Comparing biochar carbon credit standards: Verra, Gold Standard, Puro.earth - Which should you choose?

The global voluntary carbon market is growing rapidly, reaching over $2 billion in trading value in 2023. In this context, biochar — biological charcoal — is recognized as one of the most effective carbon removal solutions, with the ability to store carbon for hundreds to thousands of years. However, a key question that every biochar producer and carbon project owner must face is: Which carbon credit certification standard should you choose?

Choosing the right standard not only affects certification costs but also determines the market value of the credits, liquidity, and ability to attract investors. A wrong decision can cost your project tens of thousands of dollars in certification processes yet make it difficult to sell the credits. This article will take an in-depth look at three leading standards - Verra, Gold Standard, and Puro.earth - to help you make the most informed decision for your biochar project.

I. Why choosing the right carbon credit standard for biochar matters?

The carbon market context and the role of biochar in climate solutions

The voluntary carbon market (Voluntary Carbon Market - VCM) is witnessing a strong shift from emissions avoidance projects to carbon removal projects. According to a report by Ecosystem Marketplace, removal carbon credits increased in price by an average of 35% in 2023, while avoidance credits grew by only 8%.

Biochar stands out as a particularly attractive carbon removal solution for many reasons. The pyrolysis of biomass that produces biochar not only sequesters carbon but also yields a commercially valuable product—improving soil quality, increasing agricultural yields, and reducing the need for chemical fertilizers. In Vietnam and Southeast Asia, where agricultural residues are abundant (straw, rice husks, hulls), the potential for biochar project development is very large.

However, to convert this potential into real economic value, a biochar project needs certification under reputable international standards. This is the "ticket" that lets you access the global carbon market, where tech corporations like Microsoft, Stripe, and Shopify are actively seeking high-quality carbon removal credits.

Differences between carbon credit standards directly affect project value

Not all carbon credits are created equal. The price of a biochar credit can range from USD 100 to over USD 300 per ton of CO2, depending on the certification standard, project quality, and buyer.

Verra - with the VM0044 method dedicated to biochar - is the most widely recognized standard, accounting for over 70% of the global voluntary carbon credit market. However, Verra's certification process is relatively complex and costly, making it better suited to larger-scale projects.

Gold Standard known for integrating Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) impact assessments into its certification process. Gold Standard credits are often prioritized by NGOs and companies focused on social responsibility, and are priced 10–20% higher than Verra in some segments.

Puro.earth is a platform specialized in carbon removal, with a simplified process and an integrated marketplace. Biochar credits on Puro.earth (called Biochar Carbon Removal - BCR) often have the highest liquidity, but the technical MRV (Measurement, Reporting, Verification) requirements are also very strict.

3 key questions every biochar project owner needs to answer before choosing a standard

Before diving into a detailed comparison, ask yourself the following three questions:

1. What is the project's main objective? Maximize revenue from credits, or create measurable social and environmental impact?
2. What is the project's scale and resources? Do you have the budget for certification costs of $50,000–$100,000, or do you need a more cost-effective solution?
3. Who is the target market? Tech companies, non-profit organizations, or a future compliance market?

The answers to these three questions will clearly guide your decision.

II. Overview of the top 3 biochar carbon credit standards

Verra (VCS & VM0044): The most established and widely used standard

Verra (formerly the Verified Carbon Standard) was founded in 2005 and is the largest carbon credit certification program in the world. To date, Verra has certified over 1,800 projects in more than 80 countries and issued over 1 billion carbon credits.

Methodology VM0044 (Methodology for Biochar Utilization in Soil and Non-Soil Applications) approved in 2021, provides a detailed assessment framework for biochar projects. VM0044 allows calculation of credits from both the production and the application of biochar to soil, while also taking into account factors such as the sustainability of the biomass feedstock and emissions during production.

Key strengths:

• Most widely recognized in the global market
• Has the largest network of auditors and consultants
• Credits are highly liquid on multiple exchanges
• Compatible with future compliance market requirements (CORSIA, EU ETS)

Limitations:

• Complex procedures, long certification time (12-18 months)
• High cost (USD 50,000–150,000 for an average project)
• Requires detailed technical documentation and expert consultants

Gold Standard: A standard focused on sustainable development impacts

Gold Standard was established in 2003 by WWF and non-governmental organizations, with the goal of ensuring carbon projects not only reduce emissions but also deliver real benefits to local communities.

