Biochar Production in Distributed and Small Scale Projects

1.0 Introduction

The inclusion of distributedDistributed and small-scale projects (An activity or process or group of activities or processes that alter the condition of a Baseline and leads to Removals or Reductions.) allow projectsfor biochar production in rural and agricultural settings where biomass feedstocks (Raw material which is used for CO₂ Removal or GHG Reduction.) are often abundant, but the infrastructure for itstheir transport to large-scale, centralized facilities is often lacking, cost-prohibitive, or energy-intensive. Localized production of biochar facilitates the conversion of biomass residues (A product that is not an economic driver of the process it is produced in.) into a stable carbon material whichthat may also beserve as an effective soil amendment, which can improveimproving soil health and increaseincreasing crop yields. This approach aligns with on-farm circular economy principles, where feedstock is sourced from the land and the resulting biochar is deployed back into the same soil, creating a closed-loop or short supply chain system that maximizes both carbon sequestration and local economic benefits.

This sectionModule (Independent components of Isometric Certified Protocols which are transferable between and applicable to different Protocols.) outlines the specific requirements for projects that employ distributed or artisansmall-scale biochar production units. These projects are characterized by a decentralized network of smaller production facilities, each with a nominal annual biochar production capacity of less than 500 metric tons, althoughthough this is not a binding definition of Projects that may qualify under this project type. The primary aim of these provisions is to ensure the same level of data integrity, verifiability, and environmental safeguards as large-scale projects, while accounting for the unique operational challenges of a distributed model. This Module assumes at least a "mid-tech" level of technology for pyrolysis (e.g., advanced retorts or improved kilns). These systems increase gas residence time and therefore exhibit substantially reduced products of incomplete combustion and increase biochar consistency compared to open-flame pits.

Due to the potential variability in biochar production operating conditions, which can lead to differences in the physicochemical properties of the resulting biochar and consequently its durability (The amount of time carbon removed from the atmosphere by an intervention – for example, a CDR project – is expected to reside in a given Reservoir, taking into account both physical risks and socioeconomic constructs (such as contracts) to protect the Reservoir in question.), these projectsProjects are only eligible for crediting through the 200 -year option of the Biochar Storage in Soil Environments Module.

Project Proponents (The organization that develops and/or has overall legal ownership or control of a Removal or Reduction Project.) must meet all the requirements set out in the Biochar Production and Storage Protocol and relevant Modules, as well as the requirements set out in this Module. Where this Module contains requirements that duplicate or conflict with those in other Modules, this Module takes precedence.

2.0 Ineligible Projects

Isometric will not credit (A publicly visible uniquely identifiable Credit Certificate Issued by a Registry that gives the owner of the Credit the right to account for one net metric tonne of Verified CO₂e Removal or Reduction. In the case of this Standard, the net tonne of CO₂e Removal or Reduction comes from a Project Validated against a Certified Protocol.) Projects using unmodified:

• Unmodified pit kiln: A pit excavated directly into the ground, with no engineered lining, insulation, or air-control infrastructure. Biomass is loaded and pyrolyzed within the open earthen cavity.
• Flame curtain kiln: Any open-top kiln that produces biochar via the flame curtain orpyrolysis Konmethod, Tikiin stylewhich kilnsbiomass is added in successive layers and the flames from the uppermost layer restrict oxygen access to the material below, allowing it to carbonize without combusting the biochar already formed beneath. 

These styles of kiln are ineligible due to the difficulty in measurement and quantification of carbon losses (for open systems, biogeochemical and/or physical interactions which occur during the removal process that decrease the CO₂ removal .) through gaseous emission (The term used to describe greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere as a result of Project activities.), namely due to the lack of chimney or stack. The quality of the biochar produced may also be influenced by the environmental conditions, such as relative humidity and rainfall. Additionally, the risk of high CH₄ emissions, particularly from the improperly prepared (i.e. moist) feedstock or an inefficient pyrolysis event, is increased. Although CH₄ has a GWP₁₀₀ of 28 and is a relatively short-lived GHG (Those gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic (human-caused), that absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of terrestrial radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself, and by clouds. This property causes the greenhouse effect, whereby heat is trapped in Earth’s atmosphere (CDR Primer, 2022).), it has a GWP₂₀ of ~86 CO₂e (The amount of CO₂ emissions that would cause the same integrated radiative forcing or temperature change, over a given time horizon, as an emitted amount of GHG or a mixture of GHGs. One common metric of CO₂e is the 100-year Global Warming Potential.), therefore its impact on the total project on the carbon removal (The term used to represent the CO₂ taken out of the atmosphere as a result of a CDR process.) potential of a project is likely to be considerable, and may even render a Project net-emitting.

Projects using feedstocks other than woody biomass will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, as fine-grained feedstocks (e.g. rice husk, coffee husk, nut shells) have been shown to produce substantially elevated methane emissions during pyrolysis and may require primary measurement in place of the default deduction.

