Biochar Meth - Public Comment Draft

American
Car bon
Registry
American Carbon Registry
Trusted solutions for the carbon market

Anonprofitenterpriseof

2010 All Rights Reserved
MethodologyforBiocharProjects
Version1.0
MethodologyforBiocharProjectsv1.0

Page|1
PreparedBy:
TeresaKoper,PeterWeisberg(TheClimateTrust),AlisonLennie,KeithDriver,HannahSimons
(PrasinoGroup),MiguelRodriguez,DebbieReed,StefanJirka(InternationalBiocharInitiative),
JohnGaunt(CarbonConsulting)


Page|2
CONTENTS
1 Met hodol ogy descr i pt i on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.1 SummaryDescriptionoftheMethodology..................................................................................4
1.2 RelationshiptoApprovedMethodologies....................................................................................4
1.3 Sources..........................................................................................................................................6
1.4 Definitions.....................................................................................................................................6
2 Appl i cabi l i t y Condi t i ons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3 Pr oj ect Boundar i es. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1GreenhouseGasandCarbonPoolBoundaries.................................................................................14
3.2TemporalBoundaries........................................................................................................................25
4 Pr ocedur e f or Det er mi ni ng t he Basel i ne Scenar i o and
Addi t i onal i t y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.1ProcedureforDeterminingtheBaselineScenario...........................................................................26
4.2ProcedureforDemonstratingAdditionality.....................................................................................30
5 Quant i f i cat i on of GHG Emi ssi on Reduct i ons and Removal s. . . . . . 31
5.1BaselineEmissions............................................................................................................................31
BioenergyProduction(Default)..........................................................................................................34
AerobicDecomposition(Alternative).................................................................................................34
AnaerobicDecompositioninaSWDS(Alternative)............................................................................35
AnaerobicDecompositioninaWastewaterLagoon(Alternative).....................................................36
Combustion(Alternative)....................................................................................................................41
ElectricityProduction..........................................................................................................................41
Oil........................................................................................................................................................42
Gas......................................................................................................................................................43
Heat.....................................................................................................................................................44
5.2ProjectEmissions..............................................................................................................................45
FeedstockTransportation...................................................................................................................46
ProcessingandDryingFeedstock........................................................................................................46
AuxiliaryFuelCombustion..................................................................................................................47

Page|3
ElectricityConsumption......................................................................................................................47
NonBiogenicPyrolysis........................................................................................................................48
FuelforProcessingBioOil..................................................................................................................49
FuelforProcessingSyngas..................................................................................................................49
FuelforBlendingBiochar....................................................................................................................50
BioOilUse...........................................................................................................................................50
SyngasUse..........................................................................................................................................50
BiocharinSitu.....................................................................................................................................51
5.3Leakage.............................................................................................................................................52
5.4SummaryofGHGEmissionReductionand/orRemovals.................................................................53
6 Moni t or i ng. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
6.1DataandParametersAvailableatValidation...................................................................................55
6.2DataandParametersMonitored......................................................................................................73
6.3DescriptionoftheMonitoringPlan..................................................................................................84
7 Ref er ences and Ot her I nf or mat i on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
7.1Sources..............................................................................................................................................86
7.2References........................................................................................................................................89
APPENDI X 1: St andar d t est met hod f or est i mat i ng Bi ochar car bon
st abi l i t y ( BC
+100
) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
APPENDI X 2: J ust i f i cat i on f or t he St andar d t est met hod f or
est i mat i ng Bi ochar car bon st abi l i t y ( BC
+100
) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
APPENDI X 3: Pr i mi ng of SOC mi ner al i zat i on by bl ack car bon. . . . 130
APPENDI X 4: SUSTAI NABLE FEEDSTOCK Cr i t er i a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
GeneralGuidelines(ApplicabletoallFeedstocks)................................................................................133
AdditionalGuidelinesforForestandAgriculturalFeedstocks..............................................................135
ForestryFeedstocks..........................................................................................................................135
AgriculturalFeedstocks.....................................................................................................................135

Page|4
1METHODOLOGYDESCRIPTION
1.1 SummaryDescriptionoftheMethodology
Biochar is produced through the Pyrolysis of biomass. Under this Methodology, potential
Feedstocks include forestry and agriculture residues, Municipal Solid Wastes, and other
biomassbased materials approved for use under the International Biochar Initiatives IBI
Biochar Standards (2013). In the absence of Pyrolysis, these Feedstocks would otherwise be
combusted or decompose, releasing carbon dioxide (if combustion or decomposition under
aerobic conditions occurs) or methane (if decomposition occurs under methanogenic
conditions).
Pyrolysisphysicallyandchemicallytransformstherapidlydecomposingcarboninrawbiomass
intoamorerecalcitrantform,whichcanbeappliedtosoilforlongtermsequestration.Alarge
portion of the Fixed Carbon in Biochar, as measured using the testing methods identified
herein, is sequestered for a time period well in excess of 100 years. By transforming the
biomasscarbontoahighlystableformthatresistsdegradation,andensuringthatitremainsin
this form, emissions from the decomposition or combustion of Feedstocks are significantly
reduced. In addition to this sequestration, Pyrolysis also generates biooil and syngas, which if
upgraded, may be used as renewable energy and thus reduces anthropogenic greenhouse gas
(GHG)emissions.
This Methodology quantifies these GHG emission reductions and sequestration benefits that
resultfromtheimplementationofBiocharprojects.
1.2 RelationshiptoApprovedMethodologies
Approvedandpendingmethodologiesforallsectoralscopeswerereviewedtodetermineifan
existing Methodology could reasonably be revised to meet the objective of this proposed
Methodology. Two methodologies related to Biochar projects from the Clean Development
Mechanismwereidentified,andareoutlinedinTable1.


Page|5
Table1:SummaryofRelatedMethodologies
Methodology Title PrimaryReduction
Mechanism
Comments
CDMAMS
III.E
Avoidanceofmethane
productionfromdecay
ofbiomassthrough
controlledcombustion,
gasificationor
mechanical/thermal
treatmentVersion
16.0
Avoidanceof
methaneemissions
duetopreventionof
anaerobicdecayof
biomassinwaste.Use
ofbiomassinwaste
asenergysource.
Controlledcombustion
Methodology,allowingfor
allfinalproducts(refuse
derivedfuel/stabilized
biomass)tobecombusted
afterthermochemical
transformation.Goalof
AMSIII.Eistoprevent
Pyrolysisandtoensure
biogeniccombustion
emissions.
CDMAMS
III.L
Avoidanceofmethane
productionfrombiomass
decaythroughcontrolled
PyrolysisVersion2.0
GHGemission
avoidanceand
replacementofmore
GHGintensiveservice
byPyrolysisoforganic
matter.
Landfillavoidanceand
PyrolysisMethodology,
allowingforfinalproducts
tobecombustedafter
Pyrolysis.GoalofAMSIII.L
istoavoidlandfill
emissionsthroughPyrolysis
andcombustion.Required
volatile:FixedCarbon
ratiosare<50%(ASTM
D176284).Waste
pyrolyzedcanconsistof
nonbiogenicmaterials,
andisexpectedtobe
combusted(bio
oils/syngas)ordisposedof
afterproduction.

Page|6
ThestablecarbonthatissequesteredthroughPyrolysisisnotincludedineitherofthesesmall
scale methodologies, which are instead focused on avoided methane emissions. Given this
distinction,Methodologyadaptationwouldnotbefeasible,assignificantchangesarerequired
to accommodate the emission reductions associated with sequestered carbon, which is the
primaryreductioncapturedbythisMethodology.
1.3 Sources
This Methodology is based on the draft Quantification Protocol Biochar Projects, v.1, issued
under the Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (Carbon Consulting and Leading Carbon
2011).
In addition, technical and good practice guidance was obtained from Environment Canadas
annual GHG reporting, the US EPAs Emission Inventory, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), and various other reliable sources of information. The Clean
DevelopmentMechanismsAM0036FuelswitchfromfossilfuelstoBiomassResiduesinheat
generation equipment (United Nations 2012a) provided guidance on biomass energy
accounting. The Methodology also relies heavily on the International Biochar Initiatives
StandardizedProductDefinitionandTestingGuidelinesforBiocharthatisUsedinSoil(theIBI
Biochar Standards). The good practice guidance and best science used to develop the
quantificationMethodologyarepresentedinSection10.
1.4 Definitions
Biochar: Biochar is a solid material obtained through the thermochemical
conversion of biomass in an oxygenlimited environment. Biochar
differs from charcoal in the sense that its primary use is not for
fuel, but for biosequestration or atmospheric carbon capture and
storage.TobecreditedbythisMethodology,Biocharmustcomply
with all requirements of the most recent version of the
International Biochar Initiatives Standardized Product Definition
andProductTestingGuidelinesforBiocharthatisUsedinSoil(aka
IBIBiocharStandards).
BiogenicBiomass: Materialthatisproducedororiginatingfromalivingorganism.

Page|7
BiomassResidues:
ChainofCustody:
Biomass byproducts, residues and waste streams from
agriculture,forestryandrelatedindustries.(UnitedNations2006).
Any Biomass Residue meeting the Feedstock expectations of the
IBI Biochar Standards (2013) is eligible for Biochar production
under this methodology, provided it meets the applicable
SustainableFeedstockcriteriainAppendix4.
Documenting/tracking the location and ownership history of

feedstock stepbystep from its harvesting source to the final
productofBiochar.
Developed/Industrialized
Nation:
Therearenoestablishedconventionsfordesignatingdeveloped
or developing nations. This Methodology will follow the listing
of industrialized nations and economies in transition included
within Annex I Parties to the United Nations Framework
ConventiononClimateChange(UNFCCC)(UnitedNations2012g).
DevelopingNation:
Following the definition of developed nation provided above, a

Developing Nation will be considered to include all nations not
listed within the Annex I parties to the UNFCCC (United Nations
2012g),whichhavebeenidentifiedasDevelopingNationsorleast
developedcountries.
Diluent/Dilutant: Inorganicmaterialthatisdeliberatelymixedorinadvertentlycomingled
with biomass feedstock prior to processing. These materials will not
carbonize in an equivalent fashion to the biomass. These materials
includesoilsandcommonconstituentsofnaturalsoils,suchasclaysand
gravel that may be gathered with biomass or intermixed through prior
use of the feedstock biomass. Diluents/dilutants may be found in a
diverserangeofFeedstocks,suchasagriculturalresidues,manures,and
MunicipalSolidWastes.(InternationalBiocharInitiative2012).
Efficiency: Efficiencyisdefinedasthenetquantityofusefulenergygenerated
bytheenergygenerationsystemperquantityofenergycontained

Page|8
in the fuel fired. In case of boilers that are used only for thermal
energy generation (and not for power generation), the Efficiency
is defined as the net quantity of useful heat generated per
quantityofenergycontainedinthefuelfiredintheboiler.Incase
of power plants producing only electric power (not cogeneration
plants),theEfficiencyisdefinedasthenetelectricitygeneratedby
the power plant as a whole divided by the quantity of energy
containedinthefuelfired.
Feedstock: The material undergoing thermochemical processes to create

Biochar. Feedstock materials for Biochar consist of Biogenic
Biomass, but may also contain Diluents. (International Biochar
Initiative2013).
FixedCarbon: Fixed Carbon is the component of the Biochar that has been
shown to be stable through the application of the Ultimate
Analysis or otherwise, as required in the Methodology to assess
thestabilityofthesequestrationofthecarbon.
MaterialChange: Material Changes in Feedstock reflect shifts in Feedstock type

from one source of biomass to a distinctly different source of
biomass.InmixedFeedstocks,whetherprocessedorunprocessed,
a 10% or greater shift in total Feedstock composition shall
constituteaMaterialChangeinFeedstock.
Material Changes in production processes reflect increases or
decreases in process temperature or residence time. A Material
Changeinthermochemicalproductionparametershasoccurredif
processtemperature(alsoknownasheattreatmenttemperature)
changes by +/ 50C, or if the thermochemical processing time
(residence time) changes by more than 10%. See Appendix 4 of
the IBI Biochar Standards (2013) for more information on how to
determine Feedstock types that constitute a Material Change in
type.

Page|9
MobileBiochar
Operations:
MobileBiocharOperations areBiochar facilitiesthatarebuiltona
trailer or that otherwise can be relocated. These operations may
bemovedonadailyorsimilarlyfrequentbasis.
MunicipalWaste/
MunicipalSolidWaste
(MSW):
ProjectProponent:
Solid, nonhazardous refuse that originates from residential,

industrial, commercial, institutional, demolition, land clearing or
construction sources (Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment2005).Municipalsolidwasteincludesdurablegoods,
nondurable goods, containers and packaging, food wastes and
yard trimmings, and miscellaneous inorganic wastes (US
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency2011).
An individual or entity that undertakes, develops, and/or owns a

project. This may include the project investor, designer, and/or
owner of the lands/facilities on which project activities are
conducted. The Project Proponent and landowner/facility owner
maybedifferententities.
ProximateAnalysis: This methodological approach establishes the loss of material as

samples are heated to predefined temperatures and typically
reports volatile matter, Fixed Carbon, moisture content, and ash
presentinafuelasapercentageofdryfuelweight.International
Standards under ASTM exist for this measure; the relevant
methodisASTMD176284(2007).
Pyrolysis: The thermochemical decomposition of a material or compound

into a carbon rich residue, noncondensable combustible gases,
and condensable vapors, by heating in the absence of oxygen, or
low oxygen environment, without any other reagents, except
possiblysteam(UnitedNations2012c).
SoilAmendment: Any material added to soil to improve its physical and chemical
properties, such as water retention, permeability, water
infiltration, drainage, aeration and structure; for the goal of

Page|10
providing an improved rooting environment (Davis and Wilson

2005).
SolidWasteDisposalSite
(SWDS)
Designated areas intended as the final storage place for solid
waste. Stockpiles are considered a SWDS if (a) their volume to
surface area ratio is 1.5 or larger and if (b) a visual inspection by
the Department Of Environment or responsible governing body
confirmsthatthematerialisexposedtoanaerobicconditions(i.e.
ithasalowporosityandismoist).
UltimateAnalysis:
VerificationStatement:
Verifier:
Aquantitative analysisinwhichpercentagesofallelementsinthe
substance are determined. International Standards under ASTM
(www.astm.org) exist for Ultimate Analysis; the relevant method
isASTMD317609(2005).
A verification statement provides assurance that, through

examination of objective evidence by a competent and
independent third party, a GHG assertion is in conformity with
applicablerequirements.
A competent and independent person, persons or firm

responsible for performing the verification process. To conduct
verificationtheverifiermustbeACRapproved.


Page|11
2APPLICABILITYCONDITIONS
1. ThisMethodologyisapplicabletoprojectsthatconvertvariousFeedstocksintoBiochar,
where the only Feedstocks that meet the definition of Biomass Residues above are
eligible under this Methodology. The project must not claim carbon credits for any
Feedstock that is purposefully grown in an agricultural or forestry system whose
primary function is to serve as a Feedstock to be converted to Biochar. Only waste
residues (from agricultural and forestry products, Municipal Solid Wastes, and other
sources of biomassbased Feedstock materials) are eligible as Feedstocks. Concerns of
Feedstock sustainability pertaining to the overharvesting of agricultural residues and
the depletion of soil organic Carbon Stocks are addressed in Appendix 4. Baseline
conditions claiming the combustion, aerobic or anaerobic decomposition, or
combustionforbioenergyproductionofanyFeedstockmustbesubstantiatedusingthe
AdditionalitytestdescribedinSection2.
2. The Feedstock used to create Biochar offset credits must originate from a biomass
source or be biogenic in nature; must meet the Feedstock expectations of the IBI
BiocharStandards(2013);andmustmeettheapplicableSustainableFeedstockcriteria
in Appendix 4. If Biochar has been produced from Feedstocks of mixed origin, the
carbon content of the Feedstock must be evaluated to assess the percent biomass or
biogenic carbon content eligible for offset credit. All nonbiogenic material that is
pyrolyzedmustbeaccountedforwithintheprojectemissions.
3. AllBiocharproducedbytheprojectmustcomplywithalltherequirementsofthemost
recent version of the International Biochar Initiatives Standardized Product Definition
and Product Testing Guidelines for Biochar That is Used in Soil (International Biochar
Initiative2013).ProjectProponents mustannuallypresentappropriatedocumentation
ofsuchcompliance.
4. Theratioofhydrogentoorganiccarbon,asmeasuredaccordingtotheStandardTest
Method for Estimating Biochar Carbon Stability by the International Biochar Initiative
(2013), is equal to or less than 0.7. The quantity of stable sequestered carbon of
Biochars with a hydrogen to organic carbon ratio of greater than 0.7 cannot be
conservativelyassured.

Page|12
5. The Biochar produced by the project must be applied to land or mixed with another
soil,compost,oramendmentmedium.Suitableevidenceofapplicationtosoilormixing
withSoilAmendmentsisrequired.
Biochar that is specifically designed and intended as a Soil Amendment presents a
disincentive to combustion due to changes in its physical and chemical characteristics,
or poor return on investment as a fuel source. Assurance of the stable sequestration
value of Biochar is therefore provided through attestations related to the materials
end use. Such end use attestations must be guaranteed by the presentation of
substantive proof, through the application of Biochar to soil, the type of product sold,
the blending of Biochar with other amendment materials, and additional features
describedbelow.
EndUse:
Substantive proof that Biochar is being applied to soil can be presented through
agricultural records that indicate the application of Biochar to soil or its use as a
horticulturalproduct;byindicatingthatBiocharhasbeenmixedorblendedwithother
Soil Amendments, microbial inoculants, fertilizers and other nutrient products; or by
presentinginformationontwoofthefollowing:
a. SizeofParticles
A size limit of less than 2 inches (5.08 cm) as the longest dimension has been
placed on Biochar, such that larger pieces that could be perceived as fuel
substitutes are avoided within all packaging and shipments of offseteligible
Biochar.Smallerparticlesfacilitateeasierblendingwithadditionalamendments,
andwithsoil.
b. ComparisonofHeatingValueandPrice
Presenting evidence of a low heating value to price, when compared to fuel
charcoal demonstrates a disincentive to combustion. Since Biochar provides
greaterpervolumeorperweightvalueasanoncombustedgood,combustionis
less likely to occur when compared to a charcoal of greater heating value or
lowerpricepoint.Biocharpricedoutsideofitsheatingvalueisnotcosteffective
as a fuel. Providing price and heating value (or BTU) information indicates that
thereisaneconomicdisincentivetothecombustionofSoilAmendmentBiochar,

Page|13
as it is of higher value when applied to soil. It is perceived that the majority of

SoilAmendmentBiocharsaresoldatahigherpricepervolumeand/orpriceper
weight than fuel charcoal, pricing Biochar outside of its heating value, and
thereforenotcosteffectiveasafuel.
c. Marketing
Indicating that Biochar is promoted and sold as a Soil Amendment (through the
inclusionofmarketingmaterials,linkstoawebsite,orothersimilarinformation).
6. The technology used for producing Biochar must meet all applicable local, regional,
state, and national air quality Standards in the nation of Biochar production. Project
Proponents must present relevant documentation to indicate that regulatory
expectationshavebeenmet.
7. ThefacilitycreatingtheBiocharisoperatingunderapplicablefacilitypermits,withthe
Biochar and coproducts handled and utilized in keeping with all local, regional, state
and federal regulations. Project Proponents must present relevant documentation to
indicatethatregulatoryexpectationshavebeenmet.
8. The Project Proponent must demonstrate uncontested and exclusive claim to the
ownership of the GHG benefits derived from the project activities. The Project
ProponentmusthavedocumentationtoaddressandresolveallpotentialclaimstoGHG
benefits by the Feedstock producer, Biochar producer, retailer and enduser. Any
transferofcarbonrightsmustbeclearlydocumented.


Page|14
3PROJECTBOUNDARIES
3.1GreenhouseGasandCarbonPoolBoundaries
Sources,SinksandReservoirs(SSRs)includedintheprojectandbaselinequantificationinclude
those that are within the project site (the physical, geographic location of where the Pyrolysis
of the Feedstocks into Biochar occurred), as well as others that are offsite. A generalized
process flow diagram of a typical project and baseline are presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2,
respectively. The SSRs represented in those figures were compared and their relevance
evaluated to determine if they should be included or excluded from the quantification
Methodology. While Biochar may translocate, we assume that the proportion of carbon
calculated to be stable remains sequestered regardless of its location, given that the stable
carbon test methodology is conservatively based on harsh environments unlikely to be
experiencedbytranslocatedbiochar.
Tables2and3providejustificationfortheinclusionorexclusionofeachofthepotentialSSRsin
theprojectandbaselineconditions.

Page|15
Figure1:ProcessFlowDiagramfortheProjectCondition
ProjectBoundary
ProjectBoundary
Feedstock
Processingand
Drying
Pyrolysisor
Thermochemical
Conversion
NetElectricity
Consumed
Auxiliary
FuelUse
Feedstock
Transportation
Feedstock
Production
ProcessHeatUse
BioOil
Processing
Syngas
Processing
Biochar
Blending
BioOilUse
BioOil
Transportation
SyngasUse
Syngas
Transportation
Biochar
Application
Biochar
Transportation
Biocharin
Situ

Page|16
Feedstock
Transportation
Feedstock
Production
Combustionof
Feedstock
Anaerobic
Decomposition
ofFeedstock
Aerobic
Decomposition
ofFeedstock
Soil
Amendment
Production
Soil
Amendment
Transportation
Soil
Amendment
Application
Figure2:ProcessFlowDiagramfortheBaselineCondition
FossilGasUse
HeatUse
and/or
Production
FossilOilUse
Electricity
Production

Page|17
Table2:GHGSources
Source Gas Included? Justification/Explanation
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
FeedstockProduction
CO
2
No Excluded.Thisisa
conservativeassumption.
CH
4
No
N
2
O No
FeedstockTransportation
CO
2
No Excluded.Thisisa
CH
4
No
N
2
O No
AerobicDecompositionof
Feedstock
CO
2
No
BiogenicCO
2
emissionsare
excluded.Thisisa
CH
4
Yes
Includedasprimarysourcesof
emissionsinthebaseline.
N
2
O Yes
AnaerobicDecomposition
ofFeedstockinaSolid
WasteDisposalSystemor
Lagoon
CO
2
No
BiogenicCO
2
emissionsare
excluded.Thisisa
CH
4
Yes Included.Primarysourceof
N
2
O Yes
CombustionofFeedstock
CO
2
No
BiogenicCO2emissionsare
excluded.Thisisa
CH
4
Yes Included.Primarysourceof
N
2
O Yes

Page|18
SoilAmendmentProduction
CO
2
No Excluded.Thisisa
CH
4
No
N
2
O No
SoilAmendment
Transportation
CO
2
No Excluded.Thisisa
CH
4
No
N
2
O No
SoilAmendment
Application
CO
2
No Excluded.Thisisa
CH
4
No
N
2
O No
FossilOilUse
CO
2
Yes
Included.Theemissions
associatedwiththeuseof
fossiloil,fossilgasandheat
energythatwouldhavebeen
requiredtocompensatefor
theheatproducedinthe
projectconditionmustbe
accountedfor.
Thisemissionsourceisnotto
beincludediftheemissions
associatedarecoveredunder
anexistingcapandtradeor
CH
4
Yes
N
2
O Yes
FossilGasUse
CO
2
Yes
CH
4
Yes
N
2
O Yes
HeatUseand/orProduction
CO
2
Yes
CH
4
Yes

Page|19
1
If the project occurs in a region in which there is an emissions trading program or any other mechanism
that includes GHG allowance trading, these emissions cannot be accounted for unless evidence is
provided that the GHG emission reductions associated with generating renewable energy (in the case of
fossil oil use, fossil gas use or heat production) or renewable electricity (in the case of electricity
production) have not and will not be otherwise counted or used under the cap-and-trade program or other
mechanism.
N
2
O Yes
otherregulatoryframeworkin
thejurisdictionofBiochar
production.
1
IfBiomassResidueswould
havemadeenergyinthe
baseline,theseemission
sourcescannotbeincluded.
ElectricityProduction
CO
2
Yes
Included.Theemissions
associatedwiththe
productionofgridelectricity
tocompensateforthe
equivalentamountofpower
producedintheproject
condition.
Thisemissionsourceisnotto
beincludediftheproject
occursinaDevelopedNation
ortheemissionsassociated
couldpotentiallybecovered
underanexistingcapand
traderegulatoryframeworkin
thejurisdictionofBiochar
production.
1

CH
4
Yes
N
2
O Yes

Page|20
2
If environmental credits, RECs or other forms of credit documentation have been issued, the Project
Proponent shall either not include this emission source or provide evidence that the RECs have not been
used and have been cancelled from the environmental credit.
Thisemissionsourceisalso
notapplicableifthe
environmentalbenefit
associatedwiththerenewable
electricityisalreadyclaimed
andsold(forexampleasa
RenewableEnergyCertificate
(REC)).
2
IfBiomassResidueswould
havegeneratedenergyinthe
baseline,thisemissionsource
cannotbeincluded.

