Biochar dMRV: Community Supply Chain Monitoring | Brazil
Digital MRV Puro.Earth Farm Agriculture LCA Monitoring
Project Type: Biochar Carbon Removal | Soil Amendment | Nature-based Carbon Removal Credits
Location: Capelinha, northeast Minas Gerais, Brazil
Methodology: Puro.Earth Biochar Methodology
The Verification Gap Nobody Talks About
​
Carbon markets have spent years refining how they measure emissions reductions. The methodologies are increasingly sophisticated. Third-party verification processes are rigorous. Registries like Puro.Earth are building credibility precisely because their standards are demanding.
But biochar sits in a different category, and it exposes a verification gap that remote sensing and desk-based audits cannot close.
The carbon in a biochar project isn't in a forest canopy you can photograph from space. It's in the ground. It got there because a farmer collected agricultural waste from a field, transported it to a production facility, watched it go through pyrolysis, received the finished biochar, and applied it to their soil — on a specific crop, at a specific rate, on a specific date, using a specific method.
Every one of those steps affects the carbon calculation that Puro.Earth verifiers will ultimately scrutinise. The type of feedstock determines the carbon content of the biochar produced. The moisture level at collection affects yield. Contamination affects quality. How many days elapsed between harvest and collection affects decomposition state. How the biochar was stored before production affects what arrived at the kiln. How it was applied — broadcast by hand, mixed with compost, incorporated during planting — affects soil integration and long-term carbon permanence.
None of this is visible from above. And historically, most of it has been documented on paper, reconstructed from receipts, or simply estimated. For a carbon registry that demands documented proof, that's a structural problem.
This case study covers how one established biochar operation in Minas Gerais, Brazil — producing approximately 40,000 tonnes of Puro.Earth-verified carbon removal per year — replaced paper records and periodic spot-checks with a fully digital, community-reported MRV system that follows the carbon from field to soil and every transport leg in between.
Project Brief: Biochar Carbon Removal in Minas Gerais, Brazil
​
The operation is based in Capelinha, in the northeast region of Minas Gerais — a state with deep roots in charcoal and forestry that is now becoming a significant location for biochar carbon removal at scale.
​
The company runs a large charcoal operation of approximately 420,000 tonnes per year, supported by around 126,000 hectares of FSC-certified planted and native forest. These forests aren't just carbon stores — they support significant biodiversity and have long-standing economic relationships with local communities throughout the region.
For years, waste from these forests followed the path most agricultural and forestry residues take: left to decay on the ground. Natural decomposition. Carbon returned to atmosphere. No value extracted, no benefit generated.
​
The biochar project changes that calculation entirely. Forest and agricultural residues that previously rotted are now collected, transported to one of six production units, and converted into biochar through pyrolysis — a thermal process that transforms organic material into a stable, carbon-rich solid. That biochar is then applied to soils, where it does two things simultaneously: durably removes carbon from the atmosphere, and genuinely improves the soil properties of land that needs it.
​
The carbon removal credentials are verified under the Puro.Earth Biochar Methodology, with SDG 13 assessed and verified by an accredited Validation and Verification Body. The current capacity sits at approximately 40,000 tonnes of carbon removal per year, with scaling planned as operations expand and soil improvement results accumulate.
​
The MRV challenge — how to document a dispersed supply chain spanning six production units, multiple collection points, dozens of participating farmers, and thousands of tonnes of feedstock moving through the system each year — is what brought digital monitoring into the picture.
Why Brazil, and Why Biochar Works Here​
​
Brazil has a particular land degradation problem that makes biochar unusually relevant and commercially meaningful beyond its carbon removal function.
​
Over 70% of Brazilian pasturelands are considered degraded — soils exhausted from intensive use, supporting fewer than one animal per hectare. This is land that could be productive. Instead it's a slow-motion economic and ecological problem, driving continued pressure on native forests and generating almost no agricultural value.
​
Research on biochar's effects on these degraded soils in similar Brazilian contexts is compelling. Applied to Brachiaria grass pastures, biochar has increased grass productivity by 27%, improved macronutrient availability, reduced soil acidity, and enhanced water retention — allowing soils to hold moisture for longer between rains, reducing evaporation, and supporting more consistent crop growth. These aren't theoretical benefits. They're documented outcomes on soils very similar to those this project is working with.