Gold Standard has a specific methodology for biochar, requiring detailed assessment of impacts on the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals). This includes measuring impacts on poverty, food security, employment, and environmental quality.

Key strengths:

• High credibility with nonprofits and ESG companies
• Integrates co-benefits and SDG impact assessments
• Credit prices are typically 10–25% higher than Verra
• Transparent process, provides good support for small projects

Limitations:

• Number of certified biochar projects is still small (fewer than 10 projects worldwide)
• Credit market is smaller than Verra
• Social impact assessment requirements can be costly and complex

Puro.earth: A platform specialized in carbon removal

Puro.earth was founded in 2019 in Finland as the first platform specialized in carbon removal. Unlike Verra and Gold Standard (which are certification programs), Puro.earth is both a standard and a marketplace, directly connecting credit sellers and buyers.

Puro.earth has the methodology Biochar Carbon Removal (BCR) separate, focusing on the long-term sustainability of carbon storage. One notable aspect is that Puro.earth requires biochar quality testing by independent laboratories, ensuring the proportion of fixed carbon meets the standard.

Key strengths:

• Simplified process, fast certification time (6–9 months)
• Integrated marketplace with high demand from tech companies
• Lower certification costs (USD 25,000–70,000)
• Specialized in removal, favored by corporate buyers
• Good support for medium and small projects

Limitations:

• Relatively new, not as widely recognized as Verra
• Marketplace is mainly in Europe and North America
• Few auditors in Asia, which may increase audit costs

Quick comparison of key characteristics

Criteria	Verra (VM0044)	Gold Standard	Puro.earth (BCR)
Year established	2005	2003	2019
Number of biochar projects	30+	<10	50+
Main markets	Global	EU, NGOs	EU, North America, Tech
Average price (USD/tCO2)	120-180	150-220	140-250
Certification time	12-18 months	12-15 months	6-9 months
Estimated cost	50-150K USD	40-120K USD	25-70K USD
Liquidity	High	Medium	High (marketplace)

III. Detailed comparison of certification processes and technical requirements

Method for calculating removed carbon: MRV (Measurement, Reporting, Verification)

This is the heart of any carbon credit standard. All three standards require a rigorous MRV process, but there are significant differences.

Verra VM0044 uses the most complex calculation method, including:

• Measuring the fixed carbon content in biochar (through analysis of H/C and O/C ratios)
• Calculating emissions from the production process (energy, transportation)
• Assessing the sustainability of the biomass source (ensuring no deforestation)
• Monitoring biochar application and ensuring it is not burned or decomposed

Verra requirements baseline scenario Detailed — meaning you must demonstrate that without the project, the carbon would be emitted to the atmosphere (e.g., biomass being burned or naturally decomposed).

Gold Standard has requirements similar to Verra but adds further assessments safeguarding principles - ensure the project does not cause negative impacts to communities and the environment. This includes:

• Assessment of impacts on local communities' land use rights
• Ensure no use of child labor or forced labor
• Assessment of impacts on biodiversity

Puro.earth BCR simplifies the process by focusing on core elements:

• Analysis of biochar quality by a Puro.earth-accredited laboratory
• Calculation of carbon removal based on a standardized formula
• Monitoring the volume of biochar produced and sold
• Requires evidence that the biochar is applied to soil or building materials

Puro.earth accepts default values for many parameters, reducing the need for detailed on-site measurements — this significantly lowers costs for small projects.

Sustainability requirements for input materials (biomass sourcing)

This is one of the most important factors that determines the true "greenness" of a biochar project.

Verra requires proof of biomass sourcing:

• Not from clearing natural forests
• Is an agricultural or forestry by-product, or comes from energy crops grown on degraded land
• Has a traceability system (chain of custody)

In Vietnam, biomass sources eligible under Verra include: rice straw and stalks, rice husks, bagasse, coffee husks, and Acacia wood from plantations certified by FSC/PEFC.

Gold Standard has stricter requirements, including assessment of indirect land use change (iLUC) - meaning ensuring that biomass use does not indirectly cause land-use change elsewhere. This requirement is difficult to meet and requires complex socio-economic analysis.

Puro.earth has a clear list of "acceptable biomass sources":

• Agricultural and forestry residues
• Biomass from invasive species
• Wood from sustainably managed plantations
• Not accepted biomass from food crops or that competes with food security

Puro.earth also requires the calculation of net carbon benefit - meaning that the carbon removal must be significantly greater than emissions from collecting and transporting the biomass.