3.0 Centralized Project Management

A singleConsent, legallySocial Safeguards and Benefit Sharing

3.1 Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC)

The Project Proponent must demonstrate that consent was obtained through a process that is:

• Free: Consent is given voluntarily, without manipulation, undue influence, or pressure.
• Prior: Consent is sought sufficiently in advance of any project activities (The organization that develops and/or has overall legal ownership or controlsteps of a Project Proponent’s Removal or Reduction Project.)process that result in carbon fluxes. ThisThe entitycarbon flux associated with an activity is responsiblea for all aspects of The Project, including:
  • Enrollment of all participating distributed units.
  • Implementation and managementcomponent of the DigitalProject MeasurementProponent’s Protocol.) or feedstock collection.
  • Informed: Stakeholders are provided with clear, Reportingaccessible information regarding the Project’s risks, benefits (including the 20% revenue share), and Verificationtheir (dMRV)right systemto withdraw.
  • TrainingConsent Documentation: All consent agreements must be digitally archived in the dMRV system, including time-stamped signatures or, where appropriate, video-recorded verbal consent for low-literacy contexts.

3.1.1 Requirements for Feedstock Collection and Land Tenure

Distributed projects often operate on land with complex ownership or tenancy structures. To protect the rights of those managing the land, the following requirements apply:

• Where feedstock is collected from land managed by a tenant, the Project Proponent must obtain explicit consent from both the landowner and the tenant.
• Through the dMRV app, the feedstock for every batch of biochar produced must be linked to a land parcel where consent has been pre-verified.
• The Project must verify that the collection of biomass residues does not infringe upon the existing rights of local communities to use that biomass for traditional purposes (e.g., fuel, fodder, or mulch).
• Participants must be informed of their right to refuse feedstock collection at any time.

3.2 Benefit Sharing and Community Equity

The definition of enrolled participants is project context specific and may include, but is not limited to; landowners, tenants, kiln operators and supervisors.

3.2.1 Monitoring, Grievances, and Enforcement

• Distribution systems must include an accessible and culturally appropriate mechanism for stakeholders to report grievances or disputes related to revenue sharing, as well as a system for tracking the response and resolution of these issues.
• At every validationverification (A systematic and independent process for evaluating theand reasonableness ofconfirming the assumptions,net limitationsRemovals and methodsReductions that supportfor a Project, using data and information collected from the Project and assessing whetherconformity the Project conforms towith the criteria set forth in the Isometric Standard and the Protocol by which the Projectit is governed. ValidationVerification must be completed by an Isometric approved third-party (VVB).), Proponents must provide proof of payments and verification.
• Ensuringbenefit compliancedistribution, withalongside alla Protocol requirements across all units.
• Maintenancereport of anany inventorygrievances of all approved biochar producersraised and their unitssubsequent resolutions.
• If annually, the cumulative benefit distributions made to landowners fall more than 20% below the level projected in the PDD revenue-sharing plan — calculated against gross revenue actually received in that period — the Proponent must submit a revised distribution plan and timeline within 60 days.
• In addition to the formal grievance and enforcement mechanisms, Project Proponents should facilitate ongoing knowledge sharing and community engagement among enrolled participants, for example through periodic meetings or group communication channels, to support social cohesion and operational learning.

4.0 Digital Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (dMRV) System

A robust dMRV system is required to ensure the traceability and integrity of data from each distributed unit. The system must allow secure data collection, transfer and storage accessible only by Project Proponent and accredited verifiers (i.e., the Validation and Verification Body (VVB (Third-party auditing organizations that are experts in their sector and used to determine if a project conforms to the rules, regulations, and standards set out by a governing body. A VVB must be approved by Isometric prior to conducting validation and verification.))) and Isometric. For example, this must involve:

• A secure, cloud-based platform for data collection and storage. Each unit's data must be time-stamped upon transmission to the central database to prevent tampering (encryption recommended). Data should be transmitted from the user's device to a secure central database. Access to the raw data must be restricted to The Project Proponent and accredited VVBs and Isometric.
• An application or a simple web interface for individual producers to input data related to each biochar batch. This interface should be designed for ease of use and prompt for all required data points.
• Automatically flagging data anomalies, such as sensor readings outside of expected ranges or incomplete batch records.

The Project Proponent is responsible for checking data and investigating any anomalies and or flagged instances and providing justification before data is submitted for verification.

5.0 Quantification and Monitoring

• [G-1CDW-0, Each pyrolysis unit must be geolocated (e.g. GPS) at the start of a production run, to verify the kiln location and ensure no double counting or kiln movement.]Each pyrolysis unit must be geolocated (e.g. GPS (A satellite-based navigation system.)) at the start of a production run, to verify the kiln location and ensure no double counting (Improperly allocating the same Removal or Reduction from a Project Proponent more than once to multiple Buyers.) or kiln movement.[/G-1CDW-0]

In terms of quantification of pyrolysis emissions:

• If

  The a project contains more than 100 distributed kilns the most conservative 5% results may be removed from the calculation, providing they are classified as outliers using the Tukey method (i.e., > third quartile + 1.5 x the interquartile range).