​
This context matters for how the Puro.Earth carbon removal credits generated by this project should be understood. The carbon removal is the registry-verified headline. But applied biochar in this landscape is also restoring agricultural productivity, reducing the economic incentive to convert more native forest, and providing smallholder farmers with a soil amendment that materially improves their yields. The co-benefits compound the carbon case.
​
The operation distributes biochar to local social development programmes — smallholder farmers in the surrounding region who receive it as a free soil amendment and are seeing real improvements in their crops. This isn't a side benefit added to look good in marketing materials. It's documented through the same farmer-reported survey system that supports the Puro.Earth verification, building an evidence base that could support formal SDG 2 and SDG 15 verification alongside the existing SDG 13.
The Supply Chain Problem: Why Biochar MRV Requires Ground-Level Data
​
Before getting into the surveys, it's worth being precise about what makes biochar supply chains specifically hard to monitor — and why Puro.Earth's verification requirements create a genuine data challenge that digital MRV is well positioned to solve.
​
The carbon removal calculation for a Puro.Earth biochar credit isn't a single measurement at one point. It's the result of a chain of inputs and observations that have to be traced from feedstock origin to final soil application. Feedstock type and quality drive the carbon calculation. Rice husks produce different biochar than maize stalks.
​
Sugarcane bagasse has different carbon content parameters than coffee husks or cotton stalks. The LCA carbon footprint calculation that Puro.Earth requires starts with what went into the kiln — and that means knowing what was collected, in what condition, and in what quantities. Wet feedstock produces less biochar per tonne than dry feedstock.
​
Contaminated feedstock introduces uncertainty into the production process. Collection timing after harvest affects decomposition state and carbon content. All of these variables flow directly into the LCA.
​
Application data determines permanence claims. Puro.Earth's methodology requires evidence that biochar has been applied to soil at appropriate rates and in appropriate conditions for durable carbon sequestration. The application data — crop type, soil type, field size, application weight and method — is the final link in the verification chain. Without it, the carbon is unaccounted for between leaving the production unit and being claimed as sequestered.
​
Transport emissions must be netted out. Moving feedstock from collection points to production units generates diesel emissions. Moving finished biochar from production back to application sites generates more. Puro.Earth's LCA approach requires these emissions to be counted against the gross carbon removal to calculate accurate net removal. If transport data is estimated rather than measured, the LCA carries an uncertainty that sophisticated buyers and rigorous verifiers will notice.
​
Historically, capturing all of this required paper records, periodic third-party site visits, and a significant amount of reconstruction and estimation between audits. Digital MRV replaces most of that with real-time, farmer-reported data, timestamped and GPS-tagged at point of activity.
Puro.Earth Verification and the LCA Carbon Footprint Challenge
​
Puro.Earth is one of the more rigorous carbon removal marketplaces operating today. Its biochar methodology requires a full Life Cycle Assessment covering the entire production chain — from feedstock sourcing through production to final application — and mandates third-party verification of both the carbon removal claim and any SDG co-benefits that are formally asserted.
​
This rigour is exactly what distinguishes Puro.Earth credits in the voluntary carbon market. Corporate buyers purchasing Puro.Earth biochar credits are buying something that has been examined more carefully than most alternatives. The methodology is public. The verification requirements are documented. The registry is transparent.
​
But that rigour creates a data burden. An LCA that genuinely covers feedstock sourcing, moisture content, transport distances, production conditions, and application rates requires a lot of ground-level data — data that has traditionally been the hardest part of the biochar MRV puzzle. The methodology is demanding precisely because the claims being made are significant.
​
CitizenClimate's digital MRV system was built to meet exactly this kind of data burden. The two surveys — Feedstock Preparation and Biochar Application — are structured around the variables that matter for Puro.Earth LCA calculations and verification evidence. The transport tracking layer adds the journey data that completes the LCA. Together, they create a documented evidence package that a Puro.Earth VVB can review directly, rather than reconstructing from fragmented paper records during a periodic audit.