Audit process and recertification cycle

Verra requires:

• Validation before the project starts by a VVB (Validation and Verification Body) accredited by Verra
• Verification annually or every two years to issue credits
• A detailed monitoring report must be submitted before each verification

Audit costs for Verra are typically USD 15,000–40,000 per audit, depending on project size.

Gold Standard has a similar process but adds:

• Stakeholder consultation (community consultation) is mandatory before validation
• Performance certification after 2 years of operation
• Annual SDG impacts assessment

Gold Standard audit cost: USD 12,000–35,000 per audit.

Puro.earth simplified:

• Pre-approval based on technical documentation
• Annual verification based on biochar production volume and evidence of application
• No lengthy monitoring report required; mainly quantitative data

Puro.earth audit cost: USD 8,000–25,000 per audit — the lowest among the three standards.

Complexity of documentation and approval time

Verra: Project Description (PD) usually 80–150 pages, including baseline analysis, additionality, leakage, and a detailed monitoring plan. Time from submitting the PD to successful validation: 6–9 months. After that, 6–12 months of operation and data collection are required before the first verification.

Gold Standard: Project Design Document (PDD) 60–120 pages long, supplemented by a Safeguarding Principles Assessment and the SDG Impact Tool. Total time similar to Verra: 12–15 months.

Puro.earth: Application form much shorter (30–50 pages), focused on specifications. Pre-approval time: 2–3 months. Can start issuing credits 6–9 months after application submission.

Estimated certification costs for each standard

Below are estimated costs for a medium-sized biochar project (producing 1,000–2,000 tonnes biochar/year, equivalent to 2,000–4,000 carbon credits):

Verra:

• Registration and listing fees: $5,000–10,000
• Consultancy for drafting the PD: $20,000–50,000
• Validation: $15,000–30,000
• Annual verification: $12,000–25,000
• Credit issuance fee: $0.10–0.20 per credit
• Total first-year cost: $52,000–115,000

Gold Standard:

• Registration fee: $3,000-8,000
• PDD drafting consultancy: $18,000-45,000
• Validation + stakeholder consultation: $12,000-28,000
• Annual verification: $10,000-22,000
• Issuance fee: $0.10-0.15/credit
• Total first-year cost: $43,000-103,000

Puro.earth:

• Registration fee: $2,000-5,000
• Application consultancy: $8,000-25,000
• Pre-approval review: $5,000-12,000
• Annual verification: $8,000-20,000
• Marketplace fee (% of revenue): 5-10%
• Total first-year cost: $23,000-62,000

Note: These are estimates and may vary depending on project scale, geographic location, and complexity.

IV. Analysis of market value and liquidity of credits

Average price of biochar carbon credits by standard (2023-2024)

The carbon removal credits market is rapidly developing, with biochar being among the highest-priced types.

Verra biochar credits:

• Average price: $120-180/tCO2
• Highest recorded transaction: $220/tCO2
• Market: Mainly OTC (over-the-counter), some on exchanges such as CBL, AirCarbon Exchange
• Trend: Prices increasing steadily by 12-15% per year

Gold Standard biochar credits:

• Average price: $150-220/tCO2
• 20–30% premium over Verra thanks to SDG impacts
• Market: Mainly corporate buyers with strong ESG commitments
• Trend: Growing demand from EU companies complying with CSRD

Puro.earth BCR:

• Average price: $140-250/tCO2
• Large variation depending on the buyer and volume
• Market: Puro.earth marketplace, high liquidity
• Trend: Prices rose sharply by 25% in 2023, driven by demand from tech companies

Buyer demand: Which standards do companies prioritize?

Corporate buyers have different criteria when purchasing carbon credits:

Tech companies (Microsoft, Google, Meta, Stripe, Shopify):

• Priority: Highly durable carbon removal, strict MRV
• Preferred standards: Puro.earth and Verra
• Willing to pay premium prices ($200-300/tCO2) for quality
• Often purchase large volumes (10,000-100,000 credits) via offtake agreements

Manufacturers and FMCG (Unilever, Nestlé, PepsiCo):

• Priority: Co-benefits in the supply chain, community impact
• Preferred standards: Gold Standard and Verra
• Interested in storytelling and marketing impact
• Acceptable price: $120-200/tCO2

Non-profits and government:

