- \n
- \n
European regulations:<\/strong>\u00a0New\u00a0Nature Restoration Regulation<\/em>\u00a0increases the trend of deadwood loss, promotes "uneven" stands and higher levels of organic carbon in forests. The EU is also implementing a framework\u00a0CRCF<\/em>\u00a0(Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming) for the certification of permanent CDRs, where biochar is among the recognized methods (delegated act prepares the methodology\u00a0Biochar Carbon Removal<\/em>). Incoming\u00a0Implementing Regulation (EU 2025\/2358)<\/em>\u00a0introduces transparent MRV standards, voluntary club purchases of carbon credits and launches a unified database to streamline reporting. European biochar community standard\u00a0EBC<\/em>\u00a0(version 10.4, Dec 2024) defines the quality of biochar (yield, C-org, PAH limits, fixed carbon) and determines a positive list of input biomasses.\u00a0IBI\/CSI standards<\/strong>\u00a0(USA) are compatible and emphasize safety and statistical control of output.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Slovak legislation:<\/strong>\u00a0The Forest Act No. 326\/2005 Coll. and the Nature Protection Act (543\/2002) require purposeful management, preservation of dead wood and undergrowth, especially in protected areas. State fire protection standards set the obligation of continuous clearing of crossings and clearings, thinning in stands and removal of dry trees as prevention (Forestry Act, Government Regulation on Fire Prevention Measures). These rules are supplemented by the practice of the "forestry regime", which requires leaving\u00a0at least 3\u20135 % areas<\/strong>\u00a0in the form of standing or lying wood for biodiversity.\u00a0C-Sink<\/em>\u00a0Pilot programs (an EU initiative) are starting to bridge the gap between scientific standards and legislation, promoting permanent carbon storage.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Fire mode:<\/strong>\u00a0Modern practice emphasizes a combination of mechanical and burn prevention:\u00a0targeted thinning of stands<\/em>,\u00a0removing small branches and bushes<\/strong>\u00a0(fuels) while maintaining the forest skeleton (old trees, thick trunks, standing or lying deadwood >10 cm). The EEA points out that harvesting biomass \u201ebefore the fire starts\u201c reduces fuel accumulation, but at the same time it is necessary to leave enough wood for the ecosystem. EU Nature Restoration regulations explicitly require increasing the volume\u00a0dead wood<\/em>, at the same time, the LULUCF framework values the accumulation of organic carbon in soil and forest profiles. These principles are integrated into national forest management plans, where percentage limits for harvesting and leaving rotten wood are set so that high-risk firefighting activities are eliminated but do not clear the stand to bare forest.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
2. Carbon credit prices and MRV methodologies<\/strong><\/p>\n
- \n
- \n
Frameworks and prices:<\/strong> The CDR market is dominated by the Puro.earth standard, which has issued over 1.7 million CDR credits (CORCs) and has a ~74% market share. The average price per tonne of CO\u2082 permanently stored (CORC) is stable at around \u20ac130\/tCO\u2082<\/strong> (Nasdaq CORC index 125\u2013145 USD\/tv 2025). Several projects (Verra VM0044, Puro Standard) allow for the issuance of credits for biochar and its use in soil. The methodology (CRCF of the proposed Biochar Carbon Removal methodology) is also successfully applied, which defines MRV requirements: recording of the mass of woody biomass, yield and tests of the chemical composition of biochar (OC %, pollutants) and long-term monitoring of fixed carbon. Both Puro and Verra require additionality<\/em>\u00a0project (financial testing, finding that without payment for credits, biochar production would not be economically viable) and ensuring\u00a0permanence<\/em>\u00a0carbon (records, customs regulations and guarantees against reoxidation). Double counting is addressed by auditors and strict metrics (each credit must represent a unique ton of CO\u2082 in a stable form).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
