Climate change and global warming require not only radical reductions in existing emissions, but also active removal of historical carbon from the atmosphere. Biochar is proving to be one of the most promising and effective in this regard. technologies. Thanks to its extremely stable molecular structure, which is created by the thermochemical decomposition of biomass without access to oxygen (pyrolysis), it can safely bind carbon for hundreds to thousands of years. However, in order for biochar to become a fully-fledged financial instrument in the carbon credit market, its production and application must be subject to extremely strict rules and standards that will prevent so-called greenwashing and ensure a real climate benefit.

The EU Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) was recently introduced in the European Union. Comprehensive comparative study The June 2026 assessment looked in detail at how the CRCF methodology for biochar compares to the most stringent international benchmarks – namely the ICVCM (Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market – Core Carbon Principles) and the rules of Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement (A6.4). The assessment focused on four core pillars that define the quality and integrity of each carbon credit.

1. Quantification and Leakage

When calculating the actual volume of carbon removed, it is crucial to consider emissions from the entire life cycle of the project (so-called Life Cycle Assessment) – from biomass extraction through pyrolysis to land application. In this aspect, the European CRCF framework has succeeded, as it requires comprehensive accounting and the use of conservative factors.

However, a fundamental difference and weakness of the EU methodology occurs when it deals with so-called leakage. Leakage occurs when a carbon capture project in one place causes increased emissions elsewhere – for example, if wood harvesting is moved to another region for the production of biochar. While the global ICVCM and A6.4 standards strictly require detailed identification, quantification and explicit deduction of these indirect leaks from the total volume of credits issued, the European Union relies on less exact preventive measures. These include compliance with the principle of so-called cascading use of biomass and assessing whether the main purpose of the project is truly carbon removal and not just energy production. Although this approach minimizes the risks of improper land use, experts say there is a lack of evidence that these general safeguards adequately replace precise mathematical quantification and deduction of leaks.

2. Additionality

Additionality is a cornerstone of any carbon project. It means demonstrating that the carbon removal would not have occurred without financial support from the sale of carbon credits.

The European CRCF methodology takes a very simplistic approach to this pillar – applying a standardised zero-baseline approach. If a project shows any net carbon removal, it is automatically considered additional. In contrast, the international frameworks ICVCM and the Paris Agreement (A6.4) require much stricter tests, including an assessment of investment and regulatory barriers, to ensure that a project is not financed even though it would be profitable in its own right. The report therefore warns that the European approach carries a high risk of issuing credits for projects that are not truly additional. This is particularly true for the application of biochar in agriculture, where the production and application of this material can be financially profitable for farmers in the long term thanks to subsidy schemes and improved crop yields. Another risk of the EU methodology is the lack of an explicit prohibition on double counting (for example, collecting credits for biochar application and for total carbon sequestration on the same agricultural land).

3. Permanence and reversal risk (Permanence)

For the climate benefit to be real, the stored carbon must remain locked up for a very long time. Biochar produced by pyrolysis at high temperatures (above 550°C) and with the right hydrogen to carbon ratio (H/C < 0.4) can resist decomposition for more than 1,000 years.

Since long-term and regular monitoring of biochar incorporated into agricultural or forest soil is practically impossible in practice, the EU CRCF pragmatically calculates only its so-called "stable fraction" of carbon. This part is then considered permanent for accounting purposes and does not require further monitoring. However, the European methodology here approves methods that generate different estimates of durability (200 years vs. 1000 years), while, for example, the specialized Global Biochar C-Sink Standard requires a combined and more advanced approach to these calculations.

The EU’s most significant problem in this category, however, is its disregard for the risks of physical reversal. Biochar storage can be destroyed by, for example, fires, massive land-use changes or demolition of buildings (if biochar was used as an admixture in building materials). While the A6.4 and ICVCM standards require mechanisms to manage such risks – namely mandatory contributions to buffer pools from which credits would be cancelled in the event of an unexpected release of carbon back into the atmosphere – the European CRCF methodology does not include such insurance mechanisms for biochar.

4. Environmental and social sustainability

In the area of environmental protection, the European framework meets many requirements. For biochar, strict limits are set for the presence of contaminants such as heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), which corresponds to the standards of the EBC certificate. The introduction of a maximum limit for the application of biochar to soil (50 tonnes per hectare) is also positively assessed, which protects the structure of ecosystems and complies with the rules for soil protection according to the ICVCM. On the other hand, air and water protection is based only on the EU Directive on industrial emissions, from whose scope, however, smaller local pyrolysis units with an output of less than 50 MW may be exempted.

In the social sphere, the discrepancy with international rules is even more evident. While Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement and the ICVCM contain a detailed framework to ensure respect for human rights, protection of local communities and fair distribution of benefits, the European CRCF does not define specific social safeguards at the level of the projects themselves. It relies only on general national and European law, and according to analysts, the legality of the project itself does not yet guarantee the justice and fairness that are necessary for truly high-integrity carbon credits.

Conclusion and recommendations

The European CRCF certification framework represents a fundamental step towards standardising negative emissions and building a market for biochar. However, the assessment clearly shows that the EU methodology shows compromises in key technical areas. If Europe wants to generate world-class carbon credits that will be unconditionally accepted by global corporations and international investors, it needs to improve its approach. The main recommendations are: introducing exact quantification and deduction of climate leakages, creating buffer pools for the risks of physical deterioration of the repository, moving to stricter tests of real financial additionality and introducing strong social and environmental safeguards directly at the level of each certified project. Thanks to these adjustments, European biochar can play a key and unquestionable role in achieving global climate neutrality. JRi&CO2AI