Biochar is often framed through a compelling narrative. Agricultural residues are transformed into stable carbon, soils improve, and local systems gain value from what was once waste. It is a clear and persuasive story. Yet, as highlighted during the April 2026–Circular Bionutrient Economy Association (CBEA)-Monthly Call, this narrative is not enough when projects enter carbon markets.

The session, led by Charles Waweru of Verst Carbon, focused on additionality, the core condition for any carbon credit. As summarized by Erick O. Abala, Head of Communications-CBEA, “a carbon credit only exists if the removal would not occur without carbon finance.” This sets a strict threshold. A project must prove not only that it delivers benefits, but that those benefits depend on carbon finance.

This reveals a structural gap between circular economy logic and carbon market logic. In circular systems, biochar creates clear value by improving soils and using residues efficiently. In carbon markets, the question is narrower. Would this activity happen anyway? A project can be impactful and still fail this test.

To answer this, additionality is assessed through regulatory, financial, barrier, and common practice tests. Each requires evidence, not narrative. This is where many biochar projects face pressure, especially when biomass already has value or when similar practices are already in place.

Biochar adds complexity because it often relies on multiple revenue streams, including product sales, energy, and carbon credits. Depending on how these are modeled, a project can appear either dependent on carbon finance or financially viable without it. This makes additionality harder to demonstrate and more sensitive to assumptions.

At the same time, standards are not fully aligned. Different registries apply different criteria and thresholds, which means project design must be aligned with the chosen methodology from the outset. Late adjustments rarely work.

What is changing now is the level of scrutiny. With frameworks like the ICVCM Core Carbon Principles, expectations around additionality, baselines, and transparency are increasing. Integrity is no longer a downstream check. It is defined at the design stage.

As Erick O. Abala puts it, “carbon credits are not a reward for doing good; they are proof that carbon finance enabled something that would not have happened otherwise.” This reframing is central.

For the biochar sector, the implication is clear. Impact alone is not enough. Projects that aim to generate carbon credits must be built to demonstrate causality, with strong data, clear financial logic, and alignment with standards from the beginning.