MRV proposal for biochar:<\/strong>\u00a0We propose to combine the procedures from Verra VM0044 and Puro Standard: (i) detailed recording of input biomass (harvested materials, areas, species, economic situation of the soil), (ii) analysis of the nature and yield of each burned batch (moisture, OC%, H\/C, ash content - according to EBC tests), (iii) carbon transfer - calculation of CO\u2082e based on the carbon balance: fixed carbon mass of biochar * (44\/12), (iv) corrections for C losses (non-flowing gases or transformations) and (v) verification that biochar is applied to the soil (cravis protocol - e.g. soil samples after application). Verification of design assumptions (additionality) would be addressed by an investment test (VM0044 v1.2 new requirement) and a potential audit. All obtained data would be stored in the national MRV system (CRCF, LULUCF) to prevent\u00a0double counting<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
3. Economics of biochar production<\/strong><\/p>\n
For different project sizes, we considered the following assumptions (conversion to dry weight):<\/p>\n
- \n
- \n
Biochar yield:<\/strong>\u00a0~25 % of dry wood input weight (on average 20\u201330 % depending on the type of pyrolyzer and temperature). 1 t of biomass thus produces ~0.25 t of biochar. Carbon content of biochar ~70\u201380 % (stable carbon) \u2013 i.e. ~0.17\u20130.20 tC per 1 t of biochar (\u21d2 ~0.6\u20130.7 tCO\u2082 stored in 1 t of char). These values are in accordance with the literature and EBC guidelines.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Product prices:<\/strong>\u00a0The average price of biochar is around\u00a0\u20ac300\u2013500\/tonne<\/strong>\u00a0thanks to its soil value (accelerates growth, reduces the need for fertilizers). We present in the tables\u00a0\u20ac400\/tonne<\/strong>\u00a0as a reasonable middle ground. Carbon Credit Price (CDR) ~\u20ac130\/tCO\u2082<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Revenues:<\/strong>
\nAnnual yield = (biochar production \u00d7 biochar price) + (CO\u2082 sequestered \u00d7 credit price).
\nThe tables below provide indicative calculations:<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n\n
\n \nProject<\/th>\n Biomass [t\/year]<\/th>\n Biochar yield [t\/year]<\/th>\n CAPEX [k\u20ac]<\/th>\n OPEX [k\u20ac\u2219year\u207b\u00b9]<\/th>\n Biochar price [\u20ac\/t]<\/th>\n Credit price [\u20ac\/tCO\u2082]<\/th>\n Income from biochar [k\u20ac]<\/th>\n Income from credit [k\u20ac]<\/th>\n IRR (indicative)<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n \n Small project<\/strong>\u00a0(~12 tons\/month)<\/td>\n 60<\/td>\n 15<\/td>\n 100<\/td>\n 35<\/td>\n 400<\/td>\n 130<\/td>\n 6,0<\/td>\n 5,7<\/td>\n \u2013 (NPV<0)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Medium project<\/strong>\u00a0(~100 tons\/month)<\/td>\n 300<\/td>\n 90<\/td>\n 500<\/td>\n 85<\/td>\n 400<\/td>\n 130<\/td>\n 36,0<\/td>\n 34,3<\/td>\n \u2013 (NPV<0)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Big project<\/strong>\u00a0(>600 t\/month)<\/td>\n 1200<\/td>\n 360<\/td>\n 1500<\/td>\n 230<\/td>\n 400<\/td>\n 130<\/td>\n 144,0<\/td>\n 137,3<\/td>\n \u2013 (NPV<0)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n \n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nTable 1<\/strong>\u00a0Assumed input parameters and annual costs\/revenues for small, medium and large biochar lines (1 t biochar corresponds to ~0.7 tCO\u2082). IRR is negative given unfunded costs.<\/p>\n
The tables show that stand-alone profitability is low \u2013 without subsidies, projects would\u00a0NPV<0<\/strong>. For example, at a char price of \u20ac400\/t and a credit of \u20ac130\/tCO\u2082, a large facility producing ~360 t of char\/year would have an annual net profit of only ~+20\u201330 thousand \u20ac, which gives a negative IRR on an initial CAPEX of \u20ac1.5 million.\u00a0Subsidies and support have a significant impact:<\/strong><\/p>\n
- \n
- Subsidies from EU funds (ESIF, GNP, LIFE, bioeconomy grants) or national support programs can cover part of the CAPEX (e.g. 30\u201350 %).<\/li>\n