• Priority: SDG impacts, benefits for local communities
• Preferred standards: Gold Standard
• More limited budgets: $100-180/tCO2

SMEs and startups:

• Priorities: Price, simple process
• Preferred standard: Puro.earth
• Small volume (100-5,000 credits)

Liquidity and the ability to sell credits on the voluntary market

Verra has the best liquidity by number of transactions:

• More than 50 exchanges and brokers accept Verra credits
• Easy to find buyers through brokers' networks
• Average selling time: 3–6 months for new projects
• However, high competition with thousands of other projects

Gold Standard has average liquidity:

• Smaller market but high-quality buyers
• Selling time: 4–8 months
• Requires good marketing and storytelling to stand out

Puro.earth has the best liquidity for biochar removal:

• Marketplace integrated with a demand queue (buyer queue)
• Selling time: 1–4 months, the fastest among the three standards
• 85% of BCR credits are sold within 6 months
• However, the marketplace is still small and depends on Puro.earth's marketing

Price trends and market forecast for the next 3–5 years

Experts forecast strong growth in the carbon removal market:

Drivers of price increases:

• Net Zero 2050 pressure from thousands of companies
• EU CSRD requires mandatory reporting and emissions reduction from 2024
• Shortage of high-quality removal credits (according to BloombergNEF, 7–10 billion tons CO2 removal per year needed by 2050)
• Climate finance funds are investing in carbon removal

Biochar credits price forecast through 2027:

• Verra: $180–280/tCO2 (CAGR 15%)
• Gold Standard: $220-350/tCO2 (CAGR 18%)
• Puro.earth: $200-400/tCO2 (CAGR 20%)

Downside risk:

• Scaling up biochar technology could significantly increase supply
• New standards are emerging, increasing competition
• Project quality risks could undermine market confidence

V. Co-benefits and sustainable development impact criteria

Social and community impact assessment: Gold Standard leads the way

Co-benefits are becoming an important differentiator in the carbon market. Buyers are increasingly concerned not only with the amount of carbon removed but also with positive impacts for communities and the environment.

Gold Standard has the most comprehensive co-benefits assessment system:

• Mandatory use SDG Impact Tool to quantify impacts
• Assesses all 17 SDGs, from poverty eradication to climate action
• Requires evidence of positive impacts, not just claims
• Has a safeguarding system ensuring "do no harm"

For example: A Gold Standard-certified biochar project in Vietnam must demonstrate:

• How many jobs it creates for the local community (SDG 8)
• Percentage increase in agricultural productivity (SDG 2)
• Reduction in air pollution from burning rice straw (SDG 3, 11)
• Increased income for farmers (SDG 1)

Verra has an optional co-benefits assessment mechanism:

• Not mandatory but encouraged through SD VISta (Sustainable Development Verified Impact Standard)
• If SD VISta is applied, the project receives an additional label and can sell at a 15–25% higher price
• More flexible than Gold Standard but less stringent

Puro.earth mainly focused on carbon removal:

• No mandatory requirement for co-benefits
• Projects are encouraged to self-report SDG impacts
• The marketplace has filters for buyers interested in co-benefits
• Suitable for projects prioritizing pure carbon removal effectiveness

Biodiversity and environmental protection requirements

All three standards have environmental safeguards, but to different degrees:

Gold Standard most stringent:

• Requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for large-scale projects
• Assess impacts on biodiversity, water resources, and soil quality
• Does not accept projects in areas of high conservation value (HCV)
• Requires long-term monitoring of environmental impacts

Verra has basic requirements:

• Compliance with local environmental laws
• Environmental risk assessment in the Project Document (PD)
• Must not cause significant negative impacts (no net harm)

Puro.earth focuses on biochar quality:

• Requires analysis of heavy metals and toxic substances in biochar
• Ensures biochar is safe for soil application
• Complies with European Biochar Certificate (EBC) standards

Links to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Biochar projects have the potential to contribute to multiple SDGs:

SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): Biochar improves soil fertility, increasing yields by 10-30%

SDG 7 (Clean Energy): The pyrolysis process produces syngas that can be used as an energy source

SDG 8 (Decent Work): Creates jobs in biomass collection and biochar production

SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption): Transforms waste and by-products into resources

SDG 13 (Climate Action): Removing carbon from the atmosphere

SDG 15 (Life on Land): Improving soil health, increasing water retention

Gold Standard requires quantifying at least 3 SDGs, while Verra and Puro.earth only encourage it.