Page|21
Table2:GHGSources(continued)
Source Gas Included? Justification/Explanation

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
FeedstockProduction
CO
2
No Excluded.Theproductionof
theFeedstockmaterialwould
beequivalenttothe
productionofresiduesona
unitofproductionbasis.The
exclusionofpurposegrown
cropsensuresthatthe
equivalencyismaintained.As
such,itisconservativeto
excludeconsiderationofthis
source.
CH
4
No
N
2
O No
CO
2
Yes
Included.Potentially
importantemissionsource.
CanbeexcludediftheProject
Proponentcandemonstrate
theemissionsareDeMinimis
ortheFeedstocksoriginateat
thesiteofthePyrolysisunit.
CH
4
No Excludedforsimplification.
Thisemissionsourceis
assumedtobeverysmall.
N
2
O No
ElectricityConsumed
CO
2
Yes
Included.TheCO
2
emissions
associatedwiththe
consumptionofgridelectricity
arelikelytohaveamaterial
impactonprojects.
CH
4
No Excludedforsimplification.
Thisemissionsourceis
assumedtobeverysmall.
N
2
O No

Page|22
FeedstockProcessingand
Drying
CO
2
Yes Includedasthissource/sinkis
likelytohaveamaterial
impactonprojects.
CH
4
Yes
N
2
O Yes
Pyrolysis,or
Thermochemical
Conversion,ofNon
BiogenicFeedstock
CO
2
impactonprojects.Biogenic
emissionsareexcluded.
CH
4
Yes
N
2
O Yes
AuxiliaryFuelConsumption
CO
2
impactonprojects.
CH
4
Yes
N
2
O Yes
BiocharTransportation
CO
2
No Excluded.Transportation
wouldbeequivalenttothe
BaselineScenario
transportationforSoil
Amendments.Further,the
quantityofemissionsfrom
transportingthismaterialis
minimal,giventheeconomic
limitationsoftransporting
Biocharasignificantdistance.
CH
4
No
N
2
O No
BioOilProcessing
CO
2
impactonprojects.
CH
4
Yes
N
2
O Yes
BioOilTransportation
CO
2
No Excludedasunderthe
majorityofconfigurations,
biooilisconsumedonsiteor
includedwithinthebroader
fueldeliverynetwork.
CH
4
No
N
2
O No

Page|23
Shippingdistancesforthis
materialwouldbeminimal
giventheeconomiclimitations
associatedwithtransporting
thesematerialssignificant
distances.
BioOilUse
CO
2
No
CO
2
emissionsareexcluded
becausetheyarebiogenic.
CH
4
impactonprojects.
N
2
O Yes
SyngasProcessing
CO
2
impactonprojects.
CH
4
Yes
N
2
O Yes
SyngasTransportation
CO
2
No Excludedasunderthe
majorityofconfigurations,
syngasisconsumedonsiteor
includedwithinthebroader
fueldeliverynetwork.
Shippingdistancesforthis
materialwouldbeminimal
giventheeconomiclimitations
associatedwithtransporting
thesematerialssignificant
distances.
CH
4
No
N
2
O No
SyngasUse
CO
2
No
CO
2
emissionsareexcluded
becausetheyarebiogenic.
CH
4

Page|24
Table3:CarbonPools
CarbonPools Included? Justification/Explanation
B
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
CarbonsequesteredinFeedstocks
fortheproject
No
CarbonDioxideemissionsfrom
thecombustionordecomposition
ofFeedstocks,whichareallwaste
residues,areconsideredbiogenic.
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Stablecarbonsequesteredin
Biochar
Yes
Thisistheprimarysourceof
emissionreductionscapturedby
thisMethodology.
Abovegroundbiomasswhere
Biocharisintegrated
No
Itisassumedthattheintegration
ofBiocharintosoilswillincrease
theirproductivityandtherefore
increaseabovegroundbiomass.It
isthereforeconservativeto
N
2
O Yes
impactonprojects.
ProcessHeatUse
CO
2
No Thissourceisexcludedas
therearenoemissions
associatedwithitsdirectuse.
CH
4
No
N
2
O No
BiocharApplication
CO
2
No Excluded.Emissions
associatedwiththeactivityof
applyingBiochartosoilwillbe
equivalenttotheBaseline
ScenarioofapplyingSoil
Amendments.
CH
4
No
N
2
O No

Page|25
excludethispool.
Soilorganiccarbonwherethe
Biocharisintegrated
No
AdditionsofBiochartosoilhave
beenobservedtobothenhance
thestabilizationofexisting,native
carboninthatsoil(referredtoas
negativepriming)andtocauseit
todecomposemorerapidly
(calledpositivepriming).Woolf
andLehmann(2012),inareview
oftheliteratureonpriming,found
negativeprimingtobeordersof
magnitudelargerthanpositive
priming.Whilepositivepriming
mayoccasionallyoccur,itismore
rareandlimitedtospecificsoil
andenvironmentalconditionsnot
commonlyfoundwhereBiocharis
applied.Acorrectionfactorhas
beenappliedtothenegative
emissionsattributedtoBiochar
sequestrationtoaddresstherisk
ofpositivepriming.
3.2TemporalBoundaries
TheCreditingPeriodforthisprojecttypeissevenyears.
Theminimumprojecttermissevenyears:Thisistheminimumlengthoftimeforwhicha
ProjectProponentcommitstoprojectcontinuance,monitoringandverification.


Page|26
4PROCEDUREFORDETERMININGTHEBASELINESCENARIO
ANDADDITIONALITY
4.1ProcedureforDeterminingtheBaselineScenario
DefaultBaselineScenario:
ItisassumedthattheBaselineScenarioforprojectsapplyingthisMethodologyconsistsofthe
combustion of all Feedstocks with energy capture (heat and/or electricity) in a bioenergy
productionfacility.BioenergyproductionhasbeenidentifiedasthemostconservativeBaseline
Scenario for consideration under this Methodology as it represents the most conservative
comparable alternative when considering the potential GHG reductions from the use of the
Feedstock.Further,thisconsidersthepotentialfortheseusestogenerateotherenvironmental
credits. Citing bioenergy as the default Baseline Scenario results in the exclusion of all
electricity,heat,biooil,andbiogasproduction,aswellasanegationofallbenefitsofmethane
generation avoidance. Other Baseline Scenarios may exist, however, adequate proof of
alternative baseline Feedstock usage must be provided in order to justify using any non
bioenergyBaselineScenariocalculations.
Project Proponents must identify the bioenergy baseline for each individual Feedstock
processedbytheirprojectforeitherofthefollowingFeedstockenduses:
Thebiomassresidueisburnedinacontrolledmannertogenerateheatorelectricity
thatiscapturedandused;
Thebiomassresidueissoldtootherconsumersinthemarketandthepredominantuse
oftheBiomassResiduesintheregion/countryisforenergypurposes(heatand/or
powergeneration).
TheProjectProponentshallestablishabaselineconditionforeachFeedstockprocessedbythe
project. The Project Proponent has the option to assume that all Feedstocks would have been
managed for bioenergy production, because this is the most conservative option. The table
below outlines how the default baseline condition will be classified throughout the remainder
ofthisMethodology.

Page|27
Table4:Defaultbaselineconditionparameter
Defaultbaselinecondition Baselineconditioni
Parameter
(FS
i
)
The biomass residue is burnt in a controlled manner
to generate heat or electricity that is captured and
used.
OR
Thebiomassresidueissoldtootherconsumersinthe
market and the predominant use of the Biomass
Residuesintheregion/countryisforenergypurposes
(heatand/orpowergeneration).
Bioenergy
production
FS
B
AlternativeBaselineScenarios:
Alternative Baseline Scenarios for projects applying this Methodology must be either 1) the
decomposition of the Feedstock, under either aerobic or anaerobic conditions, or 2) the
combustionoftheFeedstock,withoutenergycapture.Inallthesescenarios,carbonreturnsto
the atmosphere as part of the biogenic carbon cycle. The combustion or decomposition
processes may be controlled or uncontrolled. Appropriate evidence must be provided by
Project Proponents in order to qualify for any alternative nonbioenergyproduction Baseline
Scenario.
Intheagriculturesector,thiscouldincludethelagoontreatmentorcompostingofagricultural
residues and their reapplication to the land. In the forestry sector, this could include the
decompositionofforestryresiduesontheforestfloor,lagoontreatmentofmillresidues,orthe
combustionofthematerialwherethereisnoenergyrecovery.Forotherwastestreamssuchas
food waste or other Feedstocks collected from industrial, commercial, institutional and
residential sources, these materials may either be disposed of in landfills (with or without gas
capture),anaerobiclagoons,compostedorincinerated.
IfanalternativeBaselineScenarioisused,ProjectProponentsmustdemonstratethatthisisthe
mostreasonableandcrediblebaselineforeachindividualFeedstockprocessedbytheirproject
using the most recent version of the methodological tool Combined tool to identify the

Page|28
Baseline Scenario and determine Additionality accessible through the UNFCC website (United
Nations2012d).
For each source of biomass residue, the Project Proponent shall use Step 1: Identification of
alternativescenariostotheproposedprojectactivitythatareconsistentwithcurrentlawsand
regulations,toidentifyalternativeusesforthebiomassresidue.Thealternativestobeanalyzed
foruseofBiomassResiduesinclude,interalia:
Thebiomassresidueisdumpedorlefttodecayundermainlyaerobicconditions.This
applies,forexample,todumpinganddecayofBiomassResiduesonfieldsorthe
controlledcompostingoftheresidue;
Thebiomassresidueisdumpedorlefttodecayunderclearlyanaerobicconditionsata
SolidWasteDisposalSite(s)(SWDS);
Thebiomassresidueismanagedunderclearlyanaerobicconditionsinawastewater
lagoon.
Thebiomassresidueisburntinanuncontrolledmannerwithoututilizingitforenergy
purposes;
Theproposedprojectactivityisundertakenwiththebiomassresiduebutwithoutbeing
registeredasaCarbonOffsetproject(theBiomassResiduesarepyrolyzedbutno
CarbonOffsetpaymentsaremade);
Anyotheruseofthebiomassresidue(i.e.anaerobicdigestion).
Step 2: Barrier analysis to eliminate alternatives to the project activity that face prohibitive
barriers:
Establish a complete list of barriers that would prevent alternative scenarios for the use of
Biomass Residues to occur in the absence of the Carbon Offset project. In doing so, relevant
local regulations governing the use of different technologies and technical specifications of
Biocharproductsshouldbetakenintoaccount.
Step3:InvestmentAnalysis:
ThisStepservestodeterminewhichofthealternativescenariosintheshortlistremainingafter
Step 2 is the most economically or financially attractive. For this purpose, an investment
comparison analysis is conducted for the remaining alternative scenarios after Step 2. If the
investment analysis is conclusive, the economically or financially most attractive alternative
scenarioisconsideredastheBaselineScenario.

Page|29
Step4:CommonPracticeAnalysis
ThepreviousStepsshallbecomplementedwithananalysisoftheextenttowhichtheproposed
project type (i.e. technology or practice) has already diffused in the relevant sector and
geographical area. This test is a credibility check to demonstrate Additionality which
complementsthebarrieranalysis(Step2)and,whereapplicable,theinvestmentanalysis(Step
3).
Based on these steps, the Project Proponent shall establish a baseline condition for each
Feedstockprocessedbytheproject.Thetablebelowoutlineshowthemostplausiblebaseline
conditionwillbeclassifiedthroughouttheremainderofthisMethodology.
Table5:Alternativebaselineconditionparameters
Mostplausiblealternativebaselinecondition Baselineconditioni
Parameter
(FS
i
)
Thebiomassresidueisdumpedorlefttodecayunder
mainly aerobic conditions. This applies, for example,
todumpinganddecayofBiomassResiduesonfields.
Aerobic
decomposition
FS
A
Thebiomassresidueisdumpedorlefttodecayunder
clearlyanaerobicconditionsataSolidWasteDisposal
Sites(SWDS).
Anaerobic
decompositionin
SWDS
FS
An
The biomass residue is managed under clearly
anaerobicconditionsinawastewaterlagoon.
Anaerobic
decompositionin
lagoon
FS
L
The biomass residue is burnt in an uncontrolled
mannerwithoututilizingitforenergypurposes;
Combustion FS
C
If the most plausible baseline condition for biomass residue type j is not listed in the table
above,theProjectProponentshalljustifyaconservativeassumptionforthebaselineconditioni
oftheFeedstock.

Page|30
4.2ProcedureforDemonstratingAdditionality
Additionality will be assessed and demonstrated using the most recent version of the
methodological tool Combined tool to identify the Baseline Scenario and determine
AdditionalityaspublishedontheUNFCCCwebsite(UnitedNations2012e).


Page|31
5QUANTIFICATIONOFGHGEMISSIONREDUCTIONSAND
REMOVALS
Note:valuesaregivenforeachparameterintheparametertablesin6.1and6.2.
5.1BaselineEmissions
BaselinequantificationinthisMethodologyisprojectionbased,usingprojectionsofreductions
orremovalsintheprojecttoestimatethebaselineemissionsthatwouldhaveoccurredinthe
absence of the project. Emissions under the baseline condition are determined using the
followingequations:
DefaultBaseline(Feedstockwouldhavebeenusedonlyforbioenergyproduction)
BE
= BE
B, (1)
Where:
BE
y
=thesumofthebaselineemissionsinyeary
BE
B,y
=emissionsduetothecombustionofFeedstockforbioenergyBproductioninyear
y

OR,withappropriateevidence:
AlternativeBaseline:
BE
= BE
A,
+BE
An,
+BE
L,
+BE
C,
+BE
L,
+BE
0,
+BE
u,
+BE
H,
(2)
Where:
BE
y
=thesumofthebaselineemissionsinyeary
BE
A,y
=emissionsduetotheaerobicdecompositionAofFeedstockinyeary
BE
An,y
=emissionsduetotheanaerobicdecompositionAnofFeedstockinanSWDSin
yeary

Page|32
BE
L,y
=emissionsduetotheanaerobicdecompositionofFeedstockinalagoonLinyear
y
BE
C,y
=emissionsduetothecombustionCofFeedstockwithoutbioenergyproductionin
yeary
BE
E,y
=auxiliaryemissionsduetotheuseofelectricityEinyeary
BE
O,y
=auxiliaryemissionsduetotheuseoffossiloilOinyeary
BE
G,y
=auxiliaryemissionsduetotheuseoffossilgasGinyeary
BE
H,y
=auxiliaryemissionsduetotheuseofheatHinyeary
Step1:Identifythebaselinecondition
ProjectProponentsshallusethestepsoutlinedinSection4.1ofthisdocumenttodetermine
theBaselineconditioniforeachFeedstock.
Table6:BaselineConditions
Baselineconditioni Parameter(FS
i
)
Bioenergyproduction(default) FS
B
Aerobicdecomposition FS
A
AnaerobicdecompositioninaSWDS FS
An
Anaerobicdecompositioninalagoon FS
L
Combustionwithoutbioenergyproduction FS
C
Every stream of Feedstock that is processed into Biochar is assumed to be diverted from
bioenergyproductionunderthedefaultcalculations(Equation1),unlessotherwisejustifiedby
the procedure for determining the Baseline Scenario. Alternative Feedstock diversions may
include those for aerobic decomposition, anaerobic decomposition in a Solid Waste Disposal
Site(SWDS)orinalagoon,orcombustionwithoutenergycapture,andareaddressedusingthe
alternativecalculations(Equation2).
Step2:IdentifytheFeedstockcomposition
The composition of Feedstock from Biomass Residues may vary and should be classified into
thefollowingcategories:

Page|33
Table7:FeedstockCategories
Feedstocktypej Parameter(p
j
)
Woodandwoodproducts P
W
Pulp,paperandcardboard(otherthansludge) P
P
Food,foodwaste,beveragesandtobacco(otherthan
sludge)
P
F
Textiles P
T
Garden,yardandparkwaste P
G
Glass,plastic,metal,otherinertwaste(nonbiogenic) P
NB
TheamountofFeedstocktypejpreventedfrombaselinedisposaliiscalculatedusingsampling
asfollows:
FS
,],
= FS
,

p
n,],
z
n=1
z
(3)
Where:
FS
i,j,y
=theamountofFeedstocktypejpreventedfrombaselinedisposaliinyeary(t)
FS
i,y
=totalamountofFeedstockpreventedfrombaselinedisposaliinyeary(t)
P
n,j,y
=weightfractionoftheFeedstocktypejinthesamplencollectedduringyeary(t)
Z=numberofsamplescollectedduringyeary
Equation(3)determinesthefractionofeachindividualFeedstocktypeusedforonediscreet
Biocharproductionevent(sameFeedstockblendratiosandsameproductionparameters).The
massofeachFeedstocktype(e.g.straw)iscalculatedbyidentifyingthefractionitrepresentsin
thetotalmassofincomingFeedstock.Thus,ifaFeedstockisa60:35:5blendofstraw,wood
chips,andnonbiogenicmaterial(asidentifiedbyfollowingFeedstockdeterminationand
samplingproceduresoutlinedintheIBIBiocharStandards(2013)),andthetotalvolumeof
incomingFeedstockdivertedfromlandfilldisposalis240tonnesforyear1,thecalculationis:
240t*0.6forstraw,240t*0.35forwoodchips,and240t*0.05fornonbiogenicmaterials,
resultingin144,84,and12tonnesforstraw,woodchipsandnonbiogenicFeedstocks,
respectively.ThissameproceduremaybeusedtoidentifythetotalvolumeofeachFeedstock

Page|34
fraction,foreachdisposaltype,includingnonbiogenicmaterials.TheseFSi,j,yvalueswillbe
usedinsubsequentcalculationstodeterminethetotalemissionreduction.
BioenergyProduction(Default)
The emissions due to the combustion of Feedstock for producing bioenergy (heat and/or
electricity)arecalculatedasfollows:
BE
B,
= FS
B],
EF
CH4,
; FS
B],
EF
N20,

(4)
Where:
BE
B,y
= Baseline emissions due to the combustion of Feedstock for bioenergy B
productioninyeary
FS
B,j,y
=theamountofFeedstocktypejpreventedfrombaselineconditionbioenergy
productionBinyeary(t)
EF
CH4
,
i
=theCH
4
emissionfactorfortheFeedstocktypejpreventedfromthebaseline
conditioni(kgCH
4
/kg)
EF
N2O
,
i
=theN
2
OemissionfactorfortheFeedstocktypejpreventedfromthebaseline
conditioni(kgN
2
O/kg)
AerobicDecomposition(Alternative)
TheemissionsduetotheaerobicdecompositionofFeedstockarecalculatedasfollows:
BE
A,
= (FS
A,],
EF
ACH4,
0wP
CH4
) ; (FS
A,],
EF
AN20,
0wP
N20
)
(5)
Where:
BE
A,y
=BaselineemissionsduetotheaerobicdecompositionAofFeedstockinyeary
FS
A,j,y
=thefractionofFeedstocktypejdivertedfromaerobicdecompositionAinyeary
(t)
EF
ACH4,y
=theemissionfactorformethaneCH
4
pertonneofwastedivertedfromaerobic
decompositionAvalidinyeary(tCH
4
/t)
GWP
CH4
=GlobalWarmingPotentialofCH
4
(tCO
2
e/tCH
4
);21

Page|35
EF
AN2O,y
= the emission factor for nitrous oxide N
2
0 per tonne of waste diverted from
aerobicdecompositionA,validinyeary(tN
2
O/t)
GWP
N2O
=GlobalWarmingPotentialofN
2
O(tCO
2
e/tN
2
O);310
3
AnaerobicDecompositioninaSWDS(Alternative)
TheemissionsduetotheanaerobicdecompositionofFeedstockinanSWDSarecalculatedas
follows:
BE
An,
= (1 -
) 0wP
CH4
(1 - 0X)
16
12
F 0C
],
HCF
FS
un,],
|c
-k
]
(-1)
(1 -c
-k
]
)]
10
=1
0C
]
(6)
Where:
BE
An,y
=BaselineemissionsduetotheanaerobicdecompositionAnofFeedstockinan
SWDSinyeary
=Modelcorrectionfactortoaccountformodeluncertaintiesforyeary
f
y
=therecoveredmethaneatthelandfillinyeary(%)
GWP
CH4
=theGlobalWarmingPotentialofmethaneCH
4
(tCO
2
e/tCH
4
);21
OX=theoxidationfactor(reflectingtheamountofmethanefromSWDSthatisoxidized
inthesoilorothermaterialcoveringthewaste)
16/12=RatioofmolecularweightsofMethane(16)toCarbon(12)
F=thefractionofmethaneintheSWDSgas(%)
DOC
f,y
=thefractionfofdegradableorganiccarbonthatdecomposesunderthespecific
conditionsoccurringintheSWDSforyeary
MCF
y
=Methaneconversionfactorforyeary
FS
an,j,y
= the amount of Feedstock type j prevented from baseline condition anaerobic
decompositionANinanSWDSinyeary(t)
DOC
j
=thedegradableorganiccarbonintheFeedstocktypej
k
j
=thedecayratefortheFeedstocktypej(l/yr)
3
SAR100GWPvaluesforCH
4
andN
2
O,fromtheIPCCFourthAssessmentReport(AR4),WorkingGroup1,Chapter
2,Table2.14(page212)athttp://ipccwg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf.