• Theresulting mass of bothbiochar the feedstock input and the resulting biocharproduced must be measured and recorded for each batch using calibrated scales (e.g. crane scales or a high capacity balance) of an appropriate accuracy, these must be tared on a flat surface, where appropriate. Dry mass must be traceable for each batch. Therefore, weighing should be performed before quenching, or it can be done after quenching if the batch-level moisture content can be measured. These records, along with the kiln sensor data, must be submitted to the dMRV system.

6

4.01 Feedstock Eligibility and Traceability

• Only feedstock types from a pre-approved list are eligible for use in these projects. This list shall be submitted alongside the Project Design Document PDD (The document that clearly outlines how a Project will generate rigorously quantifiable Additional high-quality Removals or Reductions.) by The Project Proponent. Biomass feedstocks must comply with the eligibility criteria of the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module.
• Each feedstock for a batch of biochar must be documented, including its source, type,location and weighttype. The Project Proponent should limit the number of approved feedstock types to simplify traceability.
• High Fornitrogen on-farmfeedstocks circular(C/N models,ratios a< detailed30) mapas anddefined descriptionin Section 10.1 of the feedstockBiochar source areaProduction and previousStorage cropping patternsProtocol are requiredineligible for use under this Module, due to the high risk of N₂O formation in the flue gas and difficulty of accurate measurement and quantification.
• Biomass feedstock sourcing must be verified through time- and location-stamped photographs captured directly through the Project interface to confirm provenance.
• To maintain data integrity, the dMRV system must enforce a "live-capture only" policy. All photos must be taken in real-time through the app; uploading images from a gallery or other photo archives must be prohibited to prevent the reuse of fraudulent or historical data.

7

4.02 Feedstock Treatment and Moisture

The moisture threshold may be extended up to 20% (dry basis) only if the production unit is equipped with a verified methane mitigation measure, such as a secondary combustion chamber (after-burner).

Project Proponents utilizing the 20% threshold must provide data-driven emissions testing for their specific technology. This must demonstrate that the combination of higher moisture and the secondary combustion unit maintains low methane slip, consistent with the environmental integrity of the 15% baseline.

This must be continuously demonstrated through emissions testing detailed in Section 4.1.1.

4.3 Toward an Autonomous Approach to dMRV

The integrity of a distributed carbon project lies in its potential data density. As a strategic signaling mechanism for the protocol, this section outlines the aim for project maturity: a transition from manual data entry—which is inherently prone to transcription bias and operational error—toward a fully automated, IoT-driven architecture. By signaling this trajectory now, the protocol provides a clear roadmap for technology developers to align their hardware with the high-transparency requirements of the next generation of carbon removal.

A "no-hands" approach is inherently more robust because it establishes a direct, tamper-proof link between the physical pyrolysis event and the digital record. By removing the human element from the primary data chain, this will increase the confidence in the data and therefore the quality and robustness of carbon removal, ensuring that every ton of sequestered carbon is backed by a digital trail.

While the current Module accommodates supervisor-validated logs, the Project trajectory prioritizes hands off data gathering. This transition will require several key technological shifts:

• To eliminate manual weight entry, digital scales should be integrated directly with the dMRV application via Bluetooth or hardware tethering. The mass of both feedstock and resulting biochar should be recorded instantly to ensure the carbon mass balance is calculated on raw, unedited data.
• Pre-production moisture checks should utilize digital meters that provide a simplified "Red/Green" light system alongside a raw numeric value that could be misinterpreted. This must be combined with app-based feedback that immediately flags a batch as ineligible if it exceeds the 15% moisture threshold, directing the operator to dry the material further before production can commence. It is also suggested that the dMRV system capture the actual numeric moisture values for every reading.
• Projects should utilize CCTV or regular photography during the production run at the site. This provides a higher quality of evidence that production is occurring correctly and offers Projects and VVBs a clear, auditable trail of the event.

85.0 Facility Aggregation and Grouping

To streamline the MRV process, Project Proponents may group individual distributed units into a Facility. A Facility is defined as a cluster of kilns that demonstrates high operational and geographic consistency, allowing for representative sampling rather than unit-by-unit characterization.

5.1 Criteria for Facility Formation

To qualify as a single Facility, the grouped units must meet the following proximity requirements:

• All units within the Facility must utilize the same kiln design, materials, and production scale to ensure consistent thermochemical conversion.
• Operators within a Facility must have undergone the same standardized training program and follow identical Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs).
• The Facility must draw from the same local biomass pools, ensuring that the chemical composition of the input material is uniform across the Facility cluster.
• The kilns within a Facility must be within consistent appropriate regulatory boundaries and no more than 300 m apart in altitude.
• When units are aggregated into a Facility, the biochar characterization (e.g., Carbon content, H:Corg ratios) may be conducted on a composite sample representative of the Facility's output, provided that:
  • The dMRV system shows that all batches in the composite sample stayed within the ±10% temperature (both mean and maximum) and duration variance thresholds.
  • Biochar must be sampled from all active units within the Facility for every Reporting Period to create the composite laboratory sample.