The importance of co-benefits in project marketing strategy

According to the Ecosystem Marketplace 2023 survey, 68% of corporate buyers are willing to pay an extra 15–30% for credits with verified co-benefits.

Effective storytelling:

• Don't just say "we removed X tons of CO2"
• But say "we helped 500 farming households increase their income by 25% while removing X tons of CO2"

Projects with strong co-benefits:

• Easier to attract long-term offtake agreements
• Can access concessional financing (low-interest) from climate funds
• Attracts media and NGO attention, generating free PR
• Reduces risk of opposition from local communities

VI. Fit with the Vietnam and Southeast Asia context

Which standards are more accessible for small and medium enterprises?

In Vietnam, most biochar businesses are SMEs with limited resources. Here's a practical analysis:

Puro.earth is the most accessible choice:

• Lowest cost (USD 25,000–60,000 for a small project)
• Simple process, fewer complex documents
• Has support programs for first projects (first-mover support)
• Marketplace helps find buyers quickly
• Suitable for projects producing 500–2,000 tonnes of biochar per year

Verra Suitable for medium-to-large-scale projects:

• Requires a minimum budget of USD 80,000-120,000
• Requires a highly skilled technical team or hiring international consultants
• Suitable for projects >3,000 tons of biochar per year
• Advantageous if the project has international partners or an existing offtake agreement

Gold Standard Suitable for projects with strong community impact:

• Moderate cost, but requires investment in community engagement
• Suitable for projects linked with cooperatives or social enterprises
• Opportunity to access blended finance

Provides support for language, working culture, and local partner networks

Common challenges: All three standards use English; there are no official materials in Vietnamese.

Verra:

• Has a representative office in Singapore, closer to Southeast Asia
• Network of VVBs (auditors) in the region: 5-7 firms
• Some local consultants in Vietnam have experience with Verra (mainly renewable energy projects)
• Working culture: Formal, requires strict adherence to procedures

Gold Standard:

• No office in Asia (headquartered in Geneva)
• VVBs in the region: 3-4 firms
• Few local consultants with experience
• Working culture: Collaborative, open to questions and support
• Has capacity-building programs for projects in developing countries

Puro.earth:

• Office in Helsinki, but has a strong remote support team
• VVBs: Accept international auditors, more flexible
• Expanding network in Asia, has partnerships with several organizations in Singapore and Thailand
• Work culture: Startup-like, agile, responsive
• Has webinars and detailed guidance materials

Recommendations: Projects in Vietnam should seek consulting partners with international experience who understand the local context. Consulting fees typically account for 30-40% of total certification costs.

Regional biochar project implementation experience: Real case studies

Case 1: Biochar project from rice husks in the Mekong Delta (Verra)

• Scale: 5,000 tonnes of biochar/year
• Biomass source: Rice husks from rice mills
• Certification time: 16 months
• Cost: $95,000
• Credit sale price: $165/tCO2
• Challenges: Complex process, requires hiring international consultants
• Success: Has an offtake agreement with an EU company, ensuring revenue

Case 2: Community biochar project in Thailand (Gold Standard)

• Scale: 1,200 tonnes of biochar/year
• Biomass source: Coconut residues
• Duration: 14 months
• Cost: $68,000 (with support from an NGO)
• Sale price: $195/tCO2
• Strengths: Strong SDG impacts (creates 45 jobs, increases farmers' income by 30%)
• Challenges: Stakeholder consultation requirements are time-consuming

Case 3: Biochar startup project in the Philippines (Puro.earth)

• Scale: 800 tonnes of biochar per year
• Biomass source: rice husks and straw
• Duration: 8 months
• Cost: $42,000
• Selling price: $175/tCO2 on Puro marketplace
• Success: Fast process, sold 70% of the credits within 3 months
• Limitations: Price volatility, dependent on the marketplace

Carbon policy and legal framework in Vietnam: Compatible with which standards?

Vietnam is developing a domestic carbon market under Decision 01/QD-TTg (2022) and Decree 06/2022/ND-CP on greenhouse gas emission reduction.