The Feedstock Preparation Survey: Documenting What Goes Into the Kiln
​
The first survey is completed by farmers immediately after collecting agricultural waste from their fields — before it is transported to any of the six production facilities.
​
It is a 10-question survey, straightforward enough for a farmer with a smartphone to complete in the field in a few minutes, but detailed enough to capture every variable that matters for Puro.Earth LCA accuracy and verification.
​
Survey introduction: "This survey helps us track agricultural waste collection for biochar production. Please complete after collecting biomass from your fields." A consent checkbox confirms participation before the survey begins.
​
Question 1 — Type of agricultural waste collected. A multiple-choice list covering the main feedstock types relevant to this agricultural region: maize stalks and cobs, rice husks and straw, wheat straw, bean stalks and pods, coconut husks, sugarcane bagasse, coffee husks and pulp, cotton stalks, and other (specify). The feedstock type is the foundation of the LCA carbon calculation — it determines the carbon content parameters used to calculate how much carbon removal the resulting biochar will represent.
​
Question 2 — Total weight collected (kg). A numeric input field. The actual weight of biomass collected, in kilograms. This is the mass balance input that flows through the entire Puro.Earth carbon calculation — feedstock weight in, biochar weight out, carbon removal calculated from the difference.
​
Question 3 — Method used to weigh. Digital scale, traditional balance, or estimated by volume. This is data quality metadata. A weight measured on a calibrated digital scale carries more confidence than one estimated by volume. Capturing the measurement method transparently allows Puro.Earth verifiers and LCA analysts to apply appropriate uncertainty adjustments by data source — which is more honest and more defensible than treating all weight data as equally reliable.
​
Question 4 — Moisture content assessment. Four descriptive categories: very dry (crisp, breaks easily), moderately dry (some flexibility), slightly moist (soft, bendable), and very wet (just harvested or rained on). Farmers in remote agricultural areas don't have moisture metres. But they can feel whether stalks snap or bend. The plain-language descriptions map observable physical characteristics to moisture categories that feed directly into biochar yield calculations for the LCA. No laboratory equipment required — and the results are more consistently reported than asking farmers to estimate a percentage.
​
Question 5 — How many days after harvest was waste collected? A numeric input. Elapsed time between crop harvest and waste collection matters because organic material begins decomposing immediately. Stalks collected three days after harvest are in meaningfully better condition than those collected three weeks later. This timing data informs expected carbon content and quality of what arrives at the production unit, and is relevant to the LCA feedstock quality assessment.
​​
​
​Question 6 — Any contamination present? Options include none visible, soil or dirt mixed in, plastic or metal pieces, other crop residues, and other (specify). Contamination affects production quality and can introduce non-organic material into the biochar. Capturing this at collection point allows production managers to make informed decisions about batch acceptance and any processing adjustments needed, and gives verifiers a record of feedstock quality controls in place.
​
Question 7 — Photos taken. A media capture screen with options to take a photo directly, upload from gallery, or select a video. Photos are automatically GPS-tagged when taken on a smartphone. This creates visual evidence of what was collected, where, and when — an audit trail that paper records simply cannot replicate. A Puro.Earth VVB reviewing records can examine a photograph of collected maize stalks alongside the GPS coordinates of the field, the date and time, and the reported weight. That's a qualitatively different standard of evidence.
​
Question 8 — Will you have more feedstock available this season? A simple yes or no. This forward-looking question serves the project's operational planning — production units need to know what feedstock volumes are coming across the collection network. It also creates a supply pipeline indicator that project managers can monitor across all participating farmers.
​
Question 9 — Storage method before biochar production. An open text field. How farmers store biomass between collection and transport to the production facility varies widely across the region. Some store in covered areas, some in the open. Storage method affects what arrives at the production unit and in what condition. The open text field captures actual storage descriptions rather than forcing farmers into predetermined categories that might not reflect their situation.
​
Question 10 — Other notes. A final open text field, followed by the green Submit Survey button.
​
The complete 10-question feedstock record — waste type, weight, weighing method, moisture, timing, contamination, photos, future availability, storage, and notes — is submitted as a single timestamped record tied to a specific farmer, GPS location, and date. Across dozens of farmers and thousands of tonnes of feedstock per year, this builds a documented feedstock register that Puro.Earth verifiers can audit directly.