- Green bonds or green loans (10Y with interest rates of 1\u20132 %) can ease the burden of investment.<\/li>\n
- Public-private partnerships (use of forest land in state administration) will allow risks and profits to be shared between the municipality\/state, foresters and the investor.<\/li>\n
- Subscription purchase contracts (offtake for biochar) or transnational initiatives (EU Buyers' Club) guarantee minimum sales and price.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Relative CAPEX and OPEX can be compared graphically:<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/file_000000000fcc7246b49c0b206fc2298a-1024x683.png\")
<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n<\/code><\/pre>\n<\/div>\n(Values are indicative; actual CAPEX\/OPEX depends on technology. Data for small projects are extrapolated and may be higher in reality.)<\/em><\/p>\n
4. Cashflow and return<\/strong><\/p>\n
Under these assumptions, the net cash flow of the projects would be negative in the long term, especially in the first years. If we calculate, for example, a 10-year horizon, the medium and small projects will not be able to collect the investment. The large project shows an approximately equilibrium flow (over 10 years), but the internal rate of return remains negative (unless subsidies are included). Realistic scenarios show that\u00a0without financial support<\/strong>\u00a0IRR is negative. With support (subsidies of 30-50 % CAPEX), IRR could approach zero or positive values (depending on the interest rate and financing period).<\/p>\n
Cashflow example (large project):<\/strong><\/p>\n
- \n
- Year 0: capital investment \u2013\u20ac1,500,000<\/li>\n
- Years 1\u201310: income ~280,000 \u20ac\/year (144k\u20ac per char + 137k\u20ac for credits) minus OPEX 230k\u20ac\/year \u2192 annual net +50k\u20ac.
\nIn 10 years, gross ~+500k\u20ac (the inertia of the project then brings additional income).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n(The measurement of financial indicators: IRR, NPV and payback period would be done in detail in an investment model with real rates and amortization. Rough indicative figures are used here.)<\/em><\/p>\n
5. Integrated forest management<\/strong><\/p>\n
To achieve synergy, it is necessary to clearly set the rules for biomass harvesting:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Removal rules:<\/strong>\u00a0Only a portion of the total dead\/excess biomass can be removed. We suggest leaving\u00a050\u201370 % of coarse dead wood (CWD)<\/strong>\u00a0and old trees that have high ecosystem value (habitat, gene pool), while removing 30\u201350 % of small dry branches, thinner branches and bushes that otherwise serve more as fuel. This corresponds to the compromise: minimize the fuel mass while not degrading biodiversity.<\/li>\n
- Harvesting techniques:<\/strong>\u00a0Low impact methods are preferred (hand thinning, mulching, open pyrolysis stove for small biomass). Large trees (biomass >0.4 m) and standing dead trunks would be left to fulfill their role.<\/li>\n
- Fire protection belts:<\/strong>\u00a0In threatened sites, key clearings should be reserved with vegetation removed for fire propagation; these strips are supplemented with heathlands and occasional controlled burning (where biodiversity allows). Maintenance of these clearings can provide feedstock for pyrolyzers (e.g. strips 10\u201320 m wide with renewal every 10 years).<\/li>\n
- Integration with nature conservation:<\/strong>\u00a0Protection zones (NP, PP, NATURA 2000) will assess collections in the local context so as not to violate legal obligations. For example, in Vlkovsk\u00e9 lesy in the Slovak Republic, a part of dry biomass was allowed to be collected on small areas with the permission of the Forest Management Office at a lower risk and at the same time used for energy.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
This regime will maximally support biodiversity (by leaving ~30\u201350 % of dead wood, we will maintain the viability of ~30 % species living in the forest), while at the same time significantly reducing the risk of large-scale fires (burning or export of dry matter as biofuel).<\/p>\n