Page|36
AnaerobicDecompositioninaWastewaterLagoon(Alternative)
TheemissionsduetotheanaerobicdecompositionofFeedstockinawastewaterlagoonare
calculatedasfollows:
BE
Ly
= BE
LCH4,MCPy
+BE
LN20,
(7)
Where:
BE
Ly
= Baseline methane emissions from the anaerobic treatment of wastewater in
open anaerobic lagoons L, or of sludge in sludge pits in the absence of the project
activityinyeary(tCO
2
e)
BE
LCH4, MCFy
= Baseline lagoon L methane CH
4
emissions (tCO
2
e) determined using the
MethaneConversionFactor(MCF
y
)
BE
LN2O,y
=AnnualbaselineoflagoonLN
2
Oemissionsin(tCO
2
e/yr)
The methane emissions due to the anaerobic decomposition of Feedstock in a wastewater

lagoonarecalculatedasfollows:
BE
LCH4,MCPy
= 0wP
CH4
HCF
BLy
B
o
C0
BLy
(8)
Where:
BE
LCH4,MCFy
=BaselinelagoonLmethaneCH
4
emissions(tCO
2
e)determinedusingthe
MethaneConversionFactor(MCF
y
)
GWP
CH4
=theGlobalWarmingPotentialofmethaneCH
4
(tCO
2
e/tCH
4
);21
MCF
BLy
= Average baseline B lagoon L methane conversion factor (fraction) in year y,
representingthefractionof(COD
BLy
xB
o
)thatwouldbedegradedtoCH
4
intheabsence
oftheprojectactivity
B
o
= Maximum methane production capacity, expressing the maximum amount of CH
4
thatcanbeproducedfromagivenquantityofchemicaloxygenOdemand(tCH
4
/tCOD)
COD
BLy
= Baseline B quantity of chemical oxygen demand that would be treated in
anaerobiclagoonsLorsludgepitsintheabsenceoftheprojectactivityinyeary(tCOD)
HCF
BL
=
d

1
u.89
(9)
Where:

Page|37
MCF
BLy
=AveragebaselineBlagoonLmethaneconversionfactor(fraction)inyeary,
representingthefractionof(COD
BLy
xB
o
)thatwouldbedegradedtoCH
4
intheabsence
oftheprojectactivity.
f
d
=Factorexpressingtheinfluenceofthedepthdoftheanaerobiclagoonorsludgepit
onmethanegeneration
f
Ty
=FactorexpressingtheinfluenceofthetemperatureTonthemethanegenerationin
yeary
0.89=Conservativenessfactor
Themonthlyvalueoff
Ty
iscalculatedasfollows,usingthevantHoffArrhenius
approach:
f
Ty
=0.104;ifT
2,m
<278K
=c
_
E-(T
2,m
-T
l
)
R-T
l
-T
2,m
]
;if278KT
2,m
302.5K
=0.95;ifT
2,m
>302.5K
(10)
Where:
f
Ty
yeary.
e=Activationenergyconstant(15,175cal/mol)
T
2,m
=AveragetemperatureTattheprojectsiteinmonthm(K)
T
l
=303.15K(273.15K+30K)
R=IdealGasConstant(1.986cal/Kmol)
m=Monthsofyearyofthecreditingperiod.
Theannualvalueoff
Ty
iscalculatedasfollows:
1
=

1m
C0
uuIubIc,m
12
m=1
C0
BL,m
12
m=1

(11)
Where:
f
Ty
yeary.
f
Tm
monthm.

Page|38
COD
available,m
=Quantityofchemicaloxygendemandavailablefordegradationinthe
anaerobiclagoonorsludgepitinmonthm(tCOD)
COD
BL,m
=BaselineBquantityofchemicaloxygendemandthatwouldbetreatedin
anaerobiclagoonLorsludgepitsintheabsenceoftheprojectactivityinmonthm
(tCOD)
m=monthsoftheyearyofthecreditingperiod.
For each month m, the quantity of wastewater directed to the anaerobic lagoon, the
quantity of organic compounds that decay and the quantity of any effluent from the
lagoon is balanced, giving the quantity of COD that is available for degradation in the
next month. The amount of organic matter available for degradation to methane
(COD
available,m
) is assumed to be equal to the amount of organic matter directed to the
anaerobiclagoonorsludgepit,lessanyeffluent,plustheCODthatmayhaveremained
inthelagoonorsludgepitfromthepreviousmonthsasfollows:
C0
uuIubIc,m
= C0
BL,m
+(1 -
1,m-1
) C0
uuIubIc,m-1
with
C0
BLm
= _1 -
C0
out,x
C0
n,x
_ C0
P]m
and
C0
P],m
= F
P],A,m
C0
A,m
(12)
Where:
COD
available,m
=Quantityofchemicaloxygendemandavailablefordegradationinthe
anaerobiclagoonorsludgepitinmonthm(tCOD)
m=monthsoftheyearyofthecreditingperiod
COD
BL,m
anaerobiclagoonsorsludgepitsintheabsenceoftheprojectactivityinmonthm
(tCOD)
f
T,m1
=FactorexpressingtheinfluenceofthetemperatureTonthemethanegeneration
inmonthm1
COD
out,x
=CODoftheeffluentoutinperiodx(tCOD)

Page|39
COD
in,x
=CODdirectedtoinopenlagoonsorinsludgepitsintheperiodx(tCOD)
x=representativehistoricalreferenceperiod
COD
PJm
=QuantityofchemicaloxygendemandofthewastestreamJthatistreatedin
thePyrolysisPunitorunderclearlyaerobicconditionsintheprojectactivityinmonthm
(tCOD)
F
PJ,AD,m
=QuantityofwastewaterorsludgethatistreatedinthePyrolysisPunitorunder
clearlyaerobicconditions(aerobicdecomposition)ADintheprojectactivityinmonthm
(m
3
)
COD
AD,m
=Chemicaloxygendemandinthewastewaterorsludgethatistreatedinthe
PyrolysisunitorunderclearlyaerobicconditionsADintheprojectactivityinmonthm
(tCOD/m
3
)
C0
BLy
= p _1 -
C0
out,x
C0
n,x
_ C0
P]y
(13)
Where:
COD
BLy
anaerobiclagoonorsludgepitsintheabsenceoftheprojectactivityinyeary(tCOD)
COD
PJy
=QuantityofchemicaloxygendemandofthewastestreamJthatistreatedin
thePyrolysisPunitorunderclearlyanaerobicconditionsintheprojectactivityinyeary
(tCOD)
COD
out,x
=CODoftheeffluentoutintheperiodx(tCOD)
COD
in,x
=CODdirectedtointheanaerobiclagoonsorsludgepitsintheperiodx(tCOD)
x=Representativehistoricalreferenceperiod
= Discount factor to account for the uncertainty of the use of historical data to
determineCOD
BLy
C0
P]
= F
P],A,m
C0
A,m
12
m=1
(14)
Where:
COD
PJy
=QuantityofchemicaloxygendemandthatistreatedinthePyrolysisPunitor
underclearlyaerobicconditionsintheprojectactivityinyeary(tCOD)
F
PJ,AD,m
=QuantityofwastewaterorsludgethatistreatedinthePyrolysisPunitorunder
clearlyaerobicconditionsADintheprojectactivityinmonthm(m
3
)

Page|40
COD
AD,m
=Chemicaloxygendemandinthewastewaterorsludgethatistreatedinthe
PyrolysisunitorunderclearlyaerobicconditionsADintheprojectactivityinmonthm
(tCOD/m
3
)
m=monthsofyearyofthecreditingperiod
The nitrous oxide emissions due to the nitrification/denitirification of manure Feedstocks in a

wastewaterlagoonarecalculatedasfollows:
BE
LN20,
= 0wP
N20
CF
N20-N,N

1
1uuu
(E
LN20,,
+E
LN20,I,
)
(15)
Where:
BE
LN2O,y
= Baseline emissions of lagoon L N
2
O due to the nitrification/denitirification of
manureFeedstocks(tCO
2
e)
GWP
N2O
=GlobalWarmingPotential(GWP)forN
2
O(tCO
2
e/tN
2
O);310
CF
N2ON,N
=ConversionfactorN
2
ONtoN
2
O(44/28)
E
LN2O,D,y
=DirectDN
2
Oemissioninyeary(tN
2
ON/year)
E
LN2O,ID,y
=IndirectIDN
2
Oemissioninyeary(tN
2
ON/year)
E
LN20,,
= EF
N20,,]
(
LM,m
|N]
LM,m
)
12
m=1 ]
(16)
E
LN20,I,
= EF
LN20,I
F
gusMS,],L1
],L1
(
LM,m
|N]
LM,m
)
12
m=1
(17)
Where:
E
LN2O,D,y
=DirectDlagoonLN
2
Oemissioninyeary(tN
2
ON/year)
E
LN2O,ID,y
=IndirectIDlagoonLN
2
Oemissioninyeary(tN
2
ON/year)
EF
LN2O, D, j
= Direct D lagoon L N
2
O emission factor for the treatment system j of the
manuremanagementsystem(tN
2
ON/tN)
Q
EM, m
= Monthly volume of the effluent mix EM entering the manure management
system(m
3
/month)monthm
[N]
EM, m
= Monthly total nitrogen concentration in the effluent mix EM entering the
manuremanagementsystem(tN/m
3
)monthm

Page|41
EF
LN2O,ID
=IndirectIDlagoonLN
2
OemissionfactorforN
2
Oemissionsfromatmospheric
depositionofnitrogenonsoilsandwatersurfaces(tN
2
ON/tNH
3
NandNOxN)
F
gasMS, j, LT
= Default values for nitrogen loss due to volatilization of NH
3
and NOx from
manuremanagement(fraction)
Combustion(Alternative)
The emissions due to the combustion of Feedstock without bioenergy production are
calculatedasfollows:
BE
C,
= FS
C,],
EF
CH4,
0wP
CH4
; FS
C,],
EF
N20,

0wP
N20
(18)
Where:
BE
C,y
= baseline emissions due to the combustion C of Feedstock without bioenergy
production(tCO
2
e)inyeary
FS
C,j,y
=theamountofFeedstocktypejpreventedfrombaselineconditioncombustion
Cinyeary(t)
EF
CH4
,
i
= the CH
4
emission factor for combustion of the Feedstock type j baseline
condition(pathwaysi)(kgCH
4
/kg)
GWP
CH4
4
(tCO
2
e/tCH
4
);21
EF
N2O
,
i
=theN
2
OemissionfactorforcombustionoftheFeedstocktypej(kgN
2
O/kg)
GWP
N2O
2
O(tCO
2
e/tN
2
O);310
ElectricityProduction
The emissions due to the production of electricity that would have been required to
compensatefortherenewableelectricityproducedintheprojectconditionarecalculatedas
follows:
BE
L,
= E
R,
EF
ud
(19)
Where:

Page|42
BE
E,y
=baselineemissionsduetotheproductionofelectricityEthatwouldhavebeen
required to compensate for the renewable electricity produced in the project
condition(tCO
2
e)
E
R,y
= the net quantity of renewable electricity R generated in the project condition
andusedoffsiteinyeary(kWh)
EF
Grid
=theregionalelectricitygridemissionfactor(kgCO
2
e/kWh)

ThesebaselineemissionsBE
E
,
y
,however,cannotbeaccountedforinthefollowingscenarios:
1. TheDEFAULTbaselinebioenergyproductionhasbeenindicatedfortheproject.If
anyportionoftheFeedstockusedbytheprojectwouldhavebeenusedfor
bioenergyproductioninthebaseline,theProjectProponentcannotaccountforBE
E,y
2. Ifelectricityemissionsarecoveredbyanexistingregulatoryframework(likeacap
andtradeprogram,arequirementtoreportGHGemissions,oranyothertracking
andregulationofGHGGHGGHGemissions)inthejurisdictionoftheBiochar
production,theProjectProponentcannotaccountforBE
E,y.
3. IftheprojectoccursinanAnnex1county,theProjectProponentcannotaccountfor
BE
E,y
becausetheemissionreductionsareindirect.
4. Iftheprojectisgenerating,claimingandsellingRenewableEnergyCertificates(RECs)
orotherenvironmentalcredits,theProjectProponentcannotaccountforBE
E,y
.If
RECshavebeenissued,theProjectProponentshalleithernotincludethisemission
sourceorprovideevidencethattheRECshavenotbeenusedandhavebeen
cancelledfromtheenvironmentalcreditprogram.
Oil
The emissions due to the use of fossil oil that would have been required to compensate for
thebiooilproducedintheprojectconditionarecalculatedasfollows:
BE
0,
= (Fucl
,
EF Fucl
C02
) ; (Fucl
,
EF Fucl
CH4
0wP
CH4
) ; (Fucl
,
EF Fucl
N20
0wP
N20
)
Fucl
= 0
(20)
Where:

Page|43
BE
O,y
=baselineemissionsduetotheuseoffossiloilOthatwouldhavebeenrequired
tocompensateforthebiooilproducedintheprojectcondition(tCO
2
e)
Fuel
i,y
= the volume of each type of liquid fuel i to generatean equivalent amount of
biooilonanenergybasisinyeary(L,m
3
orother)
O
y
=thevolumeofbiooilproducedintheprojectconditioninyeary(L,m
3
orother)
%
i
=thepercentageofeachtypeoffueloffset(%)
EF
CO2.
=theCO
2
emissionfactorforeachtypeoffuel(kgCO
2
/L,m
3
orother)
EF
CH4.
=theCH
4
emissionfactorforeachtypeoffuel(kgCH
4
/L,m
3
orother)
GWP
CH4
4
(tCO
2
e/tCH
4
);21
EF
N2O.
=theN
2
Oemissionfactorforeachtypeoffuel(kgN
2
O/L,m
3
orother)
GWP
N2O
2
O(tCO
2
e/tN
2
O);310
0,
however,cannotbeaccountedforinthefollowingscenarios:
bioenergyproductioninthebaseline,theProjectProponentcannotaccountfor
BE
O,y
.
2. Iffossiloiliscoveredbyanexistingregulatoryframework(likeacapandtrade
program,arequirementtoreportGHGemissions,oranyothertrackingand
regulationofGreenhouseGasemissions)inthejurisdictionoftheBiochar
production,theProjectProponentcannotaccountforBE
O,y.
Gas
Theemissionsduetotheuseoffossilgasthatwouldhavebeenrequiredtocompensatefor
thesyngasproducedintheprojectconditionarecalculatedasfollows:
BE
u,
= (Fucl
,
EF Fucl
C02
) ; (Fucl
,
EF Fucl
CH4
0wP
CH4
) ; (Fucl
,
EF Fucl
N20
0wP
N20
)
Fucl
= 0
(21)
Where:

Page|44
BE
G,y
=baselineemissionsduetotheuseoffossilgasGthatwouldhavebeenrequired
tocompensateforthesyngasproducedintheprojectcondition(tCO
2
e)
Fuel
i,y
=thevolumeofeachtypeofgaseousfuelitogenerateanequivalentamountof
syngasonanenergybasisinyeary(L,m
3
orother)
G
y
=thevolumeofsyngasproducedintheprojectconditioninyeary(L,m
3
orother)
%
i
=thepercentageofeachtypeoffuelioffset(%)
EF
CO2.
=theCO
2
2
/L,m
3
orother)
EF
CH4.
=theCH
4
4
/L,m
3
orother)
GWP
CH4
4
(tCO
2
e/tCH
4
);21
EF
N2O.
=theN
2
2
O/L,m
3
orother)
GWP
N2O
2
O(tCO
2
e/tN
2
O);310

u,
BE
G,y
.
2. Iffossilgasiscoveredbyanexistingregulatoryframework(likeacapandtrade
program,arequirementtoreportGHGemissions,oranyothertrackingand
regulationofGHGemissions)inthejurisdictionoftheBiocharproduction,the
ProjectProponentcannotaccountforBE
G,y.
Heat
The emissions due to the production of heat that would have been required to compensate
fortheheatproducedintheprojectconditionarecalculatedasfollows:
BE
H,
= (Fucl
,
EF Fucl
C02
) ; (Fucl
,
EF Fucl
CH4
0wP
CH4
) ; (Fucl
,
EF Fucl
N20
0wP
N20
)
Fucl
= (E
)(NCI Fucl
%
c]]
)
(22)
Where:

Page|45
BE
H,y
= baseline emissions due to the production of heat H that would have been
requiredtocompensatefortheheatproducedintheprojectcondition(tCO
2
e)
Fuel
i,y
=thevolumeoffuel(fueltypei)togenerateequivalentheatonanenergybasisin
yeary(L,m
3
orother)
H
y
=theheatloadproducedundertheprojectconditioninyeary(GJ)
%
i
=thepercentageofeachtypeoffueloffset(%)
NCVFuel
i
=thenetcalorificvalueofeachtypeoffuelioffsetbytheproject(GJ/L,m
3
or
other)
%
eff
= the percentage of Efficiency eff of the thermal energy heating system (%)
EF
CO2.
=theCO
2
2
/L,m
3
orother)
EF
CH4.
=theCH
4
4
/L,m
3
orother)
GWP
CH4
4
(tCO
2
e/tCH
4
);21
EF
N2O.
=theN
2
2
O/L,m
3
orother)
GWP
N2O
2
O(tCO
2
e/tN
2
O);310
H,
BE
H,y.
2. Iffuel
i
iscoveredbyanexistingregulatoryframework(likeacapandtradeprogram,
arequirementtoreportGHGemissions,oranyothertrackingandregulationofGHG
emissions)inthejurisdictionoftheBiocharproduction,theProjectProponent
cannotaccountforBE
H,y.
5.2ProjectEmissions
Emissions under the project condition (in tonnes CO
2
e) are determined using the following
equation:
PE
= PE
1R,
+PE
P,
+PE
P,
+PE
L,
+PE
PNB,
+PE
B,
+PE
0P,
+PE
uP,
+PE
00,
+PE
u0,
-C
BS,
(23)
Where:

Page|46
PE
y
=thesumoftheprojectemissionsinyeary(tCO
2
e)
PE
TR,y
=emissionsduetothetransportationTofFeedstocksinyeary(tCO
2
).
PE
P,y
=emissionsassociatedwiththeprocessingPanddryingofFeedstockinyeary(t
CO
2
e)
PE
Py,y
=emissionsduetothecombustionofauxiliaryfuelforthepurposeofPyrolysisPy,
orthermalconversionofFeedstockinyeary(tCO
2
e)
PE
E,y
=auxiliaryemissionsfromthenetconsumptionofelectricityEundertheproject
conditioninyeary(tCO
2
e)
PE
PNB,y
=emissionsduetothePyrolysisPofnonbiogenicNBFeedstockmaterialsinyear
y(tCO
2
e)
PE
B,y
=auxiliaryemissionsduetotheblendingofBiocharBinyeary(tCO
2
e)
PE
OP,y.
=auxiliaryemissionsduetotheprocessingofbiooilOPinyeary(tCO
2
e)
PE
GP,y
=auxiliaryemissionsduetotheprocessingofsyngasGPinyeary(tCO
2
e)
PE
OU,y
=auxiliaryemissionsduetotheuseofbiooilOUinyeary(tCO
2
e)
PE
GU,y
=auxiliaryemissionsduetotheuseofsyngasGUintheyeary(tCO
2
e)
C
BS,y
=carbonsequestrationSassociatedwiththeappropriateenduseand/orinsitu
applicationofBiocharBinyeary(tCO
2
e)
In cases where the Biomass Residues are not generated directly at the project site, Project
Proponents shall determine CO
2
emissions resulting from transportation of the Biomass
ResiduestotheprojectplantusingthelatestversionofthetoolProjectandLeakageemissions
fromroadtransportationoffreightfromtheCleanDevelopmentMechanism.PE
TR,m
inthetool
corresponds to the parameter PE
TR,y
in this Methodology and the monitoring period m is one
year.
ProcessingandDryingFeedstock
TheemissionsassociatedwiththeprocessinganddryingofFeedstockarecalculatedasfollows:
PE
P,
= (Fucl
P,,
EF Fucl
C02
) ; (Fucl
P,,
EF Fucl
CH4
0wP
CH4
) ; (Fucl
P,,
EF Fucl
N20
0wP
N20
)
(24)

Page|47
Where:
PE
P,y
= project emissions associated with the processing P and drying of Feedstock in
yeary(tCO
2
e)
Fuel
P,i,y
= the volume of each type of fuel used for drying in year y (L, m
3
or other)
EF
CO2.
=theCO
2
2
/L,m
3
orother)
EF
CH4.
=theCH
4
4
/L,m
3
orother)
GWP
CH4
4
(tCO
2
e/tCH
4
);21
EF
N2O.
=theN
2
2
O/L,m
3
orother)
GWP
N2O
2
O(tCO
2
e/tN
2
O);310
AuxiliaryFuelCombustion
TheemissionsduetothecombustionofauxiliaryfuelforthepurposeofPyrolysisorthermal
conversionofFeedstockarecalculatedasfollows:
PE
P.
= (Fucl
P,,
EF Fucl
C02
) ; (Fucl
P,,
EF Fucl
CH4
0wP
CH4
) ; (Fucl
P,,
EF Fucl
N20
0wP
N20
)
(25)
Where:
PE
PY,y
=projectemissionsduetothecombustionofauxiliaryfuelforthepurposeof
PyrolysisPYorthermalconversioninyearyofFeedstock(tCO
2
e)
Fuel
PY,i,y
=thevolumeofeachtypeofPyrolysisPYorthermalconversionfuel(fueltypei)
usedinyeary(L,m
3
orother)
EF
CO2.
=theCO
2
2
/L,m
3
orother)
EF
CH4.
=theCH
4
4
/L,m
3
orother)
GWP
CH4
4
(tCO
2
e/tCH
4
);21
EF
N2O.
=theN
2
2
O/L,m
3
orother)
GWP
N2O
2
O(tCO
2
e/tN
2
O);310
ElectricityConsumption
The emissions due to the consumption of electricity in the project condition are calculated as
follows:

Page|48
PE
L,
= E
u,
EF
ud
(26)
Where:
PE
E,y
=projectemissionsduetotheconsumptionofelectricityEintheprojectcondition
(tCO
2
e)
E
G,y
=thequantityofgridGelectricityconsumedintheprojectconditioninyeary(kWh)
EF
Grid
=theregionalelectricitygridemissionfactor(kgCO
2
e/kWh)
If the project occurs in a country or region in which there is an operational capandtrade

system,requirementtoreportGreenhouseGasemissions,oranyothertrackingandregulation
ofGHGemissionsthatcoversthiselectricity,theseemissionsstillneedtobeaccountedfor.If,
inthebaseline,auxiliaryemissionsduetotheuseofelectricity(BE
E,y
)
arenotaccountedforand
totalelectricitybeinggeneratedbytheprojectactivitiesinyearyisgreaterthanorequaltothe
projects electricity consumption in year y, then the quantity of electricity consumed by the
projectdoesnotneedtobeaccountedforandPE
L,.
shallbe0.
NonBiogenicPyrolysis
The emissions due to the Pyrolysis of nonbiogenic Feedstock materials are calculated as
follows:
PE
NB,
= FS
PNB ,
EF
C02,
; FS
NB
EF
CH4,
0wP
CH4
; FS
PNB
EF
N20,
0wP
N20
(27)
Where:
PE
PNB,y
=projectemissionsduetothePyrolysisofnonbiogenicPNBFeedstockmaterials
inyeary(tCO
2
e)
FS
PNBi,y
=theamountofnonbiogenicFeedstock(feedstocktypei)PyrolyzedPNBinyear
y(t)
EF
CO2
,=theCO
2
emissionfactorforthenonbiogenicFeedstock(kgCO
2
/kg)
EF
CH4
,
NB
=theCH
4
emissionfactorforthenonbiogenicNBFeedstock(kgCH
4
/kg)
GWP
CH4
4
(tCO
2
e/tCH
4
);21
EF
N2O
,
NB
=theN
2
OemissionfactorforthenonbiogenicNBFeedstock(kgN
2
O/kg)
GWP
N2O
2
O(tCO
2
e/tN
2
O);310