6.0 Biochar Characterization

ANote "batch"this section supersedes Section 8.3.1, Section 8.3.2.1 and Section 8.3.2.2 of the Biochar Production and Storage Protocol. However, all testing that must be done is in accordance with the biochar characterization set out Section 3 of the Biochar Storage in Soil Environments Module.

6.1 Mass-Based Composite Sampling

This section outlines the requirements for asampling biochar in distributed unitproduction inenvironments. aTo singleensure locationstatistical mayrepresentativeness bewhile groupedmaintaining operational efficiency, this Module moves from multipletime-based productiontriggers batchesto ifmass-based theycomposite meetsampling.

6.1.1 the following criteria:

Definitions

• Production ParametersBatch ([math: p]):
  • A batchdiscrete consistsmass of biochar produced underfrom a consistent pyrolysis conditionsfeedstock and pyrolysis process. In distributed systems, this typically represents the output of a single feedstock,kiln ascycle evidencedor bya minimalsingle variationday’s production from one unit.
• Sampling Lot:
  • A defined cumulative mass of biochar (less than 5 % variance)defined in loggedSection temperature6.1.3.1 and durationSection 6.1.3.2) from which a composite sample is formed.
  • If using the Facility Aggregation model defined in Section 5, then the Sampling Lot must consist of representative samples from cumulative production from all eligible batches within the defined Facility (i.e., operatingmultiple timeProduction Batches from sites within the Facility).
  • Only Production Batches that meet the Facility's digital MRV thresholds (±10% temperature/duration) dataare eligible to contribute increments to the Composite Sample.
  • The mass of any batch triggering an anomaly (e.g., temperature deviation) must not be counted toward the Sampling Lot, and no increment from that batch shall enter the composite bucket.
• TemporalComposite LimitSample:
  • A batchsingle cannotanalytical continuesample forcreated moreby thancombining volume and homogenizing increments from every Production Batch within a maximumSampling Lot.
  • The Project Proponent must demonstrate a physical homogenization process (e.g., ribbon blender) that ensures the final laboratory aliquot is representative of onethe monthentire consecutiveFacility’s days of production from a single unit. This temporal limit is to simplify data aggregation and verification and guarantee a minimum sampling frequencyoutput.

6.1.2 Sampling for Analysis

In distributed production systems, the Composite Method must be used. This ensures all biochar produced is represented in the final laboratory analysis.

6.1.2.1 Sample Collection (Every Batch)

For every Production Batch ([math: p]) produced, an appropriate sample must be collected using a randomized cross-sectional method. These increments must be stored in a moisture-proof, sealed container until the Sampling Lot mass threshold is reached. The Project should also archive an appropriate mass of sample in case re-analysis is required.

6.1.2.2 Composite Preparation

Once the cumulative mass of the Sampling Lot ([math: L]) is achieved:

1. Equal dry-masses of all stored samples are combined.
2. The combined material should be thoroughly homogenized.
3. A final representative sample is extracted from this mixture and sent for laboratory analysis, at minimum, in triplicate.

In all cases a minimum of three analytical replicates must be performed per composite sample to ensure that analytical uncertainty can be accounted for.

6.1.3 Frequency of Measurement

The frequency of laboratory analysis is determined by the total mass of biochar produced.

6.1.3.1 Method A: High Frequency

This initial high frequency sampling and analysis is required to generate sufficient data to estimate the carbon content of future biochar production with an appropriate level of statistical confidence, understand variance, and establish a stable Production Process.

For a new Production Process or feedstock, the Project Proponent must establish a baseline:

• This method must be used for the first 500 dry tonnes of production with one composite sample (a Sampling Lot) being sent for analysis every 50 dry tonnes of biochar produced per kiln or collection of kilns i.e., Facility.

Until this threshold is reached, the consistency of the Production Process has been demonstrated and agreed with Isometric, Method A must be used, this will be for a minimum of 30 samples total (10 Sampling Lots with three replicates).

6.1.3.2 Method B: Ongoing Mass-Based Sampling

Once the initial characterization threshold is met, the sampling frequency may be reduced.

• One composite analysis must be performed for every 250 tonnes of biochar produced.
• While lab analysis is periodic, the equal mass allocation (sampling every batch) remains mandatory for every batch within the Sampling Lot.