6. Draft MRV protocol for carbon credits (biochar CDR)<\/strong><\/p>\n
For compatibility with Puro\/Verra\/CRCF, the protocol would include:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Inventory of inputs:<\/strong>\u00a0Each batch of harvested biomass is recorded (weight, origin, type, moisture). It is mandatory to document that the biomass would otherwise be composted or burned.<\/li>\n
- Yield and quality:<\/strong>\u00a0Weight measurement and sampling of the produced biochar (C-org, H\/C_org analyses, ascorbateable carbon, at least PAH analysis according to the EBC protocol). Part of the char is sent to accredited laboratories.<\/li>\n
- Calculation of sequestered C:<\/strong>\u00a0Based on the C_content of the biochar, we calculate the stored CO\u2082: (t biochar \u00d7 C_% \u00d7 44\/12) minus the pyrolysis impurity emissions. The carbon loss in the flue gas oxidation is attributed to the project (since the pyrolyzer will retain the main part of the carbon).<\/li>\n
- MRV Accounting:<\/strong>\u00a0An additional credit record (project number, tonnage, date) will be created for each biochar delivery. The validator will verify the aggregated balance of biomass vs. biochar vs. emissions. They will use common software under CRCF and connect to a centralized registry (as in CRCF).<\/li>\n
- Ensuring Supplementation and Authenticity:<\/strong>\u00a0Independent audits and confirmation that the project is \u201enot BAU\u201c (investment additionality study) will be required. Guarantee of carbon sequestration for at least 100 years (insurance, national commitments, or confirmation of re-verification after a decade).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
This MRV structure, based on a combination of Verra and Puro standards, ensures the integrity of the CDR market and prevents double carbon usage.<\/p>\n
7. Institutional model and financing<\/strong><\/p>\n
For the sustainability of the project, it is necessary to clearly define ownership relationships and the flow of funds. We propose a model in which\u00a0foresters\/hikers<\/strong>\u00a0a\u00a0state (or NGO)<\/strong>\u00a0they hold land\/planting rights and share the proceeds, while\u00a0pyrolysis operator<\/strong>\u00a0procures technology and processes biomass. The scheme could look like this, for example:<\/p>\n
\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/file_00000000743471f493a5d05eea191ac1-1024x683.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
<\/code><\/pre>\n<\/div>\nLegend:<\/strong>\u00a0The forest manager provides forest waste; the state regulates and finances (subsidies, CDR guarantor); the operator produces biochar, which goes back to the soil (improves the soil for local farmers\/foresters); the produced carbon credits are sold on the market to the investment sector. Revenues from the sale of credits (TRH) and biochar are shared between the investor and the municipal sector (e.g. 50% of the % profit goes to the forester\/municipality as an incentive). The energy obtained from pyrolysis gases can cover operating costs (hot air heaters or cogeneration) and any surplus can be supplied to the local consumer.<\/p>\n
Such a partnership enables: (i)\u00a0sustainable investment<\/strong> \u2013 partly public funding (grants, ESG funds), (ii) fromdivision of a note<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 part of the revenues from carbon credits and biochar goes to forest owners (compensation for the use of biomass), (iii)\u00a0cycle repetition<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 inputs (biomass from the forest) are recycled back into the soil, keeping the entire model circular.<\/p>\n
8. Estimation of environmental benefits<\/strong><\/p>\n
- \n
- \n
Stored carbon (negative emissions):<\/strong>\u00a0With the stock appreciation variety, ~0.7 tCO\u2082 from each ton of biochar produced.<\/p>\n
- \n
- Small project:<\/em>\u00a015 t biochar\/year \u2192 ~10 tC (36 tCO\u2082) per year.<\/li>\n
- Medium:<\/em>\u00a090 t char \u2192 ~63 tC (231 tCO\u2082) per year.<\/li>\n
- Large:<\/em>\u00a0360 t char \u2192 ~252 tC (924 tCO\u2082) per year.
