Distributed Biochar for Smallholder Communities

Smallholder and rural communities are on the frontline of the climate crisis. They face crop loss, land degradation, and increasingly erratic weather. Yet they often have the least access to climate finance and enabling infrastructure.

Distributed, community-scale biochar can change that dynamic. Done well, thousands of small farms can become high-integrity carbon removal nodes. Communities benefit from better soils and new income streams, while buyers get verifiable, durable removals they can trust.

The catch is that good intentions and small open kilns are not enough. Distributed projects have to meet a high integrity bar as well. That’s why the way we design these models – technologically, operationally, and institutionally – really matters.

My thinking comes from more than two decades working with smallholder farming communities and helping connect their livelihoods to global markets.

This is where the terminology gets messy. Terms like “artisanal” or “low-tech” can cover everything from carefully engineered batch reactors to open flame-curtain kilns or even pits in the ground.

For high-integrity biochar carbon removal, that ambiguity is not okay.

When I talk about distributed projects, I mean:

Small-scale, community-operated, medium-tech enclosed pyrolysis systems – not open or flame-curtain kilns.

In practice, that looks like:

• Enclosed thermal conversion zones – no open burning.
• Controlled temperature ranges suitable for stable char formation.
• Basic emissions management such as syngas capture and flaring to prevent or minimise CH₄ and incomplete combustion by-products.
• Integrated digital measurement, monitoring, reporting and verification (dMMRV) – temperature traces, run logs, operator IDs, batch tracking, sampling data.

I sometimes call this the “enhanced artisan” category — simple enough to operate in a village, engineered enough to produce repeatable outputs and defensible carbon data.

Moisture looks like a small detail until you’re operating in the wet season.

Research on open flame-curtain kilns shows that wet biomass suppresses combustion temperatures, causes smouldering, and drives CH₄ formation. That’s a major reason methodologies are tightening moisture constraints — and they’re right to do so.

But most of that research involved open systems — the very technologies that modern high-integrity frameworks now exclude.

In enclosed, engineered batch reactors, especially with insulation and syngas handling, the moisture–emissions relationship changes:

If moisture is too high — typically >30–40% — it destabilises temperatures in almost any design.

But enclosed systems with emissions controls can sometimes operate safely within a slightly wider moisture band than open kilns, particularly in tropical regions where perfect drying is unrealistic.

The responsible approach, in my opinion, isn’t to relax standards casually. It’s to test moisture ranges empirically in pilots, with conservative guardrails, rather than permanently inheriting moisture thresholds from open-kiln studies that don’t match enclosed-reactor physics.

On paper, strict sampling rules look rigorous. They may work in industrial settings. But in smallholder communities — it becomes impractical very quickly.

For enclosed systems with stable thermal behaviour and timestamped temperature curves, we have additional tools to maintain integrity:

• Treat process stability — temperature, run duration, heating profiles — as the primary indicator.
• Use stratified sampling: heavy early-phase sampling to characterise the system, then reduced but conservative sampling once stability is demonstrated.
• Embed sampling into digital workflows with prompts, checklists, and supervisor auditing.

The key question to me isn’t “what sounds scientific?” It’s:

• What sampling regime gives us robust confidence and is repeatable for smallholder-operated systems over years?
• If the system doesn't work for farmers, it won’t survive.

People often imagine distributed projects as hundreds of isolated micro-kilns. That’s not how high-integrity distributed systems work.

In practice, you need an ecosystem architecture with a central project proponent or “hub” managing:

• Enrolment and onboarding of farmers, cooperatives, and local operators.
• Standardised dMMRV infrastructure – apps, devices, data schemas, storage.
• Training and certification pathways.
• QA/QC, spot checks, verification support.
• Aggregated reporting so tens or hundreds of small reactors operate as one coherent, accountable project.

The technology at the farm gate is only half the story. The project architecture – how people, devices, data, and governance link up – is where integrity is either made or lost.

I believe that without a coherent ecosystem architecture, distributed models will struggle to scale with integrity.

This is the part that excites me the most.

When done right, distributed biochar reaches places large industrial plants never will:

• Circular nutrient flows, reducing dependence on synthetic fertilisers
• Improved soil structure and moisture retention
• Elimination of residue burning, cutting local air pollution
• Better crop resilience and potentially improved yields
• New income streams from durable carbon removal credits
• Youth and women’s employment and skills pathways

The irony is that these projects often struggle to attract funding, because their value isn’t purely “tonnes on a spreadsheet.” Their benefits are social, ecological, economic — and the market isn’t yet built to reward those layers properly, although there is improvement in some areas.

Patrick:

I think the market needs a way to signal and reward high-co-benefit removals without compromising scientific integrity.

An IMPACT recognition layer could sit on top of existing durability and quantification rules. It wouldn’t loosen core requirements. Instead, it would:

• Flag to buyers that a project delivers verified co-benefits – for soil health, livelihoods, circularity, climate justice, etc.
• Help channel capital from buyers who want impact-rich removals, not just the lowest-cost tonnes.
• Create space for Global South smallholder communities to participate meaningfully.
• Complement - not compete with - large industrial facilities. All are needed for gigaton-scale carbon removal.

It shifts us from a “tonnes-only” mindset to a portfolio view of high-integrity biochar carbon removal, where different project types contribute in different but essential ways.

No framework gets everything right on day one. That’s why structured pilots are so important.

There are a few key questions pilots should help answer:

1. Moisture thresholds in enclosed reactors: What moisture range is practically achievable in high-humidity environments, and how does it affect emissions in real-world use?‍

2. Sampling protocols: What is the minimum sampling intensity we can defend scientifically, and how do we bake it into daily operations?‍

3. Operator and supervisor workflows: What training, incentives, and digital tools make the system robust and repeatable, and where do things tend to break?‍

4. Emissions performance and dMMRV: How do these systems perform across feedstocks and climates, and are we capturing the right data at the right granularity?‍

5. Guardrails vs flexibility: Where do standards need strict floors, and where is context-specific flexibility justified?

If we can answer those questions, distributed models can move from promising concepts to bankable, repeatable, scalable solutions.

Orejen Carbon sits right in the middle of this “distributed ecosystem” opportunity.

We are focused on:

• Building digital infrastructure and dMMRV systems suited to multi-unit, smallholder biochar projects
• Supporting partners with enclosed, community-scale pyrolysis technologies
• Designing ecosystem architectures linking operators, aggregators, verifiers, and buyers
• Advocating for market designs that recognise the full impact profile of smallholder projects while keeping scientific integrity non-negotiable

We don’t see distributed smallholder biochar as niche. It’s a core pillar for any climate strategy that cares about rural livelihoods, justice, and durable carbon removal at scale.

Done right, it allows communities that contributed least to climate change to become key participants — and beneficiaries — in the solutions.

testing