6.1.4 Conservative Estimation of Carbon

For Sampling Lots where the composite is analyzed, the resulting organic carbon ([math: C_{org}]) value is applied. However, to account for variance in distributed systems, the following conservative estimates are applied to the final determination of [math: C_{biochar}]:

[math: C_{Biochar} = \mu_{CC} - \sigma_{\overline{CC}}]

[math: \sigma_{\overline{CC}} = \frac{\sigma_{CC}}{\sqrt{n_{samples}}}]

Where:

• [math: \sigma_{\overline{CC}}]: The standard error of the mean of carbon content across all eligible samples.
• [math: \sigma_{CC}]: The standard deviation of carbon content across all eligible samples.
• [math: n_{samples}]: The number of eligible samples for this Production Process.
• [math: \mu_{CC}]: The mean carbon content of all eligible samples.

6.1.5 Reporting Requirements

The Project Proponent must include the following in their PDD:

• Definition of the exact mass taken from each batch (e.g., 100g taken for every 500kg produced).
• Detailed description of how the composite sample is mixed to ensure representativeness.
• Procedures for tracking increments from multiple distributed sites to the central compositing location.

The mean results from analysis must be used in calculations, and all supporting data must be documented.

6.2 Dealing with Production Anomalies

Where a batch is identified as an anomaly (outside the 10% temperature and duration threshold) after it has been aggregated, the following measures shall apply:

• If the specific batch mass was not recorded, the proponent must deduct a mass equivalent to the maximum capacity of the kiln for that run from the total project inventory. This ensures that no potentially "under-pyrolyzed" material contributes to the credited total.
• The dMRV system will automatically subtract the theoretical yield of the anomalous run from the aggregate mass based on the feedstock input logs, ensuring the final "issuance" matches only the verified high-performance runs.

97.0 FinancialCentralized IncentivesProject Management

A single, legally-recognized entity (an individual or organization) must be designated as the Project Proponent. This entity is responsible for Biocharall Productionaspects of the Project, including:

• Enrollment of all participating distributed units.
• Implementation and management of the Digital Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (dMRV) system.
• Training of kiln operators and supervisors.
• Aggregation and storage of all project data.
• Preparation and submission of all data and documentation for project validation (A systematic and independent process for evaluating the reasonableness of the assumptions, limitations and methods that support a Project and assessing whether the Project conforms to the criteria set forth in the Isometric Standard and the Protocol by which the Project is governed. Validation must be completed by an Isometric approved third-party (VVB).) and verification.
• Ensuring compliance with all Protocol requirements across all units.
• Maintenance of an inventory of all approved biochar producers and their units.

7.1 Digital Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (dMRV) System

• A secure, cloud-based platform for data collection and storage. Each unit's data must be time-stamped upon transmission to the central database to prevent tampering (encryption recommended). Data should be transmitted from the user's device to a secure central database. Access to the raw data must be restricted to the Project Proponent, a nominated dMRV provider (if applicable), accredited VVBs and Isometric.
• An application or a simple web interface for individual producers to input data related to each biochar batch. This interface should be designed for ease of use.
• Automatically flagging data anomalies, such as sensor readings outside of expected ranges or incomplete batch records.

The Project Proponent is responsible for checking data and investigating any anomalies and or flagged instances and providing justification before data is submitted for verification, although this may be outsourced to a nominated dMRV provider.

108.0 Training of Technicians

Additionally, to ensure the integrity, accuracy, and credibility of monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) (The multi-step process to monitor the Removals or Reductions and impacts of a Project, report the findings to an accredited third party, and have this third party Verify the report so that the results can be Certified.) data, there must be a clear separation of responsibilities between individuals involved in biochar production and those responsible for data review and reporting. This separation helps mitigate risks of conflicts of interest, intentional data manipulation, and unintentional reporting errors. Note: The Supervisor role is a verification function and does not require a physical presence at the production site during every kiln run.

• Operators:

  • Responsible for thebiochar production of biochar according to defined safety and quality procedures.
  • Record the primary data operational notes (e.g., start/stop times, anomalies) in a local logbook for internal use only.
  • Do not directly input data into the digital Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (dMRV) system.

• Supervisors:

  • Responsible for reviewing operators’ logbooks and verifying completeness.
  • Enter operational data into the dMRV system, ensuring accuracy and consistency with physical records, if applicableplatform.
  • Approve and sign off on all data before submission.

Operators and supervisors should undergo refresher training at least once during the duration of Thethe Project, or whenever there are significant changes to kiln technology, data collection tools, or crediting methodologies.

Supervisors:

• Responsible for reviewing digital uploads against Operator logbooks (via photo upload or physical collection) to verify completeness.
• Perform the primary data entry or "locking" of operational data into the dMRV system, ensuring it aligns with physical records.
• Act as the final quality gate, approving and signing off on all data batches before they are submitted for crediting.
• This role may be fulfilled by the Project Proponent’s internal team or an external dMRV technology partner.

The decentralized nature of distributed biochar production, particularly when engaging community operators, necessitates rigorous safety standards to protect human health and the local environment. Project Proponents are responsible for ensuring that all production sites adhere to standardized safety protocols and health and safety law within the jurisdiction of operation.