The Biochar Application Survey: Recording What Goes Into the Ground
​
The second survey closes the loop on the Puro.Earth mass balance. Completed by farmers after applying biochar to their fields, it captures the application side of the chain and connects carbon removal claims to specific agricultural sites.
Survey introduction: "Complete this survey after applying biochar to your crop fields. This helps us monitor application rates and effectiveness." The same consent checkbox confirms participation.
​
Question 1 — Crop type where biochar was applied. Multiple choice covering maize, rice, beans, tomatoes, peppers, squash, onions, mixed vegetables, and other (specify). Different crops respond differently to biochar. Tracking which crops receive biochar allows the project to build an evidence base for agricultural co-benefits over time — which crops show yield improvements, which application contexts are most effective — supporting the expansion of formal SDG verification beyond SDG 13 in future verification cycles.
​
Question 2 — Field size treated (acres). A numeric input. Combined with the biochar weight applied in Question 4, this gives the application rate in kg per acre — the primary metric for verifying that biochar has been applied at rates appropriate for the permanence claims made to Puro.Earth.
​
Question 3 — Soil type. Clay, sandy, loamy, rocky, or unknown. Soil type affects how biochar behaves once applied. Clay soils and sandy soils respond differently in terms of water retention, nutrient holding, and long-term carbon stability. This data also connects directly to the project's co-benefit claims about restoring degraded Brazilian pasturelands, where specific soil types are known to respond strongly to biochar amendment.
​
Question 4 — Total weight of biochar applied (kg). The core quantification metric for the Puro.Earth application record. The weight of biochar applied to this specific field on this specific date. When verified against production records showing how much biochar left each of the six facilities, this contributes to the mass balance that underpins the carbon removal calculation and ensures biochar is accounted for between production and application.
Question 5 — Method of application. Five options: broadcasting by hand, mixed with compost or fertiliser, incorporated during planting, top dressing around plants, and other (specify). Application method affects distribution uniformity and soil incorporation depth — variables that affect both carbon permanence and the soil amendment effectiveness claimed as a co-benefit. Broadcasting produces different results than incorporation during planting. Puro.Earth's permanence assessment benefits from knowing how biochar was integrated into the soil.
​
Question 6 — Was biochar charged with nutrients before application? Yes or no. Nutrient charging — pre-loading biochar with nutrients before applying it — enhances immediate agronomic benefit and affects soil amendment co-benefit claims. This single question captures an important methodological variable that would otherwise be invisible in application records, and is relevant to understanding why some farmers report stronger crop responses than others.
​
Question 7 — Photos taken during application. The same GPS-tagged media capture interface as the feedstock survey. Photographic evidence of biochar being applied to a specific field, with coordinates matching the reported location, provides the visual verification layer for Puro.Earth VVB review. It's the difference between a record that says something happened and evidence that it did.
​
Question 8 — Additional comments. Open text, followed by the green Submit Survey button.
​
The completed application record ties a specific quantity of biochar to a specific farmer, crop, field, soil type, application method, and date. Across all participating farmers over a full growing season, this builds a spatially explicit application register that supports both the Puro.Earth carbon removal claim and the agricultural co-benefit evidence that the project will use for future SDG verification.
​​
Transport Tracking: Calculating the Real Carbon Cost of Moving Biochar
​
The two surveys cover the bookends of the supply chain. But there's a step in between that carries its own carbon cost that Puro.Earth's LCA methodology requires to be accounted for: transport.
​
Moving agricultural waste from collection points across the region to one of six production units generates diesel emissions. Moving finished biochar from those production units back out to application sites generates more. Puro.Earth requires these emissions to be counted against the gross carbon removal to arrive at an accurate net removal figure. If they're not captured, the LCA is incomplete and the carbon removal claim is overstated.
​
The CitizenClimate platform captures transport data through drivers' phones. As drivers make collection and delivery runs, their routes, distances, and stops are logged automatically. This creates a continuous transport activity record that feeds directly into the LCA carbon footprint calculation without requiring drivers to fill in forms or recall distances after the fact.