Key points:

• Vietnam does not yet have specific regulations on carbon removal credits
• The domestic carbon market is in a pilot phase, focused on the compliance market (power, cement, steel)
• Credits from international voluntary markets (Verra, Gold Standard, Puro.earth) are currently not recognized within Vietnam's compliance system

However:

• Projects can sell credits on the international market without violating Vietnamese law
• Projects should register with the Designated National Authority (DNA) to avoid double counting
• In the future, when Vietnam participates in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, adjustments may be required

Compatibility:

• All three standards are designed to be compatible with Article 6 and can be converted to the compliance market in the future
• Verra has an advantage because it is developing a system compatible with CORSIA (international aviation) and could be recognized by the EU ETS
• Puro.earth is working with the EU to be recognized in the Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF)

Recommendation: The project should closely monitor policy developments and adopt a flexible strategy. For now, focusing on the international voluntary market is most appropriate.

VII. Decision guidance: Which standard should be chosen?

Decision matrix: Match the project's objectives with the strengths of each standard

To simplify the decision, self-assess your project using the following criteria (scale 1-5):

A. Financial resources:

• 1-2 points: Budget <50,000 USD → Puro.earth
• 3-4 points: Budget 50,000-100,000 USD → Gold Standard or Puro.earth
• 5 points: Budget >100,000 USD → Verra or Gold Standard

B. Production scale:

• 1-2 points: <1,000 tonnes of biochar per year → Puro.earth
• 3-4 points: 1,000-3,000 tonnes per year → Puro.earth or Gold Standard
• 5 points: >3,000 tonnes per year → Verra

C. Community impact:

• 1-2 points: Limited impact → Puro.earth
• 3-4 points: Significant impact → Verra or Puro.earth
• 5 points: Community impact is a top priority → Gold Standard

D. Target market:

• Tech companies → Puro.earth or Verra
• FMCG/Manufacturing → Verra
• NGOs/Impact investors → Gold Standard
• SMEs/Diverse buyers → Puro.earth

E. Speed:

• Need credits within 6-9 months → Puro.earth
• Can wait 12-18 months → Verra or Gold Standard

Scenario 1: Small-scale project, limited budget

Characteristics:

• Produces 500-1,500 tonnes of biochar per year
• Certification budget <50,000 USD
• Small team, limited experience
• Require quick cash flow

Recommendation: Puro.earth

Reason:

• Lowest cost, fits the budget
• Simpler process, lower risk of failure
• Marketplace helps find buyers quickly
• Short timeframe; credits can be sold after 6-9 months

Strategy:

1. Start with a small pilot project (300-500 tonnes)
2. Use Puro.earth's pre-approval to test the market
3. After gaining experience and cash flow, you can scale up or pursue dual certification with Verra

Risks:

• Dependent on Puro.earth's marketplace
• Prices may fluctuate
• Not as widely recognized as Verra

Scenario 2: Large project, focusing on high credit value

Characteristics:

• Production >3,000 tonnes of biochar per year
• Certification budget: USD 100,000–150,000
• Has an international partner or offtake agreement
• Objective: maximize credit value and reputation

Recommendation: Verra (VM0044)

Reasons:

• Most widely recognized, builds strong trust
• Compatible with future compliance markets
• Easy to find large buyers with high volumes
• Can command high prices if project quality is good

Strategy:

1. Hire an international consultant experienced with VM0044
2. Thoroughly prepare the baseline and additionality analysis
3. Secure an offtake agreement before starting validation
4. Consider adding SD VISta to increase value
5. Invest in an automated MRV system to reduce long-term costs

Risks:

• High costs, long timeline
• Complex process, may encounter delays
• Requires a strong technical team

Scenario 3: Project prioritizes community impact and the SDGs

Characteristics:

• Project linked with cooperatives and social enterprises
• Clear community impact (jobs, income, environment)
• Able to access blended finance or climate funds
• Buyers are interested in impact storytelling

Recommendation: Gold Standard

Reason:

• The most comprehensive SDG impact assessment system
• Premium price 15–25% due to co-benefits
• Suitable for impact investors and NGOs
• Creates a competitive advantage in marketing

Strategy:

1. Invest in stakeholder consultation from the start
2. Design the project with SDG impacts from the start, not "added later"
3. Measure the baseline of social impact before starting
4. Seek support from NGOs or climate funds to share costs
5. Use powerful storytelling in marketing

Risks:

• Stakeholder engagement requirements are time-consuming
• Smaller market than Verra
• Requires capacity to assess social impact

Can you combine multiple standards? Dual certification strategy

Yes, it's possible, and some large projects are doing this.