8.1 Safety Protocols and Enforcement

The use of decentralized production units, particularly those involving manual handling and loading of kilns, introduces significant safety risks due to their nature and high operating temperatures. To mitigate risks such as heat stress, respiratory issues, and accidental injury, the following measures are required:

• Operators must be provided with, and trained in the use of, appropriate PPE, including heat-resistant gloves, eye protection, and N95 or equivalent respirators to prevent the inhalation of particulate matter (PM) and biochar fines.
• For units that present higher operational risks, such as pits, additional barriers or safety perimeters must be established to prevent falls or accidental contact with high-temperature zones.
• All production must occur in well-ventilated outdoor areas to ensure the safe dispersal of any residual gaseous emissions.
• Every production site must maintain a designated fire-safe perimeter and have functional fire suppression tools (e.g., pressurized water, sand, or extinguishers) immediately accessible during all production runs.

8.1.1 SOP and Risk Assessment Requirements

Project Proponents must document their safety management system in the PDD, including:

• A clear, step-by-step Standard Operating Procedures guide for the safe operation of the specific kiln technology being used, including emergency shutdown procedures must be submitted with the PDD. This should also state the maximum amount of feedstock that can be physically processed per batch.
• Site-Specific Risk Assessment: A formal evaluation identifying potential hazards (e.g., terrain, proximity to flammable structures, or water sources) and the corresponding mitigation strategies implemented for each Facility or cluster.
• Incident Reporting: A digital log within the dMRV system to record any health or safety incidents, which must be reviewed during the verification process.

119.0 Validation

To ensure the integrity of the data and project operations, the VVB will conduct on-site visits.

• A Site is defined as; an individual physical location at which one or more distributed pyrolysis units is operated under the Project. A Site corresponds to a single geolocated production premises. One Site may contain multiple units, although multiple Sites may be aggregated into a single Facility where the criteria in Section 5.1 are met.
• A statistically valid sample of participating distributed sitesSites must be selected for physical inspection by the VVB at validation. At minimum, this shouldmust be >greater than 5 % of sitesall operating Sites.
• Additionally In addition, VVBs willmust inspect at least 10 % of net-new facilitiesFacilities per year.
• On-site validation activities shall include:
  • Review of feedstock and biochar mass records.
  • Inspection of the production unit and monitoring equipment.
  • Oversight of a full, representative production run.
  • Cross-referencing of physical records with data in the dMRV system, if applicable.
  • Interviews with the biochar operator and supervisor to confirm operational procedures.

1210.0 Definitions and Acronyms

An activity or process or group of activities or processes that alter the condition of a Baseline and leads to Removals or Reductions.

Raw material which is used for CO₂ Removal or GHG Reduction.

A product that is not an economic driver of the process it is produced in.

Independent components of Isometric Certified Protocols which are transferable between and applicable to different Protocols.

The amount of time carbon removed from the atmosphere by an intervention – for example, a CDR project – is expected to reside in a given Reservoir, taking into account both physical risks and socioeconomic constructs (such as contracts) to protect the Reservoir in question.

The organization that develops and/or has overall legal ownership or control of a Removal or Reduction Project.

A publicly visible uniquely identifiable Credit Certificate Issued by a Registry that gives the owner of the Credit the right to account for one net metric tonne of Verified CO₂e Removal or Reduction. In the case of this Standard, the net tonne of CO₂e Removal or Reduction comes from a Project Validated against a Certified Protocol.

for open systems, biogeochemical and/or physical interactions which occur during the removal process that decrease the CO₂ removal .

The term used to describe greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere as a result of Project activities.

Those gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic (human-caused), that absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of terrestrial radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself, and by clouds. This property causes the greenhouse effect, whereby heat is trapped in Earth’s atmosphere (CDR Primer, 2022).

The amount of CO₂ emissions that would cause the same integrated radiative forcing or temperature change, over a given time horizon, as an emitted amount of GHG or a mixture of GHGs. One common metric of CO₂e is the 100-year Global Warming Potential.

The term used to represent the CO₂ taken out of the atmosphere as a result of a CDR process.

TheAny organization that develops and/or has overall legal ownershipperson or controlentity who can potentially affect or be affected by Isometric or an individual Project activity.

The steps of a Project Proponent’s Removal or Reduction process that result in carbon fluxes. The carbon flux associated with an activity is a component of the Project Proponent’s Protocol.

The document, written by a Project Proponent, which records key characteristics of a Project and which forms the basis for Project Validation and evaluation in accordance with the relevant Certified Protocol. (Also known as “PDD”).

Credits are issued to the Credit Account of a Project Proponent with whom Isometric has a Validated Protocol after an Order for Verification and Credit Issuance services from a Buyer and once a Verified Removal or Reduction has taken place.