​
The practical significance of this is worth stating clearly. Transport emissions in biochar LCAs are commonly estimated based on assumed average distances and vehicle loads. When real GPS-tracked journey data replaces those estimates, the LCA becomes more accurate, more specific, and more defensible under Puro.Earth verification scrutiny. A VVB reviewing an LCA built on measured transport data is reviewing something substantively more robust than one built on assumptions.
​
It also gives project managers something they haven't previously had: a live supply chain map. Which collection routes are generating the most emissions per tonne of feedstock moved? Where are the logistics inefficiencies that, if addressed, would improve the net carbon removal figure? Real transport data makes these questions answerable. Estimated averages never could.
What a Transparent, Auditable Supply Chain Looks Like
​
The combination of the two surveys and transport tracking creates something that has typically been absent from biochar projects: a fully digital, end-to-end supply chain record covering every material step from feedstock origin to soil application.
​
A Puro.Earth VVB reviewing this project's records can trace a specific tonne of biochar from the moment a farmer collected agricultural waste — waste type, weight, moisture, contamination, GPS location, photograph — through transport to a production unit, through pyrolysis, through transport again to an application site, to the field where it was applied — crop type, soil type, application rate, method, GPS-tagged photograph of the application itself.
​
That is a qualitatively different evidence package from what most biochar projects can offer. It's not that other projects are producing unreliable data — it's that the infrastructure to document this level of supply chain granularity at scale simply hasn't existed. Paper records get lost, damaged, or never completed. Estimates compound. Periodic audits capture snapshots rather than continuous records.
​
Digital MRV completed by the farmers doing the actual work creates a live record rather than a reconstructed one. The data is more accurate because it's recorded at the moment of the activity, not recalled days later. It's more trustworthy because it carries timestamps and GPS coordinates rather than handwritten entries with no location data. And it's more auditable because it's stored centrally, accessible to Puro.Earth verification bodies without requiring site visits for every audit cycle — a genuine efficiency benefit that reduces verification overhead over the project lifetime.
Co-Benefits Beyond Carbon: Soil Health, Water Retention, and Smallholder Productivity
​
The Puro.Earth carbon removal credit is the commercial headline. But this project's ambitions extend meaningfully beyond the carbon calculation, and the monitoring system builds the evidence base to formally verify that over time.
​
Biochar applied to degraded Brazilian soils improves organic matter content, increases water retention, reduces acidity, and enhances macronutrient availability. Research on similar soils in the region documents a 27% increase in Brachiaria grass productivity — the kind of result that changes the economics of degraded pastureland. Soils that previously lost water quickly between rains hold moisture for longer, reducing evaporation and supporting more consistent plant growth through dry periods.
​
The social dimension is equally concrete. The operation distributes biochar to local smallholder farmers as a free soil amendment — the same farmers completing the application surveys. For these households, a soil amendment that demonstrably improves crop yields isn't a secondary benefit. It's a direct economic improvement in household food security and income, connecting the project's carbon removal function to SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 1 (No Poverty) in practical terms that go well beyond the formally verified SDG 13.
​
As survey data accumulates across growing seasons, the project builds an increasingly rich evidence base. Which crops respond most strongly to biochar application? Which soil types show the greatest improvement? How do yield changes compare between fields that received nutrient-charged biochar versus uncharged application? Are farmers reporting positive agronomic experiences consistently across the region?
​
These are questions that the monitoring system can answer with data, not anecdote. That matters because Puro.Earth's SDG assessment requirements — and those of other rigorous registries — demand documented evidence rather than narrative claims. The digital MRV infrastructure being built now is the foundation for expanding formal SDG verification to include SDG 2 and SDG 15 in future verification cycles.
What Carbon Buyers See
​
When a corporate buyer evaluates this project for Puro.Earth biochar credit purchase, the evidence package available to them is substantively different from a typical carbon removal project.
​
The carbon integrity layer is what they expect: Puro.Earth Biochar Methodology verified emission reductions, LCA carbon footprint calculations incorporating real transport data, third-party VVB validation of both the carbon removal claim and SDG 13 assessment. That's the baseline for any credible Puro.Earth credit.