Page|49
FuelforProcessingBioOil
Theauxiliaryemissionsduetotheprocessingofbiooilarecalculatedasfollows:
PE
0P,
= (Fucl
0P ,
EF Fucl
C02
) ; (Fucl
0P ,
EF Fucl
CH4
0wP
CH4
) ; (Fucl
0P ,
EF Fucl
N20
0wP
N20
)
(28)
Where:
PE
OP,y
=projectemissionsduetotheprocessingofbiooilOPinyeary(tCO
2
e)
Fuel
OPi,y
= the volume of each type of (oil processing OP) fuel i used in year y (L, m
3
or
other)
EF
CO2.
=theCO
2
2
/L,m
3
orother)
EF
CH4.
=theCH
4
4
/L,m
3
orother)
GWP
CH4
4
(tCO
2
e/tCH
4
);21
EF
N2O.
=theN
2
2
O/L,m
3
orother)
GWP
N2O
2
O(tCO
2
e/tN
2
O);310
FuelforProcessingSyngas
Theauxiliaryemissionsduetotheprocessingofsyngasarecalculatedasfollows:
PE
uP,
= (Fucl
uP ,
EF Fucl
C02
) ; (Fucl
uP ,
EF Fucl
CH4
0wP
CH4
) ; (Fucl
uP ,
EF Fucl
N20
0wP
N20
)
(29)
Where:
PE
GP,y
=projectemissionsduetotheprocessingofsyngasGP(tCO
2
e)
Fuel
GPi,y
= the volume of each type of syngas GP fuel i used in year y (L, m
3
or other)
EF
CO2.
=theCO
2
2
/L,m
3
orother)
EF
CH4.
=theCH
4
4
/L,m
3
orother)
GWP
CH4
4
(tCO
2
e/tCH
4
);21
EF
N2O.
=theN
2
2
O/L,m
3
orother)
GWP
N2O
2
O(tCO
2
e/tN
2
O);310

Page|50
FuelforBlendingBiochar
TheauxiliaryemissionsduetotheblendingofBiochararecalculatedasfollows:
PE
BI,
= (Fucl
BL ,
EF Fucl
C02
) ; (Fucl
BL ,
EF Fucl
CH4
0wP
CH4
) ; (Fucl
BL ,
EF Fucl
N20
0wP
N20
)
(30)
Where:
PE
Bl,y
=projectemissionsduetotheblendingofBiocharBI(tCO
2
e)
Fuel
BLi,y
= the volume of each type of fuel i used in year y (L, m
3
or other)
EF
CO2.
=theCO
2
2
/L,m
3
orother)
EF
CH4.
=theCH
4
4
/L,m
3
orother)
GWP
CH4
4
(tCO
2
e/tCH
4
);21
EF
N2O.
=theN
2
2
O/L,m
3
orother)
GWP
N2O
2
O(tCO
2
e/tN
2
O);310
BioOilUse
Theauxiliaryemissionsduetotheuseofbiooilarecalculatedasfollows:
PE
00,
= (Fucl
00 ,
EF Fucl
CH4
0wP
CH4
) ; (Fucl
00 ,
EF Fucl
N20
0wP
N20
)
(31)
Where:
PE
OU,y
=projectemissionsduetotheuseofbiooilOUinyeary(tCO
2
e)
Fuel
OUi,y
3
or other)
EF
CH4.
=theCH
4
emissionfactorforbiooilused(kgCH
4
/L,m
3
orother)
GWP
CH4
4
(tCO
2
e/tCH
4
);21
EF
N2O.
=theN
2
Oemissionfactorforbiooilused(kgN
2
O/L,m
3
orother)
GWP
N2O
2
O(tCO
2
e/tN
2
O);310
SyngasUse

Page|51
Theauxiliaryemissionsduetotheuseofsyngasarecalculatedasfollows:
PE
u0,
= (Fucl
u0 ,
EF Fucl
CH4
0wP
CH4
) ; (Fucl
u0 ,
EF Fucl
N20
0wP
N20
)
(32)
Where:
PE
GU,y
=projectemissionsduetotheuseofsyngasGUinyeary(tCO
2
e)
Fuel
GUi,y
3
or other)
EF
CH4.
=theCH
4
emissionfactorforsyngasused(kgCH
4
/L,m
3
orother)
GWP
CH4
4
(tCO
2
e/tCH
4
);21
EF
N2O.
=theN
2
Oemissionfactorforsyngasused(kgN
2
O/L,m
3
orother)
GWP
N2O
2
O(tCO
2
e/tN
2
O);310
BiocharinSitu
Thesequestrationassociatedwiththeappropriateenduseand/orapplicationofBiocharinsitu
is calculated following procedures and measurements outlined in the Standard Test Method
for Estimating Biochar Carbon Stability by the International Biochar Initiative (2013), which is
Appendix 1 in this Methodology. The stability of carbon in Biochar is calculated first by
determining the ratio of hydrogen to organic carbon within the Biochar, and then through
comparing that ratio to a series of 100+ year stability values that were determined through
extensive consultation with soil scientists, Biochar scientists and Biochar producers as part of
the development of the Biochar carbon stability documentation. The organic carbon ratio and
the100+yearstabilityvaluearetheninsertedintothefollowingformulatocalculatethemass
of sequestered carbon in Biochar. (Appendix 1 is the test method and Appendix 2 is the
justificationforthismethod.)
C
BS,],
= BC
],
C
og,],
BC
+100
|(1uu -H
],
)1uu]
44
12
u.9S
(33)
Where:
C
BS,y
=Stable100yearsequestrationBSassociatedwiththeappropriateenduseand/or
insitu application of Biochar type j (which was produced with a consistent Feedstock

Page|52
type under uniform production parameters, following the IBI Biochar Standards
(InternationalBiocharInitiative2013))inyeary(tCO
2
e)
BC
j,y
=MassofBiochartypejinyeary(metrictonnes)
C
org,j,y
=OrganicCarbonratioasapercentageofBiocharjinyeary
BC
+100
=percentageofBiocharcarbonthatisstableforatleast100yearsinsitu
M
j,y
=moisturecontent%ofBiochartypejinyeary
44/12=molarratioofcarbondioxidetocarbon
0.95 = correction factor used to account for any possible positive priming effect of
addingBiochartosoil(Formoreinformation,pleaserefertotheBiocharcarbonstability
documentationinAppendix3(InternationalBiocharInitiative2013a).
These measurements and calculations must be repeated for each subsequent year of
production or after any Material Change in Feedstock or process activity as outlined in the
Standard Test Method for Estimating Biochar Carbon Stability document (International
BiocharInitiative2013a).
5.3Leakage
Restricting Biochar production to nonpurposegrown Feedstocks will prevent Leakage from
upstreamsources.Further,LeakageduetothedepletionofsoilorganicCarbonStocksandthe
potential for overharvesting organic agricultural residue is addressed in Appendix 2. The
provisions of this Methodology require documentation supporting the end use of Biochar,
limitingtheriskofLeakagebyprovidingtangible,substantiveevidenceofstablesequestration.
Leakage could occur if, in the absence of the project, the Biomass Residues would have been
used to generate renewable energy. When a Pyrolysis unit is optimized to make both energy
andBiochar,itwillmakelessenergythanabiomassfacilitywhichisoptimizedtomakeenergy
alone,duetoEfficiencyreductions.Fossilfuelscouldthereforebeusedtocompensateforthe
lossofenergyassociatedwithdivertingsomeenergyproductionintotheproductionofBiochar
instead.
If Feedstock type jwasused for bioenergy production, as in the default Baseline Scenario, the
Project Proponent must account for the increase in emissions needed to compensate for the

Page|53
renewable energy that would have been produced in the Baseline Scenario. The Leakage
emissionsresultingfromalossinEfficiencyofthebiomassfacilityarecalculatedasfollows:
Icokogc
= IE
qIoss

IE
qIoss
= (FS
B,],
NCI
],
) (p
B
-p
P
) EF
Lcukugc
(34)
Where:
Leakage
y
=Leakagethatoccursinyeary(tCO
2
e)
LE
loss
= Leakage due to Pyrolysis of Feedstocks that otherwise would have been used
purelyforthegenerationofenergy(tCO
2
e)
FS
B,j,y
= the amount of Feedstock type j diverted from baseline condition bioenergy
productionBinyeary(t)
NCV
j,y
= net calorific value of the Feedstock type j processed at the Biochar facility in
yeary(GJ/tofdrymatter)
p
B
=thebaselineBEfficiencyofthebiomassfacilitywheretheBiomassResidueswould
havebeencombustedbeforetheimplementationoftheproject(kWh/GJorGJ/GJ)
p
P
=theEfficiencyofthePyrolysisfacilityintheprojectPcondition(kWh/GJorGJ/GJ)
EF
Leakage
= Emission factor for reduced energy production. If the Feedstock would have
produced electricity in the baseline condition, use the regional electricity grid emission
factor(tCO
2
e/kWh).Ifthermalheatwouldhavebeenproducedinthebaseline,usethe
emissionfactorassociatedwiththemostcarbonintensivefuelthatcouldreasonablybe
usedtoreplacethisbiomassheat(tCO
2
e/GJ)
5.4SummaryofGHGEmissionReductionand/orRemovals
Theemissionreductionsforthisprojectactivityarecalculatedasfollows:
ER
= BE
-PE
-Icokogc
(35)
Where:
ER
Y
=NetGHGemissionsreductionsand/orremovalsinyeary

Page|54
Y = year, where the baseline year is 0 and the first year of

productionis1
BE
Y
=Baselineemissionsinyeary
PE
y
=Projectemissionsinyeary
Leakage
y
=Leakagethatoccursinyeary


Page|55
6MONITORING
6.1DataandParametersAvailableatValidation
ThefollowingdatawillbemadeavailableatValidation by the Project Proponent. Default
valuesmayvaryaccordingtothephysicallocationoftheprojectactivity.TheProjectProponent
must provide evidence and justification that the values presented here are applicable to their
projectactivity,orprovideandjustifyprojectspecificvaluesasneeded.
ShouldthedataparameterslistedbelownotbeavailableatthetimeofValidation,theProject
Proponent must provide a plan for determination and/or monitoring the data during the
project. All parametersused must be reviewedon an annual basis to ensure the most current
value is used in calculations. A project proponent has flexibility to balance the cost of
verificationagainstaccruedERTs.
Equation# Equation4
DataUnit/
Parameter:
EF
ACH4
Dataunit: gCH
4
/kgwaste(wetbasis)
Description: EmissionfactorforCH
4
associatedwithwastetreatment
practices.
Sourceofdata: Table4.1,Chapter4,Volume5ofIPCC2006Guidelines
Valuetobeapplied: If countryspecific data is available, then this shall be applied,
and the method used to derive the value, as well as the data
sources, need to be documented in the GHG Project Plan. If
countryspecific data are not available, then apply the default
valueslistedinTable8below.
Table8:DefaultemissionfactorsforCH
4
emissionsfromtheaerobic
treatmentofwaste.
CH
4
emissionfactors
(gCH
4
/kgwastetreated)
Onadryweightbasis 10
(0.0820)
Onawetweightbasis 4

Page|56
(0.038)
Assumptions on the waste treated: 2550% DOC in the dry
matter, 2% N in dry matter, moisture content 60%. The
emissionfactorfordrywasteareestimatedfromthoseforwet
wasteassumingmoisturecontentof60%inwetwaste.
Anycomment: Pleasenotethatemissionfactorswillneedtobeconvertedto
theproperunitsforinclusioninthebaselinecalculations,from
gCH
4
/kgwastetotCH
4
/twaste.100yrconversionmultiplier
forCH
4
=310,source:SAR100GWPvaluesfromtheIPCC
FourthAssessmentReport(AR4),WorkingGroup1,Chapter2,
Table2.14(page212)at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2
102.html
http://ipcc
wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf
Equation# Equation5
DataUnit/
Parameter:
EF
AN2O
Dataunit: gN
2
O/kgwaste(wetbasis)
Description: EmissionfactorforN2Oassociatedwithwastetreatment
practices.
Sourceofdata: Table4.1,Chapter4,Volume5ofIPCC2006Guidelines
Valuetobeapplied: If countryspecific data is available, then this shall be applied,
and the method used to derive the value, as well as the data
sources, need to be documented in the GHG Project Plan. If
countryspecific data are not available, then apply the default
valueslistedinTable9below.
Table9:DefaultemissionfactorsforN
2
Oemissionsfromaerobic
wastetreatment.
N
2
Oemissionfactors
(gN
2
O/kgwastetreated)

Page|57
Onadryweightbasis 0.6
(0.21.6)
Onawetweightbasis 0.3
(0.060.6)
Assumptions on the waste treated: 2550% DOC in the dry
matter, 2% N in dry matter, moisture content 60%. The
emissionfactorfordrywasteareestimatedfromthoseforwet
wasteassumingmoisturecontentof60%inwetwaste.
Anycomment: Pleasenotethatemissionfactorswillneedtobeconvertedto
theproperunitsforinclusioninthebaselinecalculations,from
gN
2
O/kgwastetotN
2
O/twaste.100yrconversionmultiplier
forN
2
O=21,source:SAR100GWPvaluesfromtheIPCC
FourthAssessmentReport(AR4),WorkingGroup1,Chapter2,
Table2.14(page212)at
102.html
Equation# Equation6
DataUnit/Parameter:
Dataunit:
Description: Modelcorrectionfactortoaccountformodeluncertainties
incalculatingemissionsduetotheanaerobic
decompositionofFeedstockinanSWDS
Sourceofdata:
Valuetobeapplied: 0.9
Anycomment: Oonketel.(1994)havevalidatedseverallandfillgasmodels
basedon17realizedlandfillgasprojects.Themeanrelative
errorofmultiphasemodelswasassessedtobe18%.Given
theuncertaintiesassociatedwiththemodelandinorderto
estimateemissionreductionsinaconservativemanner,a
discountof10%(10%isused,ratherthan18%,becauseitis
conservativetounderestimatethebaselineemissions)is

Page|58
appliedtothemodelresults.
Equation# Equation6
DataUnit/Parameter: OX
Dataunit: Fraction
Description: Oxidation factor (reflecting the amount of methane from
the SWDS that is oxidized in the soil or other material
coveringthewaste)
Sourceofdata: CDMAnnex10 Toolfordeterminingmethaneemissions
avoidedfromdumpingwasteatSWDS(V4.0).
Valuetobeapplied: Default:0.1
Project Proponent can alternatively conduct a site visit at

the SWDS where Feedstocks would have been disposed. If
the SWDS is covered with oxidizing material such as soil or
compost,usethedefaultvalueof0.1.Use0forothertypes
ofSolidWasteDisposalSites.
Anycomment:
Equation# Equation6
DataUnit/Parameter: F
Dataunit:
Description: FractionofmethaneintheSWDSgas(volumefraction)
Sourceofdata: IPCC2006GuidelinesforNationalGreenhouseInventories
Anycomment: This factor reflects the fact that some degradable organic
carbon does not degrade, or degrades very slowly, under
anaerobicconditionsintheSWDS.Adefaultvalueof0.5is
recommendedbyIPCC.
Equation# Equation6

Page|59
DataUnit/Parameter: DOC
f
Dataunit:
Description: Fractionofdegradableorganiccarbon(DOC)thatcan
decompose
Sourceofdata: IPCC2006GuidelinesforNationalGreenhouseGas
Inventories
Anycomment:
Equation# Equation6
DataUnit/Parameter: DOC
j
Dataunit:
Description: FractionofdegradableorganiccarbonintheFeedstock type
jdiverted(weightfraction)
Inventories(adaptedfromVolumes5,Tables2.4and2.5)
Valuetobeapplied: ApplythefollowingvaluesfordifferentFeedstocktypesj:
Table10:DefaultvaluesforDOC
i
Feedstocktypej DOC
j
(%wet
waste)
DOC
j
(%dry
waste)
Woodandwood
products
43 50
Pulp,paperand
cardboard(other
thansludge)
40 44
Food,foodwaste,
beveragesand
tobacco(otherthan
sludge)
15 38
Textiles 24 30
Garden,yardand
parkwaste
20 49
Glass,plastic, 0 0

Page|60
metal,otherinert
waste
IfaFeedstocktype,preventedfromdisposalbytheproject
activity, cannot clearly be attributed to one of the
Feedstock types in the table above, Project Proponents
shouldchooseamongtheFeedstocktypesthathavesimilar
characteristics to that Feedstock type where the values of
DOC
j
and k
j
result in a conservative estimate (lowest
emissions).
Anycomment:
Equation# Equation6
DataUnit/
Parameter:
k
j
Dataunit: l/yr
Descriptio
n:
DecayratefortheFeedstocktypej
Sourceof
data:
IPCC2006GuidelinesforNationalGreenhouseGasInventories(adapted
fromVolume5,Table3.3)
Valueto
beapplied:
ApplythefollowingdefaultvaluesfordifferentFeedstocktypej
Table11:Defaultvaluesforthedecayratek
j
Feedstocktypej
BorealandTemperate
(MAT20C)
Tropical(MAT>20C)
Dry
(MAP/PET
<1)
Wet
(MAP/PET
>1)
Dry
(MAP<100
0mm)
Wet
(MAP>10
00mm)

Page|61
S
l
o
w
l
y
d
e
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
Pulp,paper,
cardboard
(otherthan
sludge),
textiles
0.04 0.06 0.045 0.07
Wood,wood
productsand
straw
0.02 0.03 0.025 0.035
M
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
l
y
d
e
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
Other(non
food)organic
putrescible
gardenand
parkwaste
0.05 0.1 0.065 0.17
R
a
p
i
d
l
y
d
e
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
Food,food
waste,sewage,
sludge,
beveragesand
tobacco
0.06 0.185 0.085 0.4
NB: MAT mean annual temperature, MAP mean annual precipitation,
PET potential evapotranspiration. MAP/PET is the ratio between the
meanannualprecipitationandthepotentialevapotranspiration
IfaFeedstocktypedisposedinaSWDScannotclearlybeattributedtoone
ofthetypesintheabovetable,projectparticipantsshouldchoose,among
the Feedstock types that have similar characteristics, the type where the
valuesofDOC
j
andk
j
resultinaconservativeestimate.
Any
comment:
DocumentintheACRGHGProjectPlantheclimaticconditionsattheSWDS
site (temperature, precipitation and, where applicable,
evapotranspiration). Use long term averages based on statistical data,
whereavailable.Providereferences
Equation# Equation6
DataUnit/Parameter: GWP
CH4

Page|62
Dataunit: tCO
2
e/tCH
4
Description: GlobalWarmingPotentialofmethane
Sourceofdata: SAR100GWPvaluesfromtheIPCCFourthAssessment
Report(AR4),WorkingGroup1,Chapter2,Table2.14(page
212)athttp://ipcc
wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf
Anycomment: ConversionMultiplier=21
Equation# Equations6,7,8,and9
DataUnit/Parameter: MCF
Dataunit:
Description: Methaneconversionfactor
Inventories
Valuetobeapplied: foranaerobicmanagedSolidWasteDisposalSites.
Thesemusthavecontrolledplacementofwaste(i.e.
wastedirectedtospecificdepositionareas,adegree
ofcontrolofscavengingandadegreeofcontrolof
fires)andwillincludeatleastoneofthefollowing:
(i)covermaterial;(ii)mechanicalcompacting;(iii)
levelingofthewaste;
0.5forsemiaerobicmanagedSolidWasteDisposal
Sites.Thesemusthavecontrolledplacementof
wasteandwillincludeallofthefollowingstructures
forintroducingairtothewastelayers:(i)permeable
covermaterial;(ii)leachatedrainagesystem;(iii)
regulatingpondage;and(iv)gasventilationsystem;
0.8forunmanagedSolidWasteDisposalSites
deep.ThiscomprisesallSWDSnotmeetingthe
criteriaofmanagedSWDSandwhichhavedepthsof
greaterthanorequalto5meters;
0.4forunmanagedshallowSolidWasteDisposal
SitesorstockpilesthatareconsideredSWDS.This

Page|63
comprisesallSWDSnotmeetingthecriteriaof
managedSWDSandwhichhavedepthsoflessthan
5meters.Thisincludesstockpilesofsolidwastethat
areconsideredSWDS(accordingtothedefinition
givenforaSWDS)
Anycomment: TheMethaneconversionfactor (MCF)accountsforthefact
that unmanaged SWDS produce less methane from a given
amount of waste than managed SWDS, because a larger
fraction of waste decomposes aerobically in the top layers
ofunmanagedSWDS.
Equation# Equation8
DataUnit/Parameter: B
o
Dataunit: tCH4/tCOD
Description: Maximum methane producing capacity, expressing the
maximumamountofCH
4
thatcanbeproducedfromagiven
quantityofchemicaloxygendemand(tCH4/tCOD)
Sourceofdata: UNFCCC,CDMACM0022;Section6.2.3.2,chapter6,volume
5ofIPCC2006guidelines
ValuetobeApplied: ThedefaultIPCCvalueforB
o
is0.25kgCH4/kgCOD,and
shallbeused.
Anycomment: Applicabletothebaselineemissionsfromwastewater
treatment.
Equation# Equation9
DataUnit/Parameter: f
d
Dataunit: Numericalvalue
Description: Theinfluenceoftheaveragedepthoftheanaerobiclagoons
orsludgepitsonmethanegeneration.
Sourceofdata: UNFCCC,CDMACM0022
ValuetobeApplied: Asdescribedbelow:

Page|64
Anycomment: f
d
=0;ifD<1m
0.5;if1mD2m
0.7;ifD2m
Where:
f
d
=Factorexpressingtheinfluenceofthedepthofthe
anaerobiclagoonorsludgepitonmethanegeneration
D=Averagedepthoftheanaerobiclagoonsorsludgepits
usedintheBaselineScenario(m).
Equation# Equation 9
DataUnit/Parameter: D
Dataunit: m
Description: Averagedepthofthelagoonsorsludgepits
Sourceofdata: Forexistingplants:conductmeasurements.
Measurement
Procedures(ifany):
Determinetheaveragedepthsofthewholelagoon/sludge
pitundernormaloperatingconditions.
Anycomment:
Equation# Equation10
DataUnit/Parameter: T
2,m
Dataunit: K
Description: Averagetemperatureatthebaselinelagoonsiteinmonth
m
Sourceofdata: Measurementintheprojectsite,ornationalregional
weatherstatistics.
Measurement
Procedures(ifany):
In the case that Project Proponents decide to measure
temperatureintheprojectsite:
Thetemperaturesensormustbehousedina
ventilatedradiationshieldtoprotectthesensor
fromthermalradiation.
Measurements should be continuously aggregated into