A process for evaluating and confirming the net Removals and Reductions for a Project, using data and information collected from the Project and assessing conformity with the criteria set forth in the Isometric Standard and the Protocol by which it is governed. Verification must be completed by an Isometric approved third-party (VVB).

A satellite-based navigation system.

Improperly allocating the same Removal or Reduction from a Project Proponent more than once to multiple Buyers.

A measure of how much energy the emissions of 1 tonne of a GHG will absorb over a given period of time, relative to the emissions of 1 ton of CO₂.

A lack of knowledge of the exact amount of CO₂ removed by a particular process, Uncertainty may be quantified using probability distributions, confidence intervals, or variance estimates.

A systematic and independent process for evaluating the reasonableness of the assumptions, limitations and methods that support a Project and assessing whether the Project conforms to the criteria set forth in the Isometric Standard and the Protocol by which the Project is governed. Validation must be completed by an Isometric approved third-party (VVB).

Third-party auditing organizations that are experts in their sector and used to determine if a project conforms to the rules, regulations, and standards set out by a governing body. A VVB must be approved by Isometric prior to conducting validation and verification.

Purposefully erring on the side of caution under conditions of Uncertainty by choosing input parameter values that will result in a lower net CO₂ Removal or GHG Reduction than if using the median input values. This is done to increase the likelihood that a given Removal or Reduction calculation is an underestimation rather than an overestimation.

The document that clearly outlines how a Project will generate rigorously quantifiable Additional high-quality Removals or Reductions.

The steps of a Project Proponent’s Removal or Reduction process that result in carbon fluxes. The carbon flux associated with an activity is a component of the Project Proponent’s Protocol.

The multi-step process to monitor the Removals or Reductions and impacts of a Project, report the findings to an accredited third party, and have this third party Verify the report so that the results can be Certified.

11.0 Appendix 1: Methane Emission Deductions for Distributed Systems

In distributed biochar production environments, high-precision syngas monitoring is often technically or economically infeasible. To maintain a conservative carbon removal claim, a blanket methane (CH₄) deduction is applied to the gross carbon sequestration of each tonne of biochar produced.

This appendix takes the empirical approach: the deduction is anchored directly on field-measured stack emissions from operational closed retort kilns in distributed settings. No parametric breakdown of methane generation and combustion efficiency is performed, the empirical measurement integrates both factors directly.

The default emission factor in this appendix reflects the best published evidence available at the time of writing. It is intended to evolve as the underlying science evolves.

This Module assumes 15% feedstock moisture content (dry basis) as the operational standard.

11.1 Calculation of the Blanket Deduction

11.1.1 Determine the Emission Factor (EF_CH₄)

The protocol adopts as the default methane emission factor the mean stack-measured CH₄ emission factor for distributed retort kilns reported by Sparrevik et al. 2015²:

[math: EF_{CH_4} = 24 \text{ g CH}_4 \text{ per kg biochar produced}]

Sparrevik et al.² measured n = 5 batch runs across operational rural retort kilns in Indonesia using consistent instrumentation. The reported value of 24 ± 17 g CH₄ / kg charcoal integrates: (a) methane generation during pyrolysis, (b) primary combustion of pyrolysis gases in the kiln's firebox, (c) all in-batch operational losses including start-up and shutdown phases, and (d) any fugitive emissions captured in the stack flow.

This value is supported by:

• The IPCC 1996³ production-process default of 30.8 g CH₄ / kg charcoal.
• The reduction range of 29.6–47% reported by Bedane et al.⁴ for improved retort kilns relative to traditional kilns, which, applied to the Pennise et al. ⁵ traditional kiln baseline of 32–62 g CH₄ / kg charcoal, implies improved kiln emissions of ~17–44 g/kg.
• The Cornelissen et al.¹ aggregated retort kiln literature value of ~35 g/kg.

11.1.2 Convert to Per-Tonne-Biochar Basis

The empirical emission factor from Sparrevik et al.² is already reported in units of g CH₄ per kg biochar produced — i.e. it natively integrates feedstock-to-biochar yield variability across the measurement set. No conversion through feedstock mass is required.

[math: EF_{CH_4} = 24 \text{ g CH}_4 \text{ per kg biochar}]

11.1.3 Conversion to CO₂-equivalent (CO₂e)

The methane mass is multiplied by the 100-year Global Warming Potential (GWP₁₀₀) of methane of 28 (IPCC AR6⁶):

[math: D_{CH_4} = EF_{CH_4} \times \text{GWP}_{100} = 24 \text{ g CH}_4/\text{kg biochar} \times 28 = 672 \text{ g CO}_2\text{e per kg biochar}]

[math: D_{CH_4} = 0.672 \text{ tCO}_2\text{e per tonne biochar}]

11.2 Summary of Standardized Deductions

Project Proponents must apply the following fixed deduction to their gross carbon sequestration claims for every dry tonne of biochar produced:

11.3 Application Note

This deduction is applied to the biochar output mass. For example, if a project produces 100 dry tonnes of biochar, 67.2 tCO₂e must be subtracted from the total carbon removal Credits generated.