\nThese numbers correspond to calculations in Verra\/Puro (C-body in char) and LCA studies. With long-term stability (biochar lasts hundreds of years in soil), each project corresponds to thousands of tons of CO\u2082 stored over the life of the line.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n- \n
Hydrological effects:<\/strong>\u00a0Several studies have shown that the application of biochar improves the water capacity of soils. For example, experts point out that soil with biochar acts as if it had a \u201emicrosponge\u201c that retains more water. Some practical measurements have shown a reduction in irrigation consumption by\u00a030\u201350 %<\/strong>\u00a0on some crops. In forests, this means healthier trees in dry periods and\u00a0lower risk of extreme stress<\/strong>. A cautious estimate of +10\u201320 % increase in water retention (depending on soil characteristics) in areas with biochar application can be used. This increases the forest's resistance to prolonged droughts.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Fire risk:<\/strong>\u00a0By removing 30\u201350 % of combustible biomass, the probability of fire spread can be dramatically reduced. Prevention by harvesting \u201efuel\u201c (bottom layer biomass) is key: the literature describes that controlled fuel reduction leads to lower fire intensity and speed. Let us state qualitatively: according to foresters\u2019 estimates, harvesting ~50 % of thin fuel (grasses, shrubs, small branches) can reduce the daily probability of a large fire by tens of percent in risk regions (CE Scandinavia, Mediterranean). In addition, biochar in the soil helps to retain moisture during dry spells, thereby\u00a0indirectly reduces the occurrence of new fires<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Biodiversity:<\/strong>\u00a0Leftover dead wood supports\u00a0saproxylic<\/em>\u00a0species (insects, fungi, plants). Estimates show that up to\u00a030 % to 50 % from forest biodiversity<\/strong>\u00a0is associated with dead wood. Our management, which leaves thick trunks and old trees while harvesting dry branches, maintains most of the habitats for these species. The biochar itself also subsequently enriches the soil microworld \u2013 increasing microbial activity and economic fertility of the soil. The impact on biodiversity is therefore predominantly positive: pollution reduction (no open burning) and carbon recycling help to sustainably protect forest ecosystems, if the critical elements of the forest are properly maintained.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Numerical estimate of benefits: one large project (1200 t biom\/year) can capture ~900 tCO\u2082 annually. Applying biochar to 10 ha of land could improve water retention capacity by ~20 % and reduce the cropping risk of fire on that area. At the same time, hundreds of cubic meters of dead wood would be preserved as habitat. These results are in line with international studies confirming the climate and ecological effectiveness of the biochar cycle model.<\/p>\n
An integrated strategy that combines\u00a0fire prevention collection<\/strong>,\u00a0maintaining biodiversity<\/strong>\u00a0a\u00a0biochar production<\/strong>, creates a positive feedback loop: it protects the forest from catastrophic burning, supports natural ecosystems and commercializes carbon at the same time. The outputs are set to meet EU standards (EBC, CRCF) and national laws. The key is the right political support (subsidies, green finance) so that the economics of the projects match the environmental benefits. With adequate incentives, this model can make fire prevention more effective, increase the adaptation of forests to climate change and bring new sources of income for forest communities. JRi&CO2AI\u00a0<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n
Literature:<\/strong>\u00a0CRCF (2024), VM0044 Verra (2023), EBC\/IBI (2024), Puro.earth report (2025), EU Forest Strategy (2023), Nature Restoration Law (2024), EEA and SCIENCE articles, Slovak standards and laws on forests and nature conservation.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The systemic connection of forest fire prevention harvesting, biodiversity protection and biochar production offers a circular bio-economy model. The collected forest waste is processed in pyrolysis plants instead of open burning.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[26,27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39247","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uhlikove-kredity","category-udrzatelnost_uhlikova-neutralita"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39247","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39247"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39247\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":39254,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39247\/revisions\/39254"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39247"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39247"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.co2news.sk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39247"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
- Medium:<\/em>\u00a090 t char \u2192 ~63 tC (231 tCO\u2082) per year.<\/li>\n
- Small project:<\/em>\u00a015 t biochar\/year \u2192 ~10 tC (36 tCO\u2082) per year.<\/li>\n
- Yield and quality:<\/strong>\u00a0Weight measurement and sampling of the produced biochar (C-org, H\/C_org analyses, ascorbateable carbon, at least PAH analysis according to the EBC protocol). Part of the char is sent to accredited laboratories.<\/li>\n
- Harvesting techniques:<\/strong>\u00a0Low impact methods are preferred (hand thinning, mulching, open pyrolysis stove for small biomass). Large trees (biomass >0.4 m) and standing dead trunks would be left to fulfill their role.<\/li>\n
- Removal rules:<\/strong>\u00a0Only a portion of the total dead\/excess biomass can be removed. We suggest leaving\u00a050\u201370 % of coarse dead wood (CWD)<\/strong>\u00a0and old trees that have high ecosystem value (habitat, gene pool), while removing 30\u201350 % of small dry branches, thinner branches and bushes that otherwise serve more as fuel. This corresponds to the compromise: minimize the fuel mass while not degrading biodiversity.<\/li>\n
- \n
- \n
- \n