Page|65
monthlyaveragevalues.
Uncertainty of the measurements provided by the
temperaturesensorsuppliershouldbediscountedfromthe
readings IF the Project Proponent decides to measure
temperatureattheprojectsite.
Anycomment:
Equation# Equations12and13
DataUnit/Parameter: COD
out,x
COD
in,x
Dataunit: tCOD
Description: CODoftheeffluentintheperiodx
CODdirectedtotheanaerobiclagoonsorsludgepitsinthe
periodx(tCOD).
Sourceofdata: Forexistingplants:
a) Ifthereisnoeffluent:COD
out,x
=0;
b) Ifthereiseffluent:
Oneyearofhistoricaldatashouldbeused,or
Ifoneyeardataisnotavailable,thenx
representsameasurementcampaignofatleast
10daystotheCODinflow(COD
in,x
)andCOD
outflow(COD
out,x
)fromthelagoonorsludgepit.
ValuetobeApplied: Forthemeasurementcampaignofatleast10days:
The measurements should be undertaken during a period
thatisrepresentativeofthetypicaloperationconditions of
theplantandambientconditionsofthesite(temperature).
Anycomment:
DataUnit/Parameter: x
Dataunit: Time
Description: Representativehistoricalreferenceperiod
Sourceofdata: Forexistingplants:

Page|66
a) xshouldrepresentoneyearofhistoricaldata
b) Ifoneyeardataisnotavailable,thenxrepresentsa
measurementcampaignofatleast10days.
ValuetobeApplied:
Anycomment:
PJ,AD,m
Dataunit: m
3
Description: Quantity of wastewater or sludge that is treated in the
Pyrolysis unit or under clearly aerobic conditions in the
projectactivityinmonthm(m
3
)
Sourceofdata: Measured
Measurement
Procedures(ifany):
The volume of wastewater or sludge that is treated is
determined by calibrated meters or following industry best
managementpractices.
Anycomment: Parametermonitoredcontinuously,butaggregated
monthlyandannuallyforcalculations.
DataUnit/Parameter: COD
AD,m
Dataunit: TCOD/m
3
Description: Chemical oxygen demand in the wastewater or sludge that
is treated in the Pyrolysis unit or under clearly aerobic
conditionsintheprojectactivityinmonthm.
Sourceofdata: Measurements.
Measurement
Procedures(ifany):
Measure the COD according to national or international
Standards. If COD is measured more than once per month,
the average value of the measurements should be used.
Measurementsshouldbeconductedfrequentlytocalculate
averagemonthlyandannualvalues.
Anycomment:

Page|67
DataUnit/Parameter:
Dataunit:
Description: Discountfactortoaccountfortheuncertaintyoftheuseof
historicaldatatodetermineCOD
BL,y
Sourceofdata: Forexisting plants:

a) Ifoneyearofhistoricaldataisavailable,=1
b) Ifameasurementcampaignofatleast10daysis
available,=0.89
Measurement
Procedures(ifany):
The value of 0.89 for the case where there is no one year
historicaldatatoaccountfortheuncertaintyrate(of30%to
50%) associated with this approach, as compared to one
yearhistoricaldata.
Anycomment:
DataUnit/
Parameter:
GWP
N2O
Dataunit: TCO
2
e/tN
2
O
Description: GlobalWarmingPotentialofmethane
Sourceofdata: SAR100GWPvaluesfromtheIPCCFourthAssessmentReport
(AR4),WorkingGroup1,Chapter2,Table2.14(page212)at
102.html
Anycomment: Conversionmultiplier=310
DataUnit/Parameter: EF
N2O,D,j
Dataunit: tN
2
ON/tN

Page|68
Description: DirectN
2
Oemissionfactorforthetreatmentsystemjofthe
manuremanagementsystem
Sourceofdata: Estimatedwithsitespecific,regionalornationaldataifsuch
is available. Otherwise use default EF
3
from table 10.21,
chapter 10, volume 4, in the IPCC 2006 Guidelines for
NationalGreenhouseGasInventories
Anycomment:
LN2O,ID
Dataunit: tN
2
ON/tNH
3
NandNOxN
Description: Indirect N
2
O emission factor for N
2
O emissions from
atmospheric deposition of nitrogen on soils and water
surfaces
Sourceofdata: Estimatedwithsitespecific,regionalornationaldataifsuch
is available. Otherwise use default EF
4
from table 11.3,
chapter 11, volume 4, in the IPCC 2006 Guidelines for
NationalGreenhouseGasInventories.
Anycomment:
gasMS,j,LT
Dataunit: Fraction
Description: DefaultvaluesfornitrogenlossduetovolatilizationofNH
3
andNO
x
frommanuremanagement
Sourceofdata: IPCC2006Guidelines,Volume4,Chapter10,Table10.22.
Anycomment:
Grid
Dataunit: kgGHG(CO
2
,CH
4
,N
2
O)perkWh

Page|69
Description: EmissionfactordescribingtheGHGemissionsfromthe
regionalelectricitygrid
Sourceofdata: Projects in the United States must use the latest version of
the United States Environmental Protection Agency eGRID
factors for the appropriate eGRID Subregion where the
projectislocated.
Seehttp://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy
resources/egrid/index.html.
ProjectsoutsideoftheUnitedStatesmustidentifythemost
appropriate emission factor for the electricity grid for the
region of interest. Project Proponents can also refer to the
CDMs Tool to calculate the emission factor for an
electricitysystem(Version01.1).(CDM2011)
Anycomment: If the grid emission factor is not already available for the
region,theCDMsguidanceisthemostappropriatetoolfor
calculatingemissionsassociatedwithanelectricitygrid.
GHG,i
Dataunit: kgGHG(CO
2
,CH
4
,N
2
O)perkg
Description: EmissionfactorforFeedstock typei forCO
2
,CH
4
,andN
2
O
Sourceofdata: Reference values may be obtained from national and
international GHG inventories. In the absence of local or
regional data, IPCC defaults can be used from the most
recent version of the IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories providing they are deemed to
reasonably represent local circumstances. The Project
Proponent must choose the values in a conservative
mannerandjustifythechoice.
Anycomment: Thisisoneofthemostcomprehensiveemissionfactor
databasesavailable.Note:CH
4
andN
2
Omustbemultiplied
bytheirGWPconversions:21and310,respectively.

Page|70
DataUnit/Parameter: EFFuel
GHG
Dataunit: kgGHG(CO
2
,CH
4
,N
2
O)perL,m
3
orother
Description: EmissionfactordescribingtheGHGemissionsfromeach
typeoffuel
Sourceofdata: The Project Proponent must identify the most appropriate
emission factor for the combustion of liquid or gaseous
fossil oil or gas for the Territory of interest. In the absence
oflocalorregionaldata,IPCCdefaultscanbeusedfromthe
most recent version of the IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories providing they are deemed to
reasonably represent local circumstances. The Project
Proponent must choose the values in a conservative
mannerandjustifythechoice.
Anycomment: Thisisoneofthemostcomprehensivefuelemissionfactor
databasesavailable.
DataUnit/Parameter: %
eff
Dataunit: %
Description: PercentageEfficiency ofthethermalenergyheatingsystem
Sourceofdata: Manufacturersspecifications
Anycomment: Representsthemostreasonablemeansofestimation.
Leakage
Dataunit: CO
2
e/kWhorCO
2
e/GJ
Description: Emission factor for reduced energy production due to
Pyrolysis rather than exclusive energy generation. If the
Feedstock would have produced electricity in the baseline
condition,usetheregionalelectricitygridemissionfactor.

Page|71
Sourceofdata: If the Feedstock would have produced electricity in the

baselinecondition,usetheregionalelectricitygridemission
factor. Projects in the United States must use the latest
version of the United States Environmental Protection
Agency eGRID factors for the appropriate eGRID Subregion
wheretheprojectislocated.
Seehttp://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy
resources/egrid/index.html.
ProjectsoutsideoftheUnitedStatesmustidentifythemost
appropriate emission factor for the electricity grid for the
region of interest. Project Proponents can also refer to the
CDMs Tool to calculate the emission factor for an
electricitysystem(Version01.1).(CDM2011)
If thermal heat would have been produced in the baseline,

use the emission factor associated with the most carbon
intensivefuelthatcouldreasonablybe used to replace this
biomassheat.Intheabsenceoflocalorregionaldata,IPCC
defaults can be used from the most recent version of the
IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories
providing they are deemed to reasonably represent local
circumstances. The Project Proponent must choose the
valuesinaconservativemannerandjustifythechoice.
Anycomment: Verifierwillconfirmtheconservativenessofthe
assumptionsoftheProjectProponent.
DataUnit/Parameter: p
B
Dataunit: Forelectricityproduction:kWh/GJ
Forthermalenergyproduction:GJ/GJ
Description: ThebaselineEfficiency ofthebiomassfacilitywherethe
BiomassResidueswouldhavebeencombustedbeforethe

Page|72
implementationoftheproject
Defaultvaluetobe
applied
Forelectricityproduction:111.11kWh/GJ
Forthermalenergyproduction:0.85GJ/GJ
Sourceofdata: InternationalEnergyAgencysHandbookofBiomass
CombustionandCoFiring.VanLooandKoppenanetal
2002.
Anycomment: Justificationofchoiceofdataordescriptionof
measurementmethodsandproceduresapplied:
DefaultvaluesaretakenfromtheInternationalEnergy
AgencysHandbookofBiomassCombustionandCoFiring.
Thehighestpossibleefficienciesbasedonnetcalorificvalue
(orlowerheatingvalue)wereusedtobeconservative.For
electricity,theInternationalEnergyAgencyestimatesthe
mostefficientuseistocofirethebiomassinapowerplant
thatproduces.4GJofelectricityforeachGJofenergyinthe
Feedstock.Thisisequivalentto111.11kWh/GJofenergyin
theFeedstock.Forthermalenergyproduction,the
InternationalEnergyAgencyestimatesthemostefficient
useisinastoveboilerwithefficienciesof.85GJofthermal
energyperGJofFeedstock.
IftheProjectProponentdeterminesthatthesevaluesare
overlyconservative,theycandefinearegionalspecific
valuebyassessingtheEfficiencyofthreebiomassplantsin
theprojectsregionthatcouldhavebeenrecipientsofthe
FeedstockusingeithermeasuredEfficiencyor
manufacturersinformationonEfficiency.Project
Proponentsshallusethehighestvaluefoundinthissurvey.
QA/QCprocedures:Reasonablenessreviewduring
Verification
Equation# SeeAppendix1

Page|73
DataUnit/Parameter: BC
+100
Dataunit: %
Description: Insitu100+yearcarbonstabilityvalueforBiocharthatis
appliedtosoilorisemployedinanotherappropriateend
useand/orinsituapplicationofBiochar.
Sourceofdata: InternationalBiochar Initiative2013a
Valuetobeapplied: Asdescribedbelow
Anycomment: Biochar 100+yearstabilityconversionvalues,incorrelation
toH:Corgratios.
H:C
org
BC
+100

<0.4 70%
0.4 - 0.7 50%
>0.7 0
BC+100isdeterminedfollowingthecalculationofH:Corg
ratios,asindicatedintheStandardTestMethodfor
EstimatingBiocharCarbonStability(InternationalBiochar
Initiative2013a).
6.2DataandParametersMonitored
Thefollowingdataparameterswillbemonitoredduringtheproject.
Equation# Equation3
DataUnit/Parameter: FS
i,j,y
Dataunit: T
Description: TotalamountofFeedstock typej divertedfrombaseline
conditioniinyeary.(dryweight)
Sourceofdata: Sample measurements conducted by Project Proponent,
following guidance outlined in the most recent version of
theIBIBiocharStandards,asproducedbytheInternational
BiocharInitiative.

Page|74
Measurement
procedures:
Sample the Feedstock composition, using the Feedstock
categories j, as provided in Table 4 and weigh each
Feedstockfraction
Monitoringfrequency: Continuously,aggregatedmonthlyorannually.
QA/QCprocedures: ReasonablenessreviewduringVerification
Anycomment: See the most recent version of the IBI Biochar Standards
(International Biochar Initiative 2013), with specific
attentiontosectionsaddressinggeneralFeedstockmaterial
requirements and Material Changes in Feedstocks. The IBI
Biochar Standards Appendix 4 addresses Feedstock criteria
inmoredetail.
Equation# Equation3
n,j,y
Dataunit: T
Description: Weight fraction of the Feedstock type j in the sample n
collectedduringyeary(dryweight)
Sourceofdata: Sample measurements conducted by Project Proponent,
following guidance outlined in the most recent version of
the Biochar Standards, provided by the International
BiocharInitiative.
Measurement
procedures:
Sample the Feedstock composition, using the Feedstock
categories j, as provided in Table 4 and weigh each
Feedstockfraction
Monitoringfrequency: Minimumofthreesampleseverythreemonths
Anycomment: See the most recent version of the IBI Biochar Standards
(International Biochar Initiative 2013), with specific
attentiontosectionsaddressinggeneralFeedstockmaterial
requirementsandMaterialChangesinFeedstocks.
Equation# Equation3

Page|75
DataUnit/Parameter: Z
Dataunit:
Description: Numberofsamplescollectedduringyeary
Sourceofdata: ProjectProponent
Measurement
procedures:
Minimumofthreesampleseverythreemonths
Monitoringfrequency: Continuously,aggregatedannually
Anycomment:
Equation# Equations45,1732,and34
H
(WhereH=GHG)
Dataunit: kgGHG(CO
2
,CH
4
,N
2
O)perGJ
Description: Emissionfactorassociatedwiththefuelthatisusedinstead
ofbiomassduetotheproject
Sourceofdata: Either conduct measurements or use accurate and reliable
local or national data where available. Where such data is
not available, use IPCC default emission factors (country
specific, if available) if they are deemed to reasonably
represent local circumstances. Choose the value in a
conservativemannerandjustifythechoice.
Measurement
procedures:
Measurements shall be carried out at reputed laboratories
andaccordingtorelevantinternationalStandards.
Monitoringfrequency: In case of measurements: At least every six months, taking
atleastthreesamplesforeachmeasurement
In case of other data sources: Review the appropriateness
oftheannualdata.
QA/QCprocedures: Checkconsistencyofmeasurementsandlocal/nationaldata
with default values by the IPCC. If the values differ
significantly from IPCC default values, collect additional
informationorconductadditionalmeasurements.
Anycomment: To conservatively determine which fuel is used instead of
biomass due to the project, the Project Proponent should
select the most carbon intensive fuel type used among the

Page|76
fossilfueltypesusedattheprojectsiteduringyearx.
Equation# Equation6
DataUnit/Parameter: f
y
Dataunit: %
Description: Fraction of methane capture at the SWDS and flared,
combusted or used in another manner that prevents the
emissionsofmethanetotheatmosphereinyeary
Sourceofdata: Select the maximum value from the following: (a) contract
of regulation requirements specifying the amount of
methanethatmustbedestroyed/used(ifavailable)and(b)
historicdataontheamountcaptured
Measurement
procedures:
Monitoringfrequency: Annual
Anycomment: n/a
DataUnit/Parameter: Q
EM,m
Dataunit: m3/month
Description: Monthlyvolumeofthemanureeffluentmixenteringthe
manuremanagementsystem
Sourceofdata: ProjectProponents,manuresuppliers
Measurement
procedures:
Usingflowmeters
Monitoringfrequency: Thisparametershallbecontinuouslymonitored
QA/QCprocedures: Flow meters will undergo maintenance/calibration subject
to appropriate industry Standards. This maintenance/
calibration practice should be clearly stated in the GHG
ProjectPlan

Page|77
Anycomment: This parameter shall be monitored by continuous flow

metersinstalledaftertheeffluentadmittancepointorafter
theequalizationtanks(ifexistent)
DataUnit/Parameter: [N]
EM,m
Dataunit: tN/m
3
Description: Monthlytotalnitrogenconcentrationinthemanure
effluentmixenteringthemanuremanagementsystem
Sourceofdata: ProjectProponents
Measurement
procedures:
Monitoringfrequency: Aggregatedweeklyformonthlyaverage
QA/QCprocedures: Sample collection procedures shall be performed as
described in appendix 5 of United Nations 2012i: CDM
ACM0010 Version 07.0.0 Approved consolidated baseline
Methodology ACM0010 Consolidated baseline
Methodology for GHG emission reductions from manure
managementsystems.
Total nitrogen determination should be performed

according to the guidance provided in appendix 4 of CDM
ACM0010Version07.0.0
Anycomment: The effluent mix shall be collected after the effluent
admittance point or after the equalization tanks (if
existent).
DataUnit/Parameter: E
R,y
Dataunit: kWh
Description: Electricity will be produced at offsite grid connected
generation facilities in the baseline to cover the amount of

Page|78
renewable electricity being generated from the Biochar

outputintheprojectcondition.
Sourceofdata: MeasurementbyProjectProponent
Measurement
procedures:
Directmeteringofthenetquantityofrenewableelectricity
generatedintheprojectconditionandusedoffsiteinyear
y.
Monitoringfrequency: Continuousmetering
Anycomment: n/a
DataUnit/Parameter: O
y
Dataunit: L,m3,orother
Description: Volume of biooil produced in the project condition in year
y.Thisparameterisusedtocalculatethebaselineemissions
duetotheuseoffossiloilthatwouldhavebeenrequiredto
compensate for the biooil produced in the project
condition.
Sourceofdata: Thevolumeofbiooilproducedisdeterminedbycalibrated
metersorfollowingindustrybestmanagementpractices.
Measurement
procedures:
Direct metering or reconciliation of volume in storage
(including volumes received), or monthly invoices filed for
Verification.
Monitoringfrequency: Continuousmeteringormonthlyreconciliation.
QA/QCprocedures: Industrybestpractice
Anycomment: n/a
DataUnit/Parameter: G
y
Dataunit: L,m3,orother
Description: Volumeofsyngasproducedintheprojectconditioninyear
y.Thisparameterisusedtocalculatethebaselineemissions

Page|79
due to the use of fossil gas that would have been required
to compensate for the syngas produced in the project
condition.
Sourceofdata: The volume of gas produced is determined by calibrated
metersorfollowingindustrybestmanagementpractices.
Measurement
procedures:
Verification.
Anycomment: n/a
Equation# Equations20,21,and22
DataUnit/Parameter: %
i
Dataunit: %
Description: Percentageofeachtypeoffueloffsetfromeitherthe
productionofbiooil,syngasorheatintheproject
condition.
Sourceofdata: Basedonmonthlyrecordedfossilfuelconsumptioninone
ormoreyearspriortotheimplementationoftheproject.
Measurement
procedures:
Representsmostreasonablemeansofestimation.
Monitoringfrequency: Once
Anycomment: n/a
DataUnit/Parameter: H
y
Dataunit: GJ
Description: Heat load produced under the project condition in year y.
This parameter is used to calculate the baseline emissions

Page|80
due to the production of heat that would have been

required to compensate for the heat produced in the
projectcondition.
Sourceofdata: Facilityrecords
Measurement
procedures:
Directmeteringofthermalenergydeliveredtotheenduser
intheprojectcondition.
Monitoringfrequency: Monthly
Anycomment: n/a
Equation# Equations25,28,29,30,31,and32
DataUnit/Parameter: Fuel
P
,Fuel
PY
,Fuel
OP
,Fuel
GP
,Fuel
BL
,Fuel
OU,
andFuel
GU
Dataunit: L,m
3
,orother
Description: Volume of each type of fuel consumed in year y. This
volume of fuel is adjusted for both functional equivalence
andunitsofproductivity.
Sourceofdata: MeasurementbyProjectProponentorthirdpartycustody
invoices,consolidatedmonthly.
Measurement
procedures:
Verification.
QA/QCprocedures: Industrybestpractice.Metersshouldbecalibrated
accordingtomanufacturersspecifications.
Anycomment: n/a
DataUnit/Parameter: E
G,y
Dataunit: kWh
Description: Thequantityofgridelectricityconsumedintheproject
conditioninyeary

Page|81
Sourceofdata: Utilityinvoices
Measurement
procedures:
Directmetering,aggregatedmonthly.
Monitoringfrequency: Continuousmetering
Anycomment: n/a
DataUnit/Parameter: BCj,
y
Dataunit: Tonneorkg
Description: MassofBiochartypej producedfromthefacilityinyeary
Sourceofdata: Facilityrecords
Measurement
procedures:
DirectmeasurementofmassofBiocharproduced
Monitoringfrequency: Continuous,aggregatedmonthlyorannually
Anycomment: Biochar type j has been produced with a consistent
Feedstock type and under uniform parameters in year y,
following the guidance outlined in the Biochar Standard
(InternationalBiocharInitiative2013)
DataUnit/Parameter: M
j,y
Dataunit: %
Description: MoisturecontentofBiochar j inyeary
Sourceofdata: Measurementsbyanalyticallaboratory
Measurement
procedures:
Measurement of materials conducted as prescribed by the
Standard Test Method for Estimating Biochar Carbon
Stability(InternationalBiocharInitiative2013a).
Monitoringfrequency: Annually,orwithanyMaterialChange ofFeedstock typeor
productionprocess

Page|82
Anycomment:
Equation# Equation33and37
DataUnit/Parameter: C
org
Dataunit: %orx/100
Description: PercentorganiccarbonofBiochar j inyeary
Measurement
procedures:
Stability(InternationalBiocharInitiative2013a)
Monitoringfrequency: Annually,orwithanyMaterialChangeofFeedstock typeor
productionprocess
Anycomment:
DataUnit/Parameter: NCV
j
Dataunit: GJ/t
Description: Net calorific value of the Feedstock type j being diverted
frombioenergyproductioninthebaselinecondition
Sourceofdata: Thirdpartylaboratoryreport
Measurement
procedures:
Measurements shall be carried out at reputed laboratories
and according to relevant international Standards.
Measure/calculatetheNCVbasedondrybiomass.
Monitoringfrequency: At least every six months, taking at least three samples for
eachmeasurement.
QA/QCprocedures: Check the consistency of the measurements by comparing
themeasurementresultswithmeasurementsfromprevious
years, relevant data sources (e.g. values in the literature,
values used in the national GHG inventory) and default
values by the IPCC. If the measurement results differ
significantlyfrompreviousmeasurementsorotherrelevant

Page|83
data sources, conduct additional measurements. Ensure

thattheNCVisdeterminedonthebasisofdrybiomass.
Anycomment: n/a
P
Dataunit: Forelectricityproduction:kWh/GJ
Forthermalenergyproduction:GJ/GJ
Description: TheEfficiency ofthebiomassfacilityafterthe
implementationoftheproject
Sourceofdata: Useeither(a)themeasuredEfficiency or(b)the
manufacturersinformationontheEfficiency.
Measurement
procedures:
Use recognized Standards for the measurement of the
Efficiency, such as the British Standard Methods for
Assessingthethermalperformanceofboilersforsteam,hot
water and high temperature heat transfer fluids. (BS845).
Where possible, use preferably the direct method (dividing
the net heat generation by the energy content of the fuels
fired during a representative time period), as it is better
able to reflect average efficiencies during a representative
time period compared to the indirect method
(determination of fuel supply or heat generation and
estimation of the losses). Document measurement
procedures and results and manufacturers information
transparentlyintheGHGProjectPlan.
Monitoringfrequency: Annual
Anycomment: n/a
DataUnit/Parameter: H/C
org
Dataunit: Molarratio

Page|84
Description: Hydrogentoorganiccarbonmolarratio
Measurement
procedures:
Stability(InternationalBiocharInitiative2013a)
Monitoringfrequency: Annually,orwithanyMaterialChangeofFeedstock typeor
productionprocessparameters
Anycomment:
6.3DescriptionoftheMonitoringPlan
The Project Proponent must develop a monitoring plan detailing the procedures for data
capture, measurement and reporting of the data parameters listed in Section 6.2. In general,
data quality management must include sufficient data capture such that the mass and energy
balances may be easily performed with the need for minimal assumptions and use of
contingency procedures. The data shall be of sufficient quality to fulfill the quantification
requirementandbesubstantiatedbycompanyrecordsforthepurposeofVerification.
The Project Proponent shall establish and apply quality management procedures to manage
data and information. Written procedures should be established for each measurement task
outlining responsibility, timing and record location requirements. The greater the rigor of the
managementsystemforthedata,themoreeasilyanauditwillbeconductedfortheproject.
Recordkeepingpracticesshallbeestablishedthatinclude:
Electronicrecordingofvaluesofloggedprimaryparametersforeachmeasurement
interval;
Offsiteelectronicbackupofallloggeddata;
Writtenlogsofoperationsandmaintenanceoftheprojectsystemincludingnotationof
allshutdowns,startupsandprocessadjustments;
Storageofalldocumentsandrecordsinasecureandretrievablemannerforatleasttwo
yearsaftertheendoftheprojectCreditingPeriod.