11.4 Validity Conditions

The empirical anchor in this appendix is valid only for projects meeting all of the following conditions. Outside these conditions, primary measurement is required.

1. Feedstock moisture: <15% w/w (oven-dry equivalent).
2. Feedstock type: Woody biomass (twigs, dimensional wood, agricultural prunings). Fine-grained feedstocks (rice husk, coffee husk, nut shells, sawdust) are excluded, as Jayakumar et al. ⁷ documents CH₄ emissions of 179 g/kg for coffee husk versus <5.5 g/kg for woody biomass in the same kiln class.
3. Kiln class: Closed retort kilns with integrated firebox combustion of pyrolysis gases (Adam retort, Casamance, Green Mad Retort, MRV, Mark V, or equivalent designs).
4. Start-up handling: Kiln operator demonstrates secondary combustion zone is lit and functional within 30 minutes of feedstock ignition.

11.5 Review and Updates

The CH₄ emission factor adopted in this appendix (24 g CH₄ / kg biochar) is anchored on a single primary field study (Sparrevik et al.², n = 5 batch runs in a single geography) supported by a small set of corroborating literature values. This represents the strongest empirical evidence currently available for the technology class in question, but the underlying evidence base is acknowledged to be modest.

This appendix will be updated as the science evolves. Triggers for review include:

• Publication of new field studies measuring CH₄ stack emissions from distributed retort kilns at sample sizes meaningfully larger than Sparrevik et al.² (n = 5).
• Field measurements that characterize variance across kiln designs (Adam, Casamance, Green Mad, MRV, Mark V), feedstock types, and geographies not represented in the current evidence base.
• Updates to the IPCC default emission factors for charcoal production.
• Material changes in the kiln designs in widespread use across distributed biochar projects.

The protocol owner will review this appendix at minimum every 24 months and at any time a triggering publication or change is identified.

12.0 Appendix 2: Conservative Estimation of Black Carbon Emissions

12.1 Principle

This Module applies a mandatory black carbon (BC) deduction to all eligible Projects that lack integrated, industrial-grade Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems (CEMS). Technologies permitted under this Module may employ secondary combustion to mitigate particulate matter; where this is the case, the default deduction, which is intentionally conservative, may be reduced on the basis of empirical data and in consultation with Isometric.

This deduction accounts for three primary factors:

• Startup/Shutdown Phases: Periods of incomplete combustion before the unit reaches the steady-state temperatures required for full syngas oxidation.
• Atmospheric Forcing: The high Global Warming Potential (GWP) of black carbon (soot) over a 100-year horizon.
• Measurement Uncertainty: The inherent difficulty in quantifying particulate matter in non-industrial or decentralized settings.

12.2 Derivation of the BC Emission Factor

To our knowledge, no published study directly measures black carbon emissions from biochar/charcoal kilns. The BC emission factor is therefore derived in two steps, both expressed on a per-kg-biochar basis:

1. A representative TSP emission factor is taken from kiln studies, on a biochar mass basis.
2. A BC/TSP fraction from Akagi et al.⁸, for the "charcoal making" category, is applied to convert TSP to BC.

Because both reference values are reported per kg of biochar produced, the derivation requires no assumption about biochar yield.

12.2.1 TSP emission factor on biochar basis

Sparrevik et al. ² report a mean TSP emission factor of 12 ± 18 g/kg charcoal for retort kilns — the most directly relevant mid-tech technology class permitted under this Module. Cornelissen et al. ¹ report PM10 emissions of 11 ± 15 g/kg biochar for flame-curtain Kon Tiki kilns, equivalent to 15.4 g TSP/kg biochar after the PM10-to-TSP conversion factor of 1.4 applied in both studies; Kon Tiki kilns are themselves ineligible under this Module but the data is retained as informative context for the upper range. A central value of 12 g TSP/kg biochar is adopted, anchored on the eligible-technology data.

12.3 Application of BC/TSP fraction

Akagi et al. ⁸ report for the "charcoal making" category a BC emission factor of 0.02 g BC/kg charcoal and a TSP emission factor of 0.7–4.2 g TSP/kg charcoal (midpoint 2.45). This yields a BC/TSP fraction specific to charcoal-making combustion regimes:

[math: f_{BC/TSP} = \frac{0.02}{2.45} \approx 0.008]

Applying this fraction:

[math: EF_{BC} = 12 \text{ g TSP/kg biochar} \times 0.008 \approx 0.096 \text{ kg BC per tonne biochar}]

13.0 Application

The deduction is calculated using the 100-year Global Warming Potential of black carbon ([math: GWP_{BC}] = 342):

[math: \text{Deduction} \approx 0.096 \times 342 \approx 32.8 \text{ kg CO}_2\text{e per tonne biochar}]

14.0 Summary of Standardized Deductions

15.0 Relevant Works