Common combination: Verra + Puro.earth

Benefits:

• Verra to build credibility and access a wide market
• Puro.earth to leverage its marketplace and sell quickly
• Diversify risk: Don't rely on a single sales channel
• Can sell to different buyer segments

Costs:

• Increase of 30-50% compared to single certification
• But can be offset by higher selling prices and larger volume

Important note:

• Do not double-count: Each tonne of CO2 can only have a credit issued once
• A clear registry linking or retirement mechanism is required
• Verra and Puro.earth are developing interoperability, but it is not yet complete

When to use dual certification:

• Very large project (>5,000 tonnes biochar/year)
• Has a strong management team
• Has experience with one standard, wants to expand
• Has many types of buyers with different requirements

VIII. Conclusion and next steps

Summary comparison: Key strengths of each standard

Verra - "The Established Standard":

• ✅ Most widely recognized, highly reputable
• ✅ Compatible with future compliance markets
• ✅ Large network of auditors and consultants
• ❌ High costs, complex procedures
• ❌ Long timelines

Gold Standard - "The Impact Standard":

• ✅ Strong integration of SDG impacts
• ✅ Premium pricing due to co-benefits
• ✅ Highly reputable with impact investors
• ❌ Smaller market
• ❌ Complex stakeholder engagement requirements

Puro.earth - "The Removal Specialist":

• ✅ Simple, fast, low-cost
• ✅ Integrated marketplace, high liquidity
• ✅ Suitable for SMEs and startups
• ❌ Relatively new, not widely recognized yet
• ❌ Dependent on Puro's marketplace

There is no 'best' standard — only the 'most suitable' one.

The most important thing is to clearly understand the project's goals, resources, and specific context. A 'good' standard for this project may not be suitable for another project.

Key questions to ask yourself:

• What is my primary motivation: Revenue, impact, or both?
• Do I have sufficient resources (money, time, people) for this standard?
• Which standard does my target buyer care about?
• What strengths does my project have to leverage (scale, co-benefits, technology)?

Preparation checklist before starting the certification process

Before investing in certification, make sure you have:

☐ A sustainable and stable biomass supply

• At least 3–5 years of supply
• Clear contracts or agreements in place
• Meet the sustainability requirements of the standard

☐ Biochar production technology that meets the standard

• Pyrolysis temperature >350°C
• Control over biochar quality (C%, H/C ratio)
• A system to accurately measure production output

☐ A clear biochar application plan

• Sell to farmers, fertilizer manufacturers, or other applications?
• Are there purchase contracts or commitments?
• Ensure biochar is not burned or decomposed

☐ Team and partners

• Is there someone who understands carbon markets and MRV?
• Do you need to hire a consultant? What budget?
• Do you have a network to find buyers?

☐ Finance

• Budget for certification: 25,000–150,000 USD depending on the standard
• Cash flow to maintain operations for 12–18 months before revenue from credits
• Can you access concessional financing or pre-financing?

☐ Legal

• Register the project with the DNA (Designated National Authority) of Vietnam
• Complete environmental permits and business licenses
• Clear land use rights (if applying biochar to soil)

Resources and additional support for biochar project owners in Vietnam

Technical documentation:

• Verra VM0044 Methodology: verra.org/methodologies
• Gold Standard Biochar Methodology: goldstandard.org
• Puro.earth BCR Methodology: puro.earth/carbon-removal-methods/biochar

Supporting organizations:

• International Biochar Initiative (IBI): Provides training and best practices
• Carbon Market Institute: Information on the Asia-Pacific carbon market
• Climate Action Reserve: Resources on MRV and carbon accounting

Networks in Vietnam:

• Vietnam Environment Association (VEA)
• Vietnam Green Business Network
• GIZ and UNDP climate projects in Vietnam

Professional consulting:

• Search for carbon consulting firms with experience in Southeast Asia
• Contact Verra, Gold Standard, and Puro.earth directly to be introduced to partners
• Attend carbon market events (Carbon Expo, Climate Week) for networking

---

The carbon market is growing rapidly, and the opportunities for biochar projects in Vietnam have never been greater. Choosing the right certification standard not only determines financial success but also creates a lasting positive impact on the environment and the community.

Don't let the complexity of the certification process discourage you. Start by assessing your project's current status, finding reputable partners, and moving forward step by step. Each ton of biochar you produce is not just a commercial product, but a real contribution to the fight against climate change.

What is your next step? Start today!