Page|85
The Project Proponent must also develop a QA/QC plan to add confidence that all
measurements and calculations have been made correctly. QA/QC measures that may be
implementedinclude,butarenotlimitedto:
Protectingmonitoringequipment(sealedmetersanddataloggers);
Protectingrecordsofmonitoreddata(hardcopyandelectronicstorage);
Checkingdataintegrityonaregularandperiodicbasis(manualassessment,comparing
redundantmetereddata,anddetectionofoutstandingdata/records);
Comparingcurrentestimateswithpreviousestimatesasarealitycheck;
Providesufficienttrainingtooperatorstoperformmaintenanceandcalibrationof
monitoringdevices;
Establishminimumexperienceandrequirementsforoperatorsinchargeofprojectand
monitoring;and
Performingrecalculationstoensurenomathematicalerrorshavebeenmade.


Page|86
7REFERENCESANDOTHERINFORMATION
7.1Sources
The protocols, methodologies and tools used to develop the quantification Methodology are
presentedintheTablebelow.
Table12:Protocols,methodologiesandtoolsreferencedintheMethodology(IPCCGood
PracticeGuidance)
DocumentTitle PublishingBody/
Date
Description
GeneralMethodologyGuidance
CanadasNational
InventoryReport:
GreenhouseGas
SourcesandSinksin
Canada,19902010
Governmentof
Canada(2012)
OnbehalfoftheGovernmentofCanada,
EnvironmentCanadareleasesanational
inventoryofGreenhouseGasesannuallyin
accordancewithinternationalUNFCCC
reportingStandards.
AlbertaOffset
SystemOffsetCredit
ProjectGuidance
Document
AlbertaEnvironment
(February2008)
Adraftguidancedocumentoutlininghowto
developoffsetprojectsundertheAlberta
OffsetSystem.
ISO140642 International
Organizationfor
Standardization
(2006)
Providesguidanceattheprojectlevelfor
quantification,monitoringandreportingof
GreenhouseGasemissionreductionsor
removalenhancements.
ISO140643 International
Organizationfor
Standardization
(2006)
ProvidesguidancefortheValidationand
VerificationofGHGassertions.

Page|87
MethodologiesReviewed
AMSIII.E.
Avoidanceof
methaneproduction
fromdecayof
biomassthrough
controlled
combustion,
gasificationor
mechanical/thermal
treatment
Version16.0
CleanDevelopment
Mechanism
ExecutiveBoard
Approvedbaselineandmonitoring
Methodologyfromthedecayofbiomass
throughcontrolledcombustion,gasificationor
mechanical/thermaltreatment
AMSIII.L.
Avoidanceof
methaneproduction
frombiomassdecay
throughcontrolled
PyrolysisVersion
2.0
CleanDevelopment
Mechanism
ExecutiveBoard
Methodologyfromthedecayofbiomass
throughcontrolledPyrolysis
Tooltodetermine
methaneemissions
avoidedfrom
disposalofwasteat
aSolidWaste
DisposalSite.
CleanDevelopment
Mechanism
ExecutiveBoard
Providesguidanceandprocedurestocalculate
baseline,project,orLeakageemissionsof
methanefromsolidwastedisposedor
preventedfromdisposalatSolidWaste
DisposalSites.
ACM0010
Consolidated
baseline
Methodologyfor
GHGemission
reductionfrom
CleanDevelopment
Mechanism
ExecutiveBoard
Methodologyfortheanaerobictreatmentof
livestockmanure.

Page|88
manure
management
systems.
ACM0022
Consolidated
baselineand
monitoring
Methodologyfor
alternativewaste
treatmentprocesses
CleanDevelopment
Mechanism
ExecutiveBoard
Methodologyconsolidatinganumberofwaste
treatmentprocessmethodologiesincluding
composting,aerobicthermaltreatment,
methaneemissionreductionandenergy
productionfromorganicwastetreatment.
OWDOrganicWaste
DigestionProject
ProtocolVersion
2.0
ClimateAction
Reserve
ApprovedGHGaccountingMethodology for
projectsthatdivertanaerobicdigestion
eligibleorganicwastesand/orwastewater
streamsthatwouldotherwisehavegoneto
uncontrolledanaerobicstorage,treatment
anddisposalsystems.
OWCOrganicWaste
CompostingProject
ProtocolVersion
2.0
ClimateAction
Reserve
projectsthatdivertcomposteligibleorganic
wastesand/orwastewaterstreamsthatwould
otherwisehavegonetouncontrolled
anaerobicstorage,treatmentanddisposal
systems.
USLandfillProject
Protocol
ClimateAction
Reserve
thedirectavoidanceofmethaneemissions
throughtheinstallationofalandfillgas
collectionanddestructionsystematlandfill
operations.
Quantification
ProtocolforAerobic
CompostingProjects
AlbertaOffsetSystem;
SpecifiedGasEmitters
Regulation
Methodologyforthedirectavoidanceof
methaneemissionsfromanaerobically
decomposedmaterialsinlandfillsthroughthe
diversionoforganicresiduesfromlandfillfor

Page|89
biologicaldecomposition.
Quantification
Protocolfor
Innovativefeeding
ofswineandstoring
andspreadingof
swinemanure.
Regulation
Methodologyforthereductionandavoidance
ofmethaneandnitrousoxideemissionsfrom
swineoperations.
Quantification
Protocolfor
Reducingbeefageat
harvest.
Regulation
Methodologyforthereductionandavoidance
ofmethaneandnitrousoxideemissionsfrom
beefcattleoperations.
7.2References
Alberta Environment and Sustainable ResourceDevelopment, Alberta Offset System, Specified
GasEmittersRegulation.2007.Quantificationprotocolforinnovativefeedingofswineand
storingandspreadingofswinemanure.http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/7913.pdf
(AccessedNovember2012)
Gas Emitters Regulation. 2008. Quantification protocol for aerobic composting projects.
http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/7905.pdf(AccessedSeptember2012)
Gas Emitters Regulation. 2011. Quantification protocol for reducing the age at harvest of
beefcattle.http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/7916.pdf(AccessedNovember2012)
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International. 2005. ASTM D317609, 2005
StandardpracticeforUltimateAnalysisofcoalandcoke.DOI:10.1520/D317609
AmericanSocietyforTestingandMaterials(ASTM)International.2007.ASTMD176284,2007
Standardtestmethodforchemicalanalysisofwoodcharcoal.DOI:10.1520/D176284R07

Page|90
British Standards Institution. 1999. Methods for Assessing thermal performance of boilers for
steam, hot water and high temperature heat transfer fluids. BS 8451:1987 ISBN 0 580
15856X
Canadian Council of Ministers for the Environment. 2005. Guidelines for Compost Quality. PN
1340WinnipegManitoba,Canada.ISBN1896997600.
Carbon Consulting LLC and Leading Carbon Ltd. 2010. Draft Quantification Protocol: Biochar
Projects v.1, submitted to the Alberta Specified Gas Emitters Regulation
http://carbonoffsetsolutions.climatechangecentral.com/files/microsites/OffsetProtocols/Dr
aftProtocolsDocs/Biochar_Intent_to_Develop_Protocol_Proposal_April_2011.pdf (Accessed
August2012)
Climate Action Reserve. 2010. Organic waste composting project protocol. Version 1.0
http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/protocols/organicwastecomposting/(Accessed
November2012)
Climate Action Reserve. 2011. Organic waste digestion project protocol. Version 2.0
http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/protocols/organicwastedigestion/ (Accessed
July2012)
Climate Action Reserve. 2011. U.S. landfill project protocol. Version 4.0
http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/protocols/uslandfill/ (Accessed November
2012)
Davis, J.G. and Wilson, C.R. 2005. Choosing a Soil Amendment. Colorado State University
Extension. Fact Sheet No. 7.235. www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/garden/07235.html
(AccessedJuly2012)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2006. Guidelines for National Greenhouse
Gas Inventories. http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/index.html (Accessed
November2012)
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2006. Good Practice Guidance and
Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. http://www.ipcc
nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gp/english/
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Page|91
Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., and
Miller, H.L. (eds.) Direct Global Warming Potentials:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2102.html (Accessed
October2012)
International Biochar Initiative. 2013. Standardized Product Definition and Product Testing
Guidelines for Biochar that is Used in Soil (IBI Biochar Standards). http://Biochar
international.org/characterizationstandard(AccessedJuly2013)
International Biochar Initiative. 2013a. Standard test method for estimating Biochar carbon
stability(BC
+100
).Inpress.
InternationalBiocharInitiative.2013b.BiocharCarbonStabilityTestMethod:anassessmentof
methodstodetermineBiocharcarbonstability.Inpress.
Oonk,H.,Weenk,A.,Coops,O.,andLuning,L.1994.Validationoflandfillgasformationmodels.
TNO.DutchorganizationforAppliedScientificResearch,ReportNo.94315.Apeldoorn,The
Netherlands
United Nations. 2006. Framework Convention on Climate Change, Clean Development
Mechanism. Executive Board Report. Annex 18 Definition of renewable biomass.
http://cdm.unfccc.int/EB/023/eb23_repan18.pdf(AccessedOctober2012)
United Nations 2012a. Framework Convention on Climate Change. Clean Development
Mechanism. AM0036. Fuel switch from fossil fuels to Biomass Residues in heat generation
equipment.
http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/DB/7P3CG1OWTTS3XX0N9XKCENFI050SH6 (Accessed
September2012)
United Nations. 2012b. Framework Convention on Climate Change, Clean Development
Mechanism. AMS III.E Avoidance of methane production from decay of biomass through
controlled combustion, gasification, or mechanical/thermal treatment. Version 16.
http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/DB/GPWCV89KQ7IFPEDCXA92BL6XK7JR3Y (Accessed
August2012)
United Nations. 2012c. Framework Convention on Climate Change, Clean Development
Mechanism. AMS III.L Avoidance of methane production from biomass decay through
controlled Pyrolysis Version 2.0.

Page|92
http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/DB/72XV0Z89701S2D87UBPFD57WE5AFP5 (Accessed
August2012)
United Nations. 2012d. Framework Convention on Climate Change, Clean Development
Mechanism.CombinedtooltoidentifytheBaselineScenarioanddemonstrateAdditionality.
http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/tools/amtool02
v4.0.0.pdf/history_view(AccessedSeptember2012)
United Nations. 2012e. Framework Convention on Climate Change, Clean Development
Mechanism. Methodological tool: Tool for the demonstration and assessment of
Additionality http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/tools/amtool01
v5.2.pdf/history_view(AccessedAugust2012)
United Nations. 2012f. Framework Convention on Climate Change, Clean Development
Mechanism.TooltodeterminemethaneemissionsavoidedfromdisposalofwasteataSolid
WasteDisposalSite.http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/tools/amtool
04v4.pdf/history_view(AccessedSeptember2012)
United Nations. 2012g. Framework Convention on Climate Change: Parties and Observers.
http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/items/2704.php(AccessedAugust2012)
United Nations. 2012h. Framework Convention on Climate Change, Clean Development
Mechanism. Approved consolidated baseline and monitoring Methodology ACM0022
Alternative waste treatment processes.
http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/DB/V6E6Y5C7KYQAB6CW8BD9CDO0767BOW/view.ht
ml(AccessedOctober2012)
United Nations. 2012i. Framework Convention on Climate Change, Clean Development
Mechanism.ApprovedconsolidatedbaselineMethodologyACM0010Consolidatedbaseline
Methodology for GHG emission reductions from manure management systems. Version
07.0.0. http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/DB/FP0LYUJJMH0CE6O4KLG8PC24XXPEXF
(AccessedNovember2012)
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Summary of the EPA Municipal Solid
Waste program. http://www.epa.gov/reg3wcmd/solidwastesummary.htm (Accessed July
2012)

Page|93
Woolf, D., and Lehmann, J. 2012. Modeling the longterm response to positive and negative
priming of soil organic carbon by black carbon. August 2012. Biogeochemistry. DOI:
10.1007/s1053301297646

Page|94
APPENDIX1:STANDARDTESTMETHODFORESTIMATING
BIOCHARCARBONSTABILITY(BC
+100
)
1 Scope
This test method provides the calculations needed to estimate the amount of carbon that is
expectedtoremaininBiocharafteraperiodof100years(BC
+100
),whichisconsideredstable
for the purpose of determining a GHG emissions reduction value. This stable portion of the
carbon sequestered in Biochar is deducted from Project Emissions in Equation 23. As part of
that method, this covers the determination of hydrogen, total carbon and organic carbon in a
sampleofBiochar.
This document builds upon previous work coordinated by The International Biochar Initiative
(IBI) to develop the Standardized Product Definition and Product Testing Guidelines for
BiocharthatIsUsedinSoil(InternationalBiocharInitiative2012).Thisdocumentconstrainsits
scope to materials with properties that satisfy the criteria for Biochar as defined by the IBI
Standards(InternationalBiocharInitiative2012).
ThisStandardtest methoddoes not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any,
associated with use of Biochar. It is the responsibility of the user of thisStandard test
methodtoestablishappropriatesafetyandhealthpracticesanddeterminetheapplicabilityof
regulatory limitations prior to use. The minimum safety equipment should include protective
glovesandsturdyeyeandfaceprotection.
2 Terminology
Biochar A solid material obtained from the thermochemical conversion of biomass in an

oxygenlimited environment (International Biochar Initiative 2012) that complies with the
definitionintheIBIBiocharStandards2012.
BC
+100
ThefractionofcarbonpresentinBiocharthatisexpectedtoremaininsoilforatleast
100years(KyotoProtocol1998)whenaddedtosoil.
TotalcarbonThetotalamountofcarboninasample,bothorganicandinorganic.
OrganiccarbonThefractionofcarboninthesamplethatisderivedfrombiogenicmaterial.

Page|95
Inorganic carbon The fraction of material derived from geologic or soil parent material
(Schumacher, 2002), which is mineral. Carbon Dioxide, salts of carbonates and soluble
carbonatesarethemostcommonformsofinorganiccarbon.
3 Summary of Test Method
Thesampleispreparedinaspecifiedmanner(seesection6).Anelementalanalyzerisusedto
determinehydrogenandtotalcarbonintheBiocharsample.Inorganiccarbonismeasuredand
subtracted from total carbon to estimate the organic carbon (C
org
) content, which allows the
calculation of the molar ratio of hydrogen to organic carbon (H/C
org
). Finally, the calculated
H/C
org
valueisconvertedintoitsequivalentBC
+100
valuebasedonthereportBiocharCarbon
Stability Test Method: An Assessment of Methods to Determine Biochar Carbon Stability
neededtocalculatetheamountofstable(+100)Biocharcarbonsequestration(C
BS,y
)asusedin
equations(23)and(33)GHG.
4 Significance and Use

The production of Biochar can qualify as a carbon sequestration strategy because of the
increasedstabilityofBiocharcarbonthatisobtainedthroughPyrolysis.Thistestmethodallows
for the determination of the GHG emission reduction that could be claimed through the
production of Biochar, based on the carbon estimated to remain stable in Biochar after 100
years.
5 Apparatus and Reagents
Useonlyreagentsofrecognizedanalyticalgrade.
105C2dryingoven
200Cheatresistantdryingvessel(highsilicaorporcelainevaporatingdish)
Balance(0.01gcapacity)
MortarandPestle
#10(2mm)Sieve
ElementalanalyzerforHydrogenandCarbon
RapidCarbonateAnalyzer(ASTMD4373fig.2)
1NHCl
ReagentGradeCalciumCarbonate(CaCO
3
)

Page|96
20mLGraduatedCylinder
6 Sample Collection and Handling

6.1Developmentofappropriatesamplingplans
AsmentionedintheUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)ManualSW846(US
Environmental Protection Agency 2006), which addresses the development and
implementationofascientificallycrediblesamplingplanandthedocumentationofthechainof
custodyforsuchaplan,theinitial,andperhapsmostcritical,elementinaprogramdesignedto
evaluate the physical and chemical properties of a sample (in this case, of Biochar), is the
samplingplan.
Asamplingplanisusuallyawrittendocumentthatdescribesobjectivesandtasksandidentifies
howtheindividualtaskswillbeperformed.TheSW846Manual(USEnvironmentalProtection
Agency 2006) suggests that a sampling plan should be designed with input from the various
sectors involved in the project, which include: regulatory sampling, endusers, field team
members, analytical chemists, process engineers or equivalent, statisticians and quality
assurancerepresentatives.
The referenced manual describes a number of sampling procedures (simple, stratified,
systematic random, composite), of which one must be selected which is most appropriate,
accordingtothecharacteristicsofthesampledobject.Theteaminvolvedintheelaborationof
the sampling plan must therefore consult the SW846 Manual during the development of a
samplingplan.Thistestmethodproposestheuseofcompositesampling,asitwillhelpreduce
thephysical/chemicalheterogeneityofasample.
6.2Sampleselectionandfrequency
The sample shall be selected so as to be representative of all the material contained in a
production lot. This is achieved by employing a composite sampling procedure (US
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency2006),whichrequiresthecollectionofmultiplerandomsub
samples from the final volume of produced Biochar, and mixing them together to obtain a
homogeneoussampleofnolessthan500g.Itneedstobedemonstratedthatthesamplesizeis
representativeofthewholeproductionlot,viastatisticalanalysis.Samplesmustbetaken:
- Annually;or
- AfteramaterialchangeinFeedstock;or
- Afteramaterialchangeinthermochemicalproductionparameters;

Page|97
Whicheverismorefrequent.
Materialchanges(InternationalBiocharInitiative2012,section6.2)inFeedstockreflectshiftsin
Feedstock type from one source of biomass to a distinctly different source of biomass. See
Appendix4oftheIBIStandards(InternationalBiocharInitiative2012)formoreinformationon
how to determine Feedstock types that constitute a material change. In mixed Feedstocks,
whetherprocessedorunprocessed,a10%orgreatershiftintotalFeedstockcompositionshall
constituteamaterialchangeinFeedstock.
Materialchangesinproductionprocessesreflectincreasesordecreasesinprocesstemperature
orresidencetime.Amaterialchangeinthermochemicalproductionparametershasoccurredif
process temperature (also known as Heat Treatment Temperature) changes by +/ 50C, or if
the thermochemical processing time (residence time) changes by more than 10% of the initial
processingtime.
Testing of Biochar materials should occur after thermochemical processing is complete and
beforefinalshipment.Ifthematerialisintendedtobemixedwithanothermaterial,testingof
theBiocharmaterialmustoccurbeforemixingorblendingwithanyotherproduct.
6.3AdditionalConsiderationsforSampling
Samplingpracticesshouldfollowacompositesamplingprocedure(wellmixedbatch),wherea
singlesample(orgroup ofsamples)istakentorepresentaspecificperiodofproductiontime.
Frequencyofsamplingdependsontheappropriatenumberofsamplesneededtoachievethe
necessary precision (at least 95% confidence level). Precision is improved by increasing the
number of samples while maintaining a sampling pattern to guarantee a spatially uniform
distribution. The number of samples required is the least amount to generate a sufficiently
precise estimate of the true mean concentration. The number of samples required must also
demonstrate that the upper limit of the confidence interval of the true mean is less than
applicableregulatorythresholdvalue.Detailedcalculationsforthenumberofsamplesrequired
can be found within the US EPA SW846 manual (US Environmental Protection Agency 2006)
and within the US Composting Council TMECC composting methods manual (US Composting
Council2001).
6.4ChainofCustodyform
Chain of custody forms and procedures should be used with all environmental or regulatory
samples. These forms are used to track sampling and handling from the time of collection
through laboratory analysis and data reporting. The form should include, at a minimum:

Page|98
collectors name, signature of collector, date and time of collection, location (place and
address) of collection, identification of sample to be used in all reporting, requested analysis
(code number) and signature of people involved in the chain of possession (a sample form is
includedattheendofthisdocument).
6.5Samplepreparation
The sample must leave the production facility in a sealed, moistureproof container for
transporttotheanalyzingfacility,topreventmoistureloss/gainbeforeitistobeanalyzed.
7 Sample Analysis Procedures
7.1Materials
Make replicate determinations and run appropriate Standard reference materials (SRM) with
eachanalysistoensurequality.
7.2Moisture
Zero the balance. Place a 200C heat resilient vessel (high silica or porcelain evaporating dish)
onthebalance,andrecordthemasstothenearest0.01g(m
v
).
Workingquicklysoastonotloseorgainmoistureduringpreparation,mixthesampleandplace
nolessthan5ginthevessel.Recordthemassofthevesselandasreceivedsample(m
sr
)tothe
nearest 0.01 g. Immediately place the vessel containing the sample in a 105C oven until a
constantmassisreached.
Removethevesselandsamplefromtheovenandletcoolinadesiccatoruntilitreachesroom
temperature.Recordthemassofthevesselanddriedsample(m
sd
)tothenearest0.01g.
In a clean and dry mortar and pestle place your dried sample and grind it as many times as
necessaryuntilthematerialpassesthrougha2mmsieve.
Thedriedandgroundsamplewillbeseparatedintotwosubsamples,withmassesdetermined
by the requirements of the specific equipment to be used for the measurement of H, C
tot
and
C
org
.Samplequantitiesmustbelargeenoughtocompleteallanalyses.Onesubsampleisused
to determine the hydrogen and total carbon and the other to determine organic carbon
contentviainorganiccarbonmeasurementandsubtractionfrommeasuredtotalcarbon.