​
Underneath that sits a supply chain evidence layer. Feedstock records from multiple farmers documenting waste type, weight, measurement method, moisture, contamination, and collection timing at point of origin. Application records showing where each tonne of biochar went, on which crop, on which soil type, at what rate, using what method. GPS-tagged photographs tying survey records to real agricultural locations. Real GPS transport data feeding measured journey distances into the LCA rather than assumed averages.
​
For corporate buyers whose sustainability reporting is under increasing scrutiny — from investors, regulators, and NGOs examining net-zero claims — this matters in a specific way. Carbon credits cited in annual reports and ESG disclosures need to withstand examination. Puro.Earth credits with a documented, GPS-verified, farmer-reported supply chain are demonstrably more defensible than credits supported by reconstructed records and estimated figures.
​
There is also a practical efficiency benefit. Digital supply chain records accessible remotely mean verification bodies can review evidence between audit cycles without site visits for every check. That reduces verification costs over the project lifetime, which ultimately improves the economics of the credits and the sustainability of the project itself.
What This Model Means for Scaling Puro.Earth Biochar Projects
​
The approach demonstrated here works at the scale of one established industrial operation with six production units. It's equally applicable to smaller community biochar programmes, distributed smallholder initiatives, and biochar projects in entirely different geographies.
​
The survey questions are configurable to feedstock context. A project in East Africa using maize stalks and sorghum residues needs different feedstock options than one in Southeast Asia using rice husks and coconut husks. A project applying biochar to coffee plantations asks different crop questions than one restoring degraded cattle pasture in Brazil. The underlying workflow — document feedstock at collection, track transport, record application, capture photo evidence — applies regardless of scale or geography.
​
What doesn't change is the fundamental case: Puro.Earth biochar carbon removal claims are only as strong as the data behind them. And data collected by farmers doing the actual work, at the time they do it, on GPS-enabled smartphones, is stronger data than anything reconstructed after the fact from paper records.
​
The voluntary carbon removal market is moving towards greater rigour. Puro.Earth's methodology is demanding precisely because the claims being made are significant — durable carbon removal, measured over decades. Projects that build robust digital MRV infrastructure now are better positioned for a market that will expect this standard of evidence from everyone eventually.
Your Project
Could Work Like This
If you're working on a climate or environmental project that needs verified community data, you're probably facing similar questions to the ones in this case study.
​
How do you prove your project is working beyond just the technical metrics? What data do your funders need for carbon credits or ESG reporting? How do you catch problems on the ground before they undermine your results? Most importantly—how do you ensure the people affected by your project actually understand and benefit from it?
​
The difference between projects that succeed and ones that struggle often comes down to whether you're measuring the right things. Carbon calculations tell you about emissions. Community feedback tells you whether the intervention is actually working in practice. Education ensures that feedback is informed, not just reactive.
​
We've built the survey systems, education modules, and geotagged monitoring tools that made this project work. The same approach adapts to your context—different activities, different locations, different communities, different objectives.
​
What you get:
-
Custom education modules that teach participants about what they're monitoring and why it matters
-
Multilingual surveys designed for offline use in areas with limited connectivity
-
GPS-tagged responses that show location-specific patterns and problems
-
Anonymous feedback systems that protect privacy whilst collecting honest data
-
Verified data packages that meet carbon credit, MRV, and ESG reporting requirements
-
Operational insights that help you fix problems before they become failures
​
What your project needs:
-
A climate, environmental, or development initiative (planning stage or already operating)
-
Community members whose participation and feedback would strengthen your project
-
Funders or stakeholders who want proof of impact alongside technical metrics
​
The platform works whether you're monitoring 10 hectares or 10,000, whether you're in a remote village or an urban centre, whether your participants speak Spanish, English, French, Hindi, Indonesian, or Ukrainian.
​
Get Started
If you're working on a project that needs more than just technical data—where community engagement and verified feedback actually matter—let's talk about how this approach could work for you.
​
​​
​
​
Or if you're not sure whether this approach fits your situation, send us a quick message describing what you're trying to achieve. We'll tell you honestly whether education-based community monitoring makes sense for your context.
​
Email us: nick@citizenclimate.net