorporates technology readiness considerations, whereas Riverse offers simplified pathways for carbon-first business models. Global Biochar Systems takes a distinct approach by focusing on feedstock integrity and the risk of displacing existing carbon storage functions. The key takeaway is clear: there is no universal standard that fits all projects. Developers must carefully align their project design with the logic and requirements of the chosen methodology.

Integrity Is the New Currency

Beyond individual standards, the discussion pointed to a broader shift in the carbon market landscape. With the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) introducing Core Carbon Principles, expectations around quality and credibility are rising. There is increasing emphasis on stronger additionality, more robust baselines, and greater transparency. For biochar projects, this means heightened scrutiny—but also opportunity. High-integrity projects are likely to command stronger trust and potentially higher value in the market.

What This Means for Africa’s Circularity Ecosystem

For CBEA members, the wider CBEN network, and circularity practitioners across Africa and beyond, the implications are both strategic and urgent. Success in carbon markets will depend on being intentional about additionality from the outset, investing in financial and technical capacity, carefully selecting appropriate feedstocks, and rigorously documenting all aspects of project design and impact.

More broadly, this is a call to action for everyone working within the circular economy space. As interest in carbon finance grows, practitioners must move beyond impact narratives alone and engage deeply with the technical and financial requirements that define credible carbon removals. This includes understanding carbon accounting methodologies, aligning business models with standard-specific requirements, and preparing for increasing levels of scrutiny from investors and verification bodies.

Ultimately, the most important shift is conceptual. Carbon credits are not a reward for doing good; they are proof that carbon finance enabled something that would not have happened otherwise.

By Erick O. Abala

Head of Communications- CBEA/CBEN