Policy and biochar

Policy is how we organize intent. When done well, it bridges science and practice, goals and action. Biochar fits uncomfortably into many existing policy frameworks—not because it doesn’t deliver public value, but because it doesn’t fit cleanly into any one category. It’s not quite a fertilizer, not quite a waste product, not quite an energy source, and not quite a carbon sink. It’s all of them, and more. That complexity, while challenging, also offers an opportunity: to rethink how policy can support systems that deliver multiple benefits across sectors.

Biochar's contributions—carbon sequestration, soil restoration, waste valorization, pollution reduction—align with many policy goals, from climate mitigation and sustainable agriculture to circular economy and rural development. Yet few policies explicitly recognize or support biochar. The absence of clear standards, classification systems, and regulatory frameworks often leaves producers and users navigating uncertainty, applying general rules meant for other materials.

Some of the clearest policy traction for biochar has come through climate channels. Voluntary carbon markets now offer credible methodologies for quantifying and verifying biochar-based carbon removals. This has opened a new revenue stream for producers and an incentive for rigorous monitoring. But it’s only a beginning. For broader uptake, biochar must be integrated into national greenhouse gas inventories and mitigation plans. That means assigning it a home in land use, agriculture, or waste sectors—where its effects can be tracked, counted, and credited.

Climate policy isn’t only about carbon prices and offsets. It also shapes investment flows, research funding, and subsidy regimes. Biochar competes for attention and resources with other mitigation strategies, some of which are better understood or more narrowly defined. Yet when life-cycle emissions and co-benefits are accounted for, biochar often outperforms alternatives. The key is to move from proof-of-concept to policy-relevant evidence: verified impacts, stable supply chains, and consistent product standards.

In agriculture, biochar intersects with soil health policies, fertilizer regulations, and sustainability certifications. Some countries allow biochar to be labeled and sold as a soil amendment; others classify it as a waste, limiting its use. Clarifying these rules—through definitions, registration processes, and quality standards—can reduce barriers to entry and enable more widespread adoption. Labeling requirements should reflect performance and safety, not impose unnecessary burdens on small producers.

There’s also a place for biochar in circular economy policy. When made from organic waste—crop residues, green waste, biosolids—biochar converts a disposal cost into a resource. Policies that support composting, anaerobic digestion, or recycling can be extended to include biochar, offering similar incentives and oversight. Procurement policies could specify biochar-enriched materials for use in public landscaping or infrastructure, creating stable demand and setting a precedent for private markets.

Waste regulations remain a sticking point. In many jurisdictions, feedstocks that are classified as waste require costly permits or pre-treatment before they can be converted into biochar. Even when the process eliminates pathogens and stabilizes contaminants, legacy classifications may persist. Revisiting these definitions—based on process outcomes rather than feedstock origin—could unlock a significant volume of underutilized biomass and enable safer, more productive use.

Energy policy also plays a role. When pyrolysis systems co-generate electricity or heat, they intersect with renewable energy incentives, grid access rules, and distributed generation policies. Yet because biochar isn’t the primary product, these systems may not qualify under existing frameworks. Energy policy that values co-benefits—not just kilowatt-hours—would better align with the multifunctionality of pyrolysis. In rural areas, small-scale biochar energy systems could serve as decentralized infrastructure for both waste treatment and energy access.

Land-use policy is another lever. Biochar can restore degraded soils, improve water retention, and reduce erosion—functions that support land restoration goals and reduce pressure on agricultural frontiers. Payment for ecosystem services schemes could incorporate biochar explicitly, rewarding land stewards for sequestering carbon and improving land function. This is particularly relevant in regions facing desertification, nutrient depletion, or watershed degradation.

International policy frameworks, including the UNFCCC, FAO, and UNEP, have started to recognize biochar's potential. Still, few countries have integrated biochar into their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) or climate adaptation strategies. Including it as a recognized option—backed by methodology and monitoring—would send a signal to investors, practitioners, and regulators that biochar belongs in the climate solutions portfolio.

Development policy has an especially important role to play. In many low-income countries, biomass residues are abundant and underutilized. Biochar can support rural livelihoods, reduce indoor air pollution (when linked to clean cooking), and increase food production on marginal land. Yet funding tends to favor technologies that are more visible, more centralized, or more immediately profitable. With targeted investment, training, and inclusion in development finance mechanisms, biochar systems could scale as locally appropriate, resource-efficient solutions.

What’s needed now is alignment. Biochar policy doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel. It needs to plug into existing frameworks—climate, agriculture, waste, energy—and make its case based on shared goals and verified outcomes. That requires cross-sector coordination, standardization of definitions and methods, and integration into planning, reporting, and budgeting processes. Governments can catalyze this through task forces, roadmaps, and demonstration programs that build capacity and reduce risk.

At the same time, policy must avoid overreach. Premature mandates, inflexible rules, or narrowly designed subsidies can distort emerging markets or favor specific technologies. Policies that emphasize outcomes—carbon stored, emissions reduced, land restored—allow for innovation and adaptation across geographies and scales.

The biochar community also has a role to play. Engaging with policymakers early, transparently, and constructively can prevent misclassification, misunderstanding, or missed opportunities. Shared data, clear communication, and a focus on co-benefits—not hype—will build trust and support informed decision-making. Policy, after all, is a slow-moving ship. But with the right signals and persistent engagement, it can be steered.

In short, biochar offers too much public value to be left outside the policy conversation. Its benefits cross sectors and timescales. Its risks are manageable, its trade-offs transparent, and its potential significant. Well-crafted policy—flexible, integrative, and evidence-based—can ensure that biochar contributes to a more sustainable, regenerative, and climate-resilient future.