Page|99
7.3Hydrogenandtotalcarbon
One of the subsamples is tested for hydrogen and total carbon using an elemental analyzer,
employing a dry combustion method of molecular mass determination, according to the
manufacturersprotocol.
Recordtheinitialsamplemass,aswellasthehydrogenandtotalcarbonpercentages.
7.4Inorganiccarbon
Thesecondsubsampleisusedtodeterminetheinorganiccarboncontent.Itistreatedwith1N
HCIinaclosedvessel.CarbonDioxidegasisevolvedduringthereactionbetweentheacidand
carbonate fraction of the specimen. The resulting pressure is proportional to the carbonate
content of the specimen. This pressure is measured using a precalibrated pressure gauge
basedonreagentgradecalciumcarbonate,accordingto(ASTMD4373).
Weighandrecordthemassofthesecondsubsample,whichistheninsertedintothereactor.
Following insertion of a Biochar subsample into the reactor, lower the 20 mL filled acid
container carefully into the reactor without spilling. Seal the reactor and close the pressure
releasevalve.Tiltthereactortospilltheacidontothesampleandswirltomixuntilreactionis
complete (~2 to 3 minutes). Monitor the pressure gauge to ensure that the reaction vessel is
completely sealed. Record the pressure. Repeat this procedure using increasing masses of the
reagent grade calcium carbonate Standard (0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0 g), register values and
plot a graph of CaCO
3
mass versus reactor pressure. Calibrate the pressure dial directly in
percent inorganic carbon along the following range: 0, 2.4, 4.8, 7.2, 9.6, and 12%. These
inorganiccarbonpercentagescorresponddirectlytothemassesofCaCO
3
usedintheStandard
calibration,sincepurecalciumcarbonateis12%carbon(pleaserefertothechemicalproperties
listedforthisreagenttodetermineitsspecificcarboncontent,andspecifytheaccuracyofthe
equipment).Removeacidwithheatand/orvacuum.
Recordtheinorganiccarboncontentasinterpretedfromthepressurecalibrationcurve.
8 Calculations
8.1 Moisture
Calculatethemoisturecontentasfollows:
H = _
(m
s
-m
sd
)
(m
s
-m
)
_ - 1uu
(36)

Page|100
Where:
M=Moisturecontent(%)
m
sr
=Massofvesselandasreceivedsample(g)
m
sd
=Massofvesselanddriedsample(g)
m
v
=Massofvessel(g)
8.2Hydrogenandtotalcarbon
SimplyrecordtheresultsforHandC
tot
fromtheelementalanalyzerinpercentunits.
8.3Organiccarbon
Calculatetheorganiccarbonasfollows:
C
og
= (C
tot
-C
nog
) (37)
Where:
C
org
=Percentorganiccarboninthesample.
C
tot
=Percenttotalcarbon(7.3)
C
inorg
=Percentinorganiccarbon(7.4)
8.4HydrogentoOrganiccarbonmolarratio
CalculatetheHydrogentoOrganiccarbonmolarratioasfollows:
E C
og
=
(%E 1 )
(%C
og
12 )
(38)
Where:
H/C
org
=Hydrogentoorganiccarbonmolarratio
%H=Hydrogenmassofthesample(in%)(8.2)
%C
org
=Organiccarbonmassofthesample(in%)(8.3)

Page|101
8.5Emissionsreduction
CalculatetheGHGemissionsreduction(ER)tobeclaimedasfollows:
8.5.1 ConvertthecalculatedH/C
org
valuetotheequivalentBC
+100
valueasfollows:
H/C
org
BC
+100
<0.4 70%
0.40.7 50%
8.5.2 MultiplythecalculatedBC
+100
valuetocalculateGHGemissionsreductionasfollows:
ER = w
L01

C
og
1uu
_
BC
+100
1uu
] _
(1uu -H)
1uu
_
44
12
u.9S (39)
Where:
ER= Greenhouse Gas emissions reduction, expressed in tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent(tonCO
2
eq).
W
LOT
=Weightoftheproductionlotfromwherethesamplewastaken(inmetrictons)
C
org
=Organiccarboncalculatedfromthesample(8.2)
BC
+100
=Biocharcarbonstableforatleast100years(8.5.1)
M=Moisturecontent(%)(8.1)
44/12=Molarratioofcarbondioxidetocarbon.
0.95=correctionfactorduetopossiblepositiveprimingeffect
4
(Alternatively, use calculated values of C

org
, B
+100
, and M in Equation 33 to determine C
BS,j,y
for
Equation23.)
9 Precision and Bias for Hydrogen, Total carbon and Inorganic carbon methods
9.1PrecisionandBias
Precision: To date, no interlaboratory testingprogram has been conducted usingthis method
todeterminemultilaboratoryprecision.
Bias:Thebiasoftheprocedureinthistestmethodhasnotyetbeenconducted.
4
SupportInformationsection1ofthereportBiocharCarbonStabilityTestMethod:Anassessmentof
methodstodetermineBiocharcarbonstability

Page|102
9.2ConservativenessandtheUseofConfidenceIntervals
TheBC
+100
calculationsarebasedonthelowerlimitofa95%confidenceintervalofaregression
performed to relate H/C
org
values registered from Biochar samples (n=37), based on a two
componentdoubleexponentialmodel.Theyarethereforeconsideredconservativeestimations.
9.3DocumentationofChemicalAnalysis
Maintaining a written and/or visual (photos, video, other) registry of the complete process,
regarding the values obtained in each step for each variable is required in order to provide
documenteddataforthirdpartyVerificationbodies.
10 Keywords
Biochar, BC
+100
, hydrogen, total carbon, organic carbon, hydrogentoorganic carbon molar
ratio.
11 Documents Cited
(1)ASTMD437396StandardtestmethodforCalciumCarbonateContentinSoils.
(2) International Biochar Initiative (IBI) (2013). Standardized Product Definition and Product
TestingGuidelinesforBiocharThatIsUsedInSoil.Version1.1.April,2013.
(3) Kyoto Protocol (1998) COP3 Decision 2/CP.3 Methodological issues related to the Kyoto
Protocol,paragraph3.
(4)Schumacher,B.(2002)MethodsfordeterminationofTotalOrganiccarbon(TOC)insoilsand
sediments. US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Environmental Sciences Division
NationalExposureResearchLaboratory,OfficeofResearchandDevelopment.
(5) US Composting Council (2001) Test Methods for the Examination of Composting and
Compost (TMECC) Composting methods Manual, Field Sampling of Compost Material Section
02.01C.
(6) US Environmental Protection Agency (2006), Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemicalmethods,Chapter9.


Page|103
ChainofCustodySampleForm
L
a
b

U
s
e
O
n
l
y
C
e
r
t
i
f
i
e
d

L
a
b
:
T
e
l
:
C
o
l
d

R
o
o
m
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
:
F
a
x
:
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
:
e
m
a
i
l
:
S
h
e
l
f

#
C
i
t
y
,

S
t
,

Z
i
p
:
W
e
b

A
d
d
r
e
s
s
:
c
c

s
e
n
t

t
o
:
G
r
o
u
p

#
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
:
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
:
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
:
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
:
A
c
c
o
u
n
t

#
A
d
d
r
e
s
s

1
:
A
d
d
r
e
s
s

1
:
A
d
d
r
e
s
s

2
:
A
d
d
r
e
s
s

2
:
C
l
i
e
n
t

#
C
i
t
y
,

S
t
,

Z
i
p
:
C
i
t
y
,

S
t
,

Z
i
p
:
T
e
l
:

(

)
e
m
a
i
l
:
T
e
l
:

(

)
e
m
a
i
l
:
F
a
x
:

(

)
F
a
x
:

(

)
S
A
M
P
L
E

D
a
t
e
S
t
a
b
l
e

C
a
r
b
o
n
P
h
y
t
o
t
o
x
i
c
i
t
y
W
o
r
m

A
v
o
i
d
.
I
B
I

C
h
a
r
S
a
m
p
l
e

I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
S
a
m
p
l
e
d
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
O
t
h
e
r
-
1
O
t
h
e
r
-
2
O
t
h
e
r
-
3
O
t
h
e
r
-
4
O
t
h
e
r
-
5
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
*

c
a
l
l

f
o
r

i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
;

+

c
o
p
i
e
s

o
f

r
e
p
o
r
t

s
e
n
t

i
n
t
o

p
r
o
g
r
a
m

m
a
n
a
g
e
r
;

c
h
e
c
k

b
o
x
e
s

a
b
o
v
e

t
h
a
t

a
p
p
l
y
D
a
t
e
T
i
m
e
D
a
t
e
T
i
m
e
R
e
l
e
a
s
i
n
g
R
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g

S
i
g
n
a
t
u
r
e

1
S
i
g
n
a
t
u
r
e

1
R
e
l
e
a
s
i
n
g
R
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g

S
i
g
n
a
t
u
r
e

2
S
i
g
n
a
t
u
r
e

2
R
e
l
e
a
s
i
n
g
R
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g

S
i
g
n
a
t
u
r
e

3
S
i
g
n
a
t
u
r
e

3
R
e
l
e
a
s
i
n
g
R
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g

S
i
g
n
a
t
u
r
e

4
S
i
g
n
a
t
u
r
e

4
12345
(

)
(

)
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
t e s t s r e q u i r e d
S
p
e
c
i
a
l

I
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
:
C
h
a
i
n

o
f

C
u
s
t
o
d
y

R
E
L
E
A
S
I
N
G
R
E
C
E
I
V
I
N
G

12345 C
L
I
E
N
T
:

P
l
e
a
s
e

f
i
l
l

o
u
t

o
r

s
t
a
p
l
e

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s

c
a
r
d
N
o
t
e
s
:

Page|104
APPENDIX2:JUSTIFICATIONFORTHESTANDARDTEST
METHODFORESTIMATINGBIOCHARCARBONSTABILITY
(BC
+100
)
A. Budai
5
; A. R. Zimmerman
6
; A.L. Cowie
7
; J.B.W. Webber
8
; B.P. Singh
9
; B. Glaser
10
; C. A.
Masiello
11
; D. Andersson
12
; F. Shields
13
; J. Lehmann
14
; M. Camps Arbestain
15
; M. Williams
16
; S.
Sohi
17
;S.Joseph
18
,MiguelRodriquez
19
Abstract
Twenty seven methods currently used to characterize Biochar were assessed in terms of their
usefulness to determine the stability of Biochar carbon in the environment. The International
Biochar Initiative (IBI), which led the effort, gathered fourteen experts in different fields of
Biochar relevant to stability, who guided the process for obtaining a simple, yet reliable,
measure for Biochar stability. Important requisites were defined for the test, including cost,
repeatability and availability. Identification of a costeffective, scientifically valid test to
measurethestablecarboncomponentofBiocharisimperativetodistinguishBiocharfromnon
Biochar (nonstable) materials, and to develop a Biochar offset Methodology for carbon
markets. The stability of Biochar carbon in soils makes it a highly promising product for
considerationasastrategyforclimatechangemitigation.ThedefinitionofthevariableBC+100,
which represents the amount of Biochar carbon that is expected to remain stable after 100
5
NorwegianInstituteforAgriculturalandEnvironmentalResearchBioforsk,Hgskoleveien7,N1432s,Norway
6
DepartmentofGeologicalScience,UniversityofFlorida,241WilliamsonHall,P.O.Box112120,Gainesville,
Florida326112120,UnitedStates
7
RuralClimateSolutions,UniversityofNewEngland,NSWDepartmentofPrimaryIndustries,Armidale2351,Australia
8
SchoolofPhysicalSciences,UniversityofKent,CT27NH,UK
9
NSWDepartmentofPrimaryIndustries,POBox100,BeecroftNSW2119,Australia
10
SoilBiogeochemistry,MartinLutherUniv.HalleWittenberg,vonSeckendorffPlatz3,06120Halle,Germany
11
DepartmentofEarthScience,6100MainSt.MS126,RiceUniversity,Houston,TX77005,UnitedStates
12
EcoEra,Orkestergatan21181,42139Gteborg,Sweden
13
ControlLaboratories,Inc.,42HangarWay,Watsonville,CA95076,UnitedStates
14
DepartmentofCropandSoilSciences,CornellUniversity,Ithaca,NY14853,UnitedStates
15
InstituteofNaturalResources,MasseyUniversity,PalmerstonNorth4442,NewZealand
16
BiocharSolutionsInc.,POBox2048,Carbondale,CO81623,UnitedStates
17
UK Biochar Research Centre (UKBRC), School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Crew Building, The King's
Buildings,Edinburgh,EH93JN,UK
18
SchoolofMaterialScienceandEngineering,UniversityofNewSouthWales,2052Sydney,Australia
19
InternationalBiocharInitiative,640BrookRunDrive,Westerville,OH,43081,UnitedStates

Page|105
years,alongwithpredictionsofstabilitybasedonsimple(Alpha)andmoresophisticated(Beta)
methods, allowed to correlate a molar ratio (H/C
org
) to the relative stability of Biochar. The
process for identifying the Biochar Carbon Stability Test Method is summarized here, and the
methoditselfisavailableasaseparate,technicaldocument(Appendix1).
Introduction
The stability of Biochar is of fundamental importance in the context of Biochar use for
environmental management for two primary reasons: first, stability determines how long
carbonappliedtosoil,asBiochar,willremaininsoilandcontributetothemitigationofclimate
change; second, stability will determine how long Biochar will continue to provide benefits to
soil,plant,andwaterquality(Lehmannetal.,2006).Biocharproductionandapplicationtosoil
can be, in many situations, a viable strategy for climate change mitigation. Conversion of
biomass carbon (C) to Biochar C via Pyrolysis can lead to sequestration of about 50% of the
initialCcomparedtothelowamountsretainedafterburning(3%)andbiologicaldecomposition
(<1020%after510years)(Lehmannetal,2006,FigureA21),withtheentiretyofuncharred
biomass being most likely decomposed after a century, which is a relevant time frame for the
purposeofthestabilitytest,aspresentedinsubsequentsections.
FigureA21.SchematicofBiocharandbiomassdegradationpatterns.Source:Lehmannetal.(2006)
Biochar has been found to mineralize in soil much slower than the organic material it is
produced from. The Mean Residence Time (MRT) of different Biochars has been found to fall
mostlyinthecentennialtomillennialscales,asshowninTableA21,withsomestudiesshowing
estimationsofdecadalscales.Thedifferenceinthesedataisnottheresultofrandomvariability

Page|106
but to a large extent the product of different materials and to different environmental and
experimentalconditions.
TableA21.MeanResidenceTime(MRT)ofBiocharacrossstudies.
Publication ScaleofestimatedMRT(years)
MasielloandDruffel,1998 Millennial(2,40013,900)
Schmidtetal.,2002 Millennial(1,1605,040)
Chengetal.,2006 Millennial(1,000)
Laird,2008 Millennial(1,000's)
Chengetal.,2008 Millennial(1,335)
Kuzyakovetal.,2009 Millennial(2,000)
Majoretal.,2010 Millennial(3,264)
Novaketal.,2010 Millennial(1,40051,000)
Liangetal.,2008 Centennialtomillennial(10010,000's)
Zimmerman,2010 Centennialtomillennial(100100,000)
BaldockandSmernik,2002 Centennial(100500)
Hammesetal.,2008 Centennial(200600)
Schneideretal.,2011 Centennial(100s)
Hameretal.2004 Decadal(10's)
Nguyenetal.2008 Decadal(10's)
Objective
Thegoalofthiseffortwastodevelopamethodfortestingandquantifyingthemineralizationof
carboninBiochar,byspecifyingtheamountofCthatispredictedtoremainpresentinsoil100
years
20
afterlandapplication,whichforthepurposesofthestabilitytestistermedBC
+100
.The
fraction of carbon in Biochar that mineralizes during the same time period is termed BC
100
.
Selectionofmethodswasbasedonthefollowing:
OnlyanalyticaltestsforBiocharstabilitythathavebeenpublishedinthepeerreviewed
literaturebeforethefinalissuanceofthisdocumentwereconsidered;
Samplingproceduresandtestmethodshadtobeconsideredcosteffective;and
20
GlobalWarmingPotential(GWP)ofGreenhousegases(GHG)isassessedovera100yeartimehorizon.One
hundredyearsiscommonlyusedtodefinepermanenceincarbonoffsetmarkets(e.g.Mechanismsunderthe
KyotoProtocol(CleanDevelopmentMechanismCDM,JointImplementationJI),AustraliasCarbonFarming
Initiative).

Page|107
All assumptions made during the development of this test method followed the
principle of conservativeness, i.e. the Methodology should in every instance utilize
conservative approaches in order to avoid overestimating the stability of Biochar
carbon.
ScopeofWork
TheeffortwasbuiltuponpreviousworkcompletedbyTheInternationalBiocharInitiative(IBI)
to develop Standardized Product Definition and Product Testing Guidelines for Biochar That
Is Used In Soil (IBI Biochar Standards, 2012). The present document constrains its scope to
materialswithpropertiesthatsatisfythecriteriaforBiocharasdefinedbytheIBIStandards.
This test method considers only the carbon stabilized in Biochar via Pyrolysis. Neither Biochar
impacts on plant productivity, nor any effects on native soil Carbon Stocks or viceversa (i.e.
positive or negative priming) are included (Figure A22), because scientific evidence is
insufficient at this time to determine the direction and magnitude of these processes. Biochar
maystabilizenativesoilorganiccarbonbysorbingorganiccompounds(Smernik,2009).There
are, however, cases where Biochar addition to soil can produce an undesirable "positive
primingeffect(Hameretal.,2004;Wardleetal.,2008;Kuzyakovetal.,2009;Zimmermanet
al., 2011; Cross and Sohi, 2011; Woolf and Lehmann, 2012; Singh et al., 2012), causing the
release of additional CO
2
from soil. However, Woolf and Lehmann (2012) estimated that no
morethan3to4%ofinitialnonpyrogenicSOCmightbemineralizedduetoprimingbyBiochar
over 100 years. Even though this effect may be small compared to the possible increase in C
sequestrationfromthenegativeprimingeffect,positiveprimingwasconservativelytakeninto
accountwiththe0.95correctionfactorinequation(33)oftheGHGMethodology.

Page|108
FigureA22.Scopeofworkforthetestmethod.
Eventhoughthereisevidenceofincreasednetprimaryproductivity(NPP)ofsoilsafterBiochar
addition (Lehman et al., 2006; Major et al., 2010), carbon sequestration due to enhanced
biomass production was not included because insufficient data are available to quantify the
effectsofBiocharadditionstosoiloncropproductivity,whichislikelytovarywidelybetween
soil types, Feedstock and environments (Van Zwieten et al., 2010; Jeffery et al., 2011).
Additionally,thelongevityofthemeasuredshorttermimpactsofBiocharonNPPisunknown.
Furthermore, C sequestered in biomass of annual crops and pasture cannot be considered
stable, mainly due to its fast turnover rate. The decision not to include these also reflects the
conservativeapproachofthiseffort.
Definitions
Typesofmethods
Through a review made by the Expert Panel consisting of fourteen Biochar experts, test
methods were categorized into three groups: (1) Alpha methods, which may allow routine
estimationoftheBC
+100
atminimalcosts;(2)Betamethods,whichdirectlyquantifyBC
+100
and
may be used to calibrate Alpha methods; and (3) Gamma methods, which may provide the
physiochemicalunderpinningfortheAlphaandBetamethods.Thesecategoriesofmethodsare
justifiedanddescribedbelow.
Alphamethods
Alphamethodsaredefinedasthosewhichprovideasimpleandreliablemeasureoftherelative
stability of carbon in Biochar, that are readily available, at a cost of less than 100 US dollars
(USD)(definedasfeasiblebytheExpertPanel)andwithinatimeframeofminutesorhoursto,
at maximum, a few days. Alpha methods are intended to be undertaken by a certified
laboratorytobeusedbyBiocharproducers.
Alphamethodsdonotprovideanabsolutemeasureofstability;rather,theyassessaproperty
(usually chemical or physical) that is related to stability. Alpha methods must be calibrated
throughcomparisonwithBetaand/orGammamethods.
SomeAlphamethodshavealreadybeendeveloped(Alpha1)andwerefoundtobestrongly
related to the properties determined by the Beta and Gamma methods. It is expected that
more Alpha methods will emerge as Biochar stability research continues to develop, which
couldbeplacedinacategorycalledAlpha2methods.

Page|109
TheresultsofanyAlphamethodmustcorrelateideallylinearlywithresultsofatleastone
Beta (calibration) method, as well as those of the applicable Gamma methods. Some possible
Alpha1methodsarebrieflydescribedanddiscussedbelow.
HydrogentoOrganicCarbonMolarRatio(H:Corg)(Endersetal.,2012;IBI,2012)andOxygentoCarbon
MolarRratio(O:C)(Spokas,2010):
Both ratios reflect the physicochemical properties of Biochar related to stability, as the
proportion of elemental compounds (H and O) relative to carbon (C) present in Biochar.
These elemental constituents of Biochar can be measured routinely, using an elemental
analyzer,basedonthemanufacturersprotocol.
Increasing production temperatures lead to lower H/C and O/C ratios (Krull et al., 2009;
Spokas, 2010), as the abundance of C relative to H and O increases during the Pyrolysis
process(FigureA33).
FigureA33.ChangesinBiocharelementalcompositionwithvaryingPyrolysistemperatures.Source:Krulletal.(2009).
Materials with low H/C and O/C values are graphitelike materials (i.e. soot, black carbon,
activated carbon), which exhibit high stability compared to uncharred biomass, which
possesses high H/C andO/C values (FigureA24) and low resistance to degradation.Hence,
as Biochars resemble graphitelikematerials, characterized by low H/C and O/C ratios, they
are expected to be more stable or inert, and less prone to mineralization than uncharred
organicmatter(Masiello,2004).

Page|110
FigureA24.PhysicalcharacteristicsandratiosrelatedtoBiocharstability.Source:AdjustedfromHammesetal.(2007)
These two ratios can be plotted in a twodimensional Van Krevelen diagram, which is a
graphical representation of Biochars, based on elemental composition. In a study by
Schimmelpfenning and Glaser (2012), different Biochars are characterized based on the
relationbetweenthemeasuredH/CandtheO/Cratios,andcomparedtodifferenttypesof
coals(FigureA25).
FigureA25.VanKrevelendiagram.Source:SchimmelpfennigandGlaser(2012)
TheuseofthemolarH/C
org
ratioisproposedinsteadoftheH/Cratio,astheformerdoesnot
include inorganic C that may be present in Biochar, mostly in the form of carbonates (e.g.
calciteand,tosomeextent,dolomite)(Schumacher,2002),andisnotpartofthecondensed
aromaticstructureofCandthusisnotexpectedtoremaininsoilonacentennialscale.

Page|111
VolatileMatterContent:
Thecontentofvolatilematter(VM)inBiocharhasalsobeenobservedtobeinverselyrelated
to Biochar stability, calculated as mean residence time or halflife (Enders et al., 2012;
Zimmerman, 2010; Spokas, 2010). Volatile matter content can be measured through
differentpaths,usuallythermaltreatment,(e.g.theASTMmethodD176284
21
(2007)(CDM
SSM AMS.IIIL; DeGryze et al. 2010; Enders et al., 2012)), also termed Proximate Analysis,
which covers the determination of moisture, volatile matter, and ash in a variety of
materials.
VMiswellcorrelatedwithelementalratios(O/CandH/C),asshownin FigureA26 forO/C
ratios. As a result, it could be expected to be a good predictor of Biochar carbon stability.
However, Spokas (2010) found a weak correlation between VM content and the estimated
Biochar halflife using data from 37 Biochar sample measurements from different studies
(FigureA27).Thereforevolatilematterisdiscardedasawellsuitedpredictorofstability.
FigureA26.CorrelationofvolatilematterandO/Cmolarratio.Source:Spokas(2010)(R
2
=0.76)
21
Chemicalanalysisofwoodcharcoal

Page|112
FigureA27.ComparisonofvolatilemattercontentwithestimatedBiocharhalflife.Source:Spokas(2010)(R
2
notavailable)


Page|113
Betamethods
Beta methods are those that (1) directly quantify BC loss over a period of time, and (2)
demonstrate a relationship with results of an Alpha method (a more conveniently measured
parameter) and Gamma values for a range of Biochar types. At present, the Beta methods in
usearelaboratoryandfieldbasedincubationsaswellasfieldchronosequencemeasurements,
allofwhichmustbecombinedwithmodelingtoestimateBiocharClostoverthespecifictime
intervalof100years(BC
100
).
Beta methods provide an absolute measure for the carbon that will remain in Biochar for at
least100years(atminimum,aconservativeestimateofstability).Betamethodsarenotwidely
availableorobtainableatacostorwithinthetimeframesspecifiedforAlphamethods.Itisalso
not feasible to have registry of direct observations of Biochar for 100 years, in order to
demonstratethesuitabilityofaBetamethod.SomeBetamethodshavebeenpublishedandare
presentedbelow.
IncubationandFieldStudies:
Incubation studies of Biochar under laboratory conditions (Zimmerman, 2010; Singh et al.,
2012) and studies of Biochar in soils (Major et al., 2010b; Cheng et al., 2008; Liang et al.,
2008; Kuzyakov et al., 2009) have recorded temporal Biochar decomposition patterns (see
Figure A28). Observations derived from incubation experiments are critical to the
understanding of Biochar behavior and, therefore, projected longevity in soils. The
incubations(35yearsofduration)wereundertakenincontrolledenvironmentalconditions
(e.g., moisture, temperature) and with the addition of microbial inoculations and nutrient
solutions in order to promote mineralization. Because these are closed systems and non
variant conditions, estimates of stability based on these measurements can be considered
conservative.Mineralizationrateshavebeenobservedtodecreaseuntilreachingaconstant
rateataround600700days,indicatingthatremainingBiocharcarbonmayexhibitacertain
degreeofstability.Inordertoquantifystabilityaveryconservativeapproachmustbeused
forextrapolatingmeasurementsfromshorttomediumtermstudiesto100years,whichis
doneinthisreport,asexplainedinsubsequentsections.

Page|114
FigureA28.Biocharmineralizationrate.Source:Kuzyakovetal.,2009(3.2yearincubation)
Both twocomponent (double exponential) models (e.g. Cheng et al., 2008; Zimmerman et
al.,2011;Singhetal.,2012)andpowerregressionmodels(e.g.Zimmerman2010)havebeen
used to extrapolate measurements from incubations of freshly produced and aged Biochar
to predict the longerterm stability of Biochar. The second model may better represent the
physical characteristics of Biochar and assumes an exponentially decreasing degradation
rate,whereasthefirstassumesBiochariscomposedofonlytwofractionslabileandstable.
Thus, the twocomponent model is likely to underestimate stability of Biochar C and will
yieldamoreconservativeestimateofCsequestration,sincethegreaterthenumberofpools
thatareadded,thelargerpredictionsofstabilitywillbe.
Chronosquences:
ABiocharClossratecanalsobedeterminedbyusingmeasurementsofBiochardistribution
fromsitesthatvaryintimeintervalsinceBiocharwasapplied(achronosequence).
However,resultsofthesetypesofstudies,thusfar,rangefromnolosstocompleteCloss,
andarelikelyaffectedbyerosionortranslocation(Nguyenetal.2008;Majoretal.2010b;
Foereidetal.2011).

Page|115
Gammamethods
GammamethodsmeasuremolecularpropertiesrelevanttoBiocharstabilityandcanverifythe
legitimacy of the Alpha and Beta methods through establishing strong relationships between
the properties measured by them. Thus, Gamma methods would provide safeguard against
selection of Alpha or Beta methods based on empirical correlations that do not reflect a
functionalrelationship.SomeGammamethodsarebrieflydescribedbelow.
NMRspectroscopy(Breweretal.,2011;McBeathetal.,2011):
Direct polarization
13
C nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy with magic angle spinning
(DP/MAS
13
CNMR)isawellestablishedtechniqueformeasuringthearomaticity(fractionof
total carbon that is aromatic) of Biochars. Aromaticity is strongly correlated to C stability
(Singhetal.,2012)andaromaticitycanbepredictedbytheH/C
org
valuesofBiochar(Wanget
al., 2013). The
13
C NMR spectrum of aryl carbon (i.e. derived from condensed aromatic
carbon) is verycharacteristic, comprising a single resonance centered at approximately 130
ppm.Spinningsidebandsassociatedwiththepresenceofaromaticcarboncanbedetected.
PyrolysisGasChromatographymassspectrometry(PyGC/MS)analyticalPyrolysis(Kaaletal.,2008,
2009,2012;Fabbrietal.,2012):
AnalyticalPyrolysisisatechniquethatusescontrolledinvasivethermaldegradationtobreak
down large molecules for identification. The resultant Pyrolysis products are separated and
identifiedusinggaschromatographyandmassspectroscopy.Thesumofthemostabundant
fingerprints of charred material in pyrograms (i.e., monoaromatic hydrocarbons,
polyaromatic hydrocarbons, benzonitriles/total quantified peak area) is related to the
proportionofcondensedaromaticcarbonpresentinBiochar.
RingCurrentNMR(McBeathandSmernik,2009;McBeathetal.,2011):
ThismethodgaugesthedegreeofaromaticcondensationofBiochars.Itinvolvessorbing
13
C
labeledbenzenetotheBiocharstructure.The
13
CNMRchemicalshiftofthesorbedbenzene
(relativetostraight
13
Cbenzene)isaffectedbydiamagneticringcurrentsthatareinducedin
theconjugatedaromaticstructureswhentheBiocharisplacedinamagneticfield.Thesering
currentsincreaseinmagnitudewiththeincreasingextentofaromaticcondensation.
Benzenepolycarboxylicacids(BPCA)(Glaseretal.,1998;Brodowskietal.,2005;Schneideretal.,2010):
The BPCA are molecules formed during the nitric acid oxidation of Biochar. The maximum
number of carboxylic groups reflects the number of quaternary C atoms initially present.
Biocharwithahigherdegreeofcondensationshouldresultinhigherproportionofthepenta

Page|116
(B5CA) and hexacarboxylic (B6CA) benzoic acids relative to BPCAs with less quaternary
carbon atoms (B3CA, B4CA). The ratio of B6CAC/total BPCAC thus is positively related to
thedegreeofcondensedaromaticCpresentinBiochar;thelargertheratiothegreaterthe
aromaticity. The concentration of the sum of BPCA can be used to quantify Biochar in the
environment, e.g. in soil amended with pure Biochar or in mixture with other organic
materials.
GammamethodsarenotexpectedtobeusedbyBiocharproducersfordeterminingBiocharC
stability. This is mainly because of the high level of technical expertise required to perform
these tests, specialized expensive instruments, high costs per analysis, and low availability.
Instead,GammamethodsareintendedtobeusedbyscientistsinordertocalibrateAlphaand
BetamethodsforiterativeimprovementofasimpleBiocharCstabilitytestmethod.
Materialandmethods:BiocharCarbonStabilityTestMethodselectionprocess
Twentyeight test methodologies currently used to assess Biochar characteristics, mostly
related to stability, were reviewed and evaluated by the Expert Panel. H/C
org
was selected as
thepreferredAlphamethodforbeingcosteffective,simple,replicable,andpublishedinpeer
reviewed literature. Modeled data from observations of carbon degradation from 3 to 5year
incubationstudies(Zimmerman,2010asextendedinZimmermanandGao,2013;andSinghet
al.,2012)wasusedastheBetamethodtocalibratethepredictionsanddetermineBC
+100
.
Results
AstrongrelationshipwasfoundbetweentheH/C
org
valuesof31Biocharsamplesfromthetwo
mentionedstudiesandthepredictedBC
+100
values,basedonthetwocomponentmodel(Figure
A29).
Theobservedbehaviorforcarbonineachofthe31samplesfollowedatypicalpatternasshown
inFigureA28,whereaftersomemonths,theturnoverrateslowed,exhibitinglittlecarbonloss.
The two Q10 adjustments for harmonizing the data between both studies were not made.
However, even if a low value were to be used, e.g. Q10 = 2 (compared to Cheng et al., 2008),
harmonizingthedatafrom30Cthatlacksoilminerals(Zimmerman,2010)to22C(Singhetal.,
2012), would yield higher BC
+100
values than the ones reported in this Methodology, thus
complyingwiththeconservativenessprinciple.Inaddition,itisconservativetoutilizethedata
withhighincubationtemperaturesof30Cand22C,giventhattheglobalmeantemperatureis
lessthan10C(Rohdeetal.,2013).WithevenalowQ10of2,arecaluculationofonly22Cto

Page|117
10CwouldmakealargechangetoBC
+100
.GroupingthepredictedBC
+100
values,basedonthe
twocomponentmodel,resultsinFigureA29.


Page|118
FigureA29.ThecorrelationbetweenH/C
org
andBiocharCpredictedtoremainafter100yearsaspredictedbyatwo
componentmodel(i.e.BC
+100
)wasproducedusingdataandcalculationsfromSinghetal.,2012(closedcircles)and
Zimmerman,2010asextendedinZimmermanandGao,2013(opencircles).
TheverticalaxisinFigureA29representsthepercentageoforganiccarbonpresentinBiochar
thatisexpectedtoremaininsoilafter100years.Thus,aBiocharsamplewithaH/C
org
valueof
0.6 would be predicted to have a BC
+100
of 65.6%, indicating that 65.6% of the organic carbon
measuredinBiocharwilllikelyremaininsoilforatleastacentury.Thestatisticalbasisforthis
inferenceispresentedbelow.
Theblueandredlinesintheplotrepresentthe95%confidenceupperandlowerintervals,and
the95%predictionintervals,respectively.Thecorrelationmeasureshowsamodestvalue(R
2
=
0.5). As Biochar is composed of various constituents, it is notable that this one parameter
(H/C
org
) explains 50% of the variation in the carbon stability of the Biochar samples assessed.
Furthermore, every individual sample but one falls within the 95% prediction interval, which
predicts the range in which values of future samples will fall. Additionally, a pvalue below
0.0001 indicates the strong statistical significance of the calculations. Thus, this regression
modelisjudgedadequatefordeterminingBC
+100
basedonH/C
org
measurements.
Definingcutoffsevery0.1forH/C
org
valuesintherangeof0.4to0.7fortheBiocharsamples,
theequivalentmean,upperlimitandlowerlimitBC
+100
valuesareobtainedforanalysis(Table
A22). Two distinct levels can be evidenced: for an H/C
org
value of 0.4, the lower limit of the
confidenceintervalofBC
+100
isabove70%(inarangeof8872%).Fromthisitisconcludedthat

Page|119
at least 70% of the C

org
measured in Biochar is predicted to remain in soil for 100 years with
95%confidence,foranH/C
org
valuelowerorequalto0.4.Confidenceintervalsareconsidered
over prediction intervals, as they exhibit the probability that they will contain the true
predictedparametervalue,fortheselectedconfidencelevel.
Ontheotherhand,foranH/C
org
valueof0.7,aBC
+100
of50%canbeconservativelyexpected.If
a cutoff of BC
+100
is defined at 50%, most (17 out of 19) of the observed values in the 0.40.7
H/C
org
range would fall above this point, therefore underestimating stability. Thus, cutoffs at
values of H/C
org
of 0.4 and 0.7 are defined to characterize highly stable (BC
+100
of 70%) and
stable(BC
+100
of50%)C
org
inBiochars,respectively.
TableA22.H/C
org
andBC
+100
equivalencesat95%confidence
BC
+100
(%)
H/C
org
Mean LowerLimit UpperLimit
Chosen
Value
0.4 80.5 72.6 88.2 70
0.5 73.1 67.1 78.9 50
0.6 65.6 60.5 70.6 50
0.7 58.2 52.5 63.8 50
BiocharmaterialsthatobtainH/C
org
valueshigherthan0.7arenotconsideredtobeBiochar,as
thesematerialswouldnotmeetthedefinitionofBiocharasdefinedbytheIBIStandards.
Discussion
The comments in this section seek to provide guidance as to the possible next steps for the
continuousimprovementofthepredictabilityofdifferentAlpha,BetaandGammamethods.
The members of the Expert Panel agreed upon the necessity of continued collaboration to
furtherrefinetheproposedmethod.InterestemergedtostarttheexchangeofBiocharsamples
torundifferentlaboratorytestsintheformofaringtrial.Additionalfundingwouldbeneeded
for this very desirable initiative to occur. As stated earlier in this document, as new findings
emerge, they should be incorporated into the proposed Methodology, with the aim of
obtaining the most precise and, at the same time, the most economically feasible method for
determiningBC
+100
.
FateofBiochar

Page|120
Biochartransportmechanisms
ThephysicalmovementofBiocharawayfromthepointofsoilapplicationappearstooccurata
similar rate to or possibly faster than for other organic carbon in soil (Rumpel et al., 2005;
Guggenberger et al., 2008; Major et al., 2010b). Eroded Biochar C is considered to remain
sequestered as it is typically buried in lower horizons of soil or in lake or ocean sediments
(FranceLanordandDerry,1997;Galyetal.,2007;VanOostetal.,2007).
Biocharcanmovefromthetopsoilintothesubsoili.e.translocation(Majoretal.,2010b).Itis
notclearwhetherthistransportoccursatthesamerateasotherorganicmatterinsoil(Leifeld,
2007). It may be assumed that different pathways operate for particulate Biochars in
comparison to dissolved organic C (Zhang et al., 2010). Biochar in subsoils can be considered
stabilizedtoagreaterdegreethanBiocharintopsoils,asevidencedbythegreatageoforganic
carbon found in subsoils in general, and because microbial activity sharply decreases with
depth(RumpelandKoegelKnabner,2011).
SomestudiesindicatethatasignificantfractionoflandappliedBiocharcanbeexportedwithin
thefirstfewyearsfollowingamendment,evenwhenBiocharisincorporatedintosoil(Rumpel
et al., 2009; Major et al., 2010b). However, physical transport of Biochar offsite does not
necessarilyresultinaCO
2
fluxtotheatmosphere,asthefinalfateofcharcoalerosionfromthe
land surface may be deposition in marine sediments. The intrinsic refractivity of charcoal in
marine environments may lead to its longterm storage in sediments (Masiello, 2004). It is
reasonable to assume that mobilized Biochar does not decompose, and remains a longterm
carbonsinkasittransitstotheseafloor.
There is a small risk of losing C to the atmosphere from Biochar which has been exported
through the mobilization of Biochar C into pyrogenic dissolved organic C (DOC). But studies
show that this mechanism only accounts for the movement of a small fraction of the total
carbon in Biochar. Over 2 years after field application, 1% of Biochar applied to an Oxisol was
mobilized by percolating water, mostly in the form of DOC rather than particulate organic C
(Majoretal.,2010b).InastudysimulatingthegeochemicalweatheringofBiochar,only0.8%of
thetotalorganicCwasreleasedasDOC(Yaoetal.,2010).Andamaximumof1.3%oftheCwas
extracted from any of the Biochars tested using multiple sequential leaching experiments
(Zimmerman and Gao, 2013). Because soluble C may represent the same portion of C that is
mineralizableC(Leinweber,1995;ZimmermanandGao,2013),theadditionalmineralizationof
Biochar C via DOC is assumed to be minor, even when translocation occurs. While further
research pertaining to C mineralization of dissolved Biochar is crucial, existing field and

Page|121
laboratory experiments show the loss of C to the atmosphere due to mobilized Biochar DOC
mineralizationtobeminor.
Combustion
Biochar can be combusted, either unintentionally due to inappropriate handling during
transport, storage or application, or intentionally, by diverting it from the intended land
applicationtoauseasfuel,sincemanyBiocharscanpossessasignificantenergyvalue.Through
ApplicabilityCondition4,themethodologyassuresthatBiocharusedonlyasasoilamendment
qualifies therefore mitigating the risk that the Biochar will be combusted. Another theoretical
oxidation by combustion is through vegetation fires. Reburning of previously deposited
pyrogeniccarbonfromvegetationfireshasbeenobservedinMediterraneanforests(Knickeret
al., 2006). It is unlikely that vegetation fires will lead to a significant reburning of applied
Biocharthatisincorporatedintothesoil.Temperaturesduringfiresdecreasedramaticallywith
soil depth, and mixtures of Biochar and soil will exhibit no greater combustibility than that of
otherorganicmatterinsoil.
Resolutionofinformationoncarbonstability
AlthoughthereisaclearcorrelationbetweentheH/C
org
ratiosandBC
+100
overawiderangeof
valuesata95%confidencelevel(FigureA29),variabilitywillremaininthestabilitypredictions.
Future refinement and a greater data set with longerterm incubation experiments, including
field data, will allow better constraint of the relationship. For the purpose of this first
Methodology, as mentioned previously, a veryconservative approach was chosen (e.g. via the
selection ofthe model to obtain BC
+100
and the conditions of the incubation experiments) and
thuspredictabilitycanbefurtherimprovedovertime.
ThesecondanalyticalconstraintstemsfromthequantificationofinorganicandorganicC(and
H) in the Biochar (Wang et al., 2013). Some uncertainties in the Standard method using
acidification and repeated determination of total C led to an initial recommendation of
restricting the Methodology to class 1 Biochars (as defined in the IBI Biochar Standards under
thecriteriaforOrganicCarboninTable1).FortheseBiochars,whichbydefinitioncontainmore
than 60% organic carbon, the proportion of inorganic carbon is likely negligible and organic
carbon is roughly equivalent to total carbon. However, data analysis determined that this
restriction yielded no change in the prediction results. Nevertheless, a method for calculating
inorganic carbon in the sample was included, allowing the calculation of organic carbon by
difference to total carbon. This exemplifies how the conservative approach mentioned was
operationalizedinthedecisionsmadetoarriveatatestmethod.

Page|122
FutureimprovementstoAlpha,BetaandGammamethods
Alpha:
Thechoiceamongstroutineanalyticalproceduresthatwouldreflectarobust,repeatable,and
analytically sound result was limited to those that had been used in the peerreviewed
literature. These included the Standard Test Method for Chemical Analysis of Wood Charcoal,
socalled Proximate Analysis (ASTMD176284, 2007) and elemental ratios of O, H and C.
Structural information beyond stoichiometric relationships between elements may provide
better estimates of stability and may be attainable through spectroscopy or automated
thermogravimetry.However,thesehavenotbeensufficientlydevelopedorarenotavailableat
asufficientlylowcostortimerequirementtobeincludedatpresent,orboth.
Beta:
Longerperiodsofobservationwilllikelyprovideevidencetoimproveprecisionofpredictionsof
BC
+100
(Lehmann et al., 2009; Zimmerman et al., 2012), likely increasing the stable carbon
component calculated, since the current proposed method is highly conservative. The known
longtermincubationsexperimentswillcontinueandarevisedfutureMethodologywillreflect
improvementsbasedonlongerperiodsofobservation.Onlyafewlongtermfieldexperiments
havebeenpublishedbeyondafewyears(Majoretal.,2010),butareexpectedtobeavailable
for up to 10 yearperiods in the coming years. However, pitfalls of field experiments are that
these often do not distinguish between mineralization and physical loss by erosion and
leaching,andthecapabilitiestoestimatethesedifferentiallossesoverlongperiodsoftimeare
typically low. Therefore, these experiments often give, at best, a minimum mean residence
time.AthirdapproachistheuseofagedBiocharsasproxiesforBiocharthathasweatheredin
soilforlongperiodsoftime.ExamplesareBiochartypematerialsfromTerraPreta(Liangetal.,
2008),fromcharcoalstoragesites(Chengetal.,2010)orpossiblyarchaeologicaldeposits.The
challengeusingthisapproachistodevelopadequateproxiesforthestartingmaterialtoassess
itsproperties.
Gamma:
Greatprogresshasbeenmadeoverthepastyearsinunderstandingthechangeinthechemical
formoffusedaromaticcarbonsbeyondaromaticity.Advancementinthisareamaycomefrom
NMR studies (Mao et al., 2012), measurements of adsorbed C13benzene (McBeath et al.,
2012) and wet chemical methods such as BPCA (Glaser et al., 1998; Brodowski et al., 2005;
Schneider et al., 2010). To improve predictability of Biochar decomposition, next steps may

Page|123
include systematically relating structural information to improved Alphatype methods, as

definedinthisdocument
Conclusions
One of the most important properties of Biochar if not the most important one is its
stability, as it allows all other ancillary environmental benefits, especially as they pertain to
agronomic properties (i.e., soil amelioration and enhancement), to persist in time. Mainly, the
stabilityofthecarboncomponentinBiocharmakesitparticularlyusefulasalongtermclimate
change mitigation strategy, and thus having a scientifically valid Methodology for the
quantification of stable carbon will allow unlocking the potential benefits of Biochar. That is
what makes this effort, oriented by an Expert Panel, groundbreaking, and as such can
contribute to the development of policies and programs that promote the deployment of
Biocharsystems.
Given that this is the first such Methodology to be developed, and that the science is rapidly
evolving, the Panel necessarily devised a conservative Methodology that is likely to
underestimate the amount of stable carbon in Biochar to a period of 100 years. But with
continuedresearchanddevelopment,someofwhichisdescribedherein,weareconfidentthat
thetestMethodologywillgrowmorerobustandmorerigorousovertime,allowingforamore
completeandpreciseestimationofstablecarboninBiochar.
Acknowledgements
The International Biochar Initiative wishes to express its gratitude toward Dr. Dominic Woolf
fromCornellUniversityandPhDstudentTaoWangfromMasseyUniversity,whoassistedinthe
developmentofthetestmethod,dedicatingtheirscarcetimeandvastexpertisetothiseffort,
in the pursuit of the continuity of the development of Biochar science, in order to translate it
intoaction.
References
ASTM(2007)StandardTestMethodfortheAnalysisofWoodCharcoal(D176284)
Abiven,S.,Andreoli,R.(2010)Charcoaldoesnotchangethedecompositionrateofmixedlitters
in a mineral cambisol: a controlled conditions study. Biol Fertil Soils doi: 10.1007/s00374
01004891
BaldockJ.A.,Smernik,R.J.(2002).Chemicalcompositionandbioavailabilityofthermally,altered
Pinusresinosa(RedPine)wood.Org.Geochem.33(9),10931109.

Page|124
Brewer, C., Unger, R., SchmidtRohn, K., Brown, R. (2011). Criteria to select Biochars for field
studiesbasedonBiocharchemicalproperties.BioenergyResearch4:312323.
BrodowskiS.,Rodionov,A.,Haumaier,L.,Glaser,B.,Amelung,W.(2005).Revisedblackcarbon
assessmentusingbenzenepolycarboxylicacids.OrganicGeochemistry36:12991310.
CalveloPereira, R. , Kaal, J., Camps Arbestain, M., Pardo Lorenzo, R., Aitkenhead, W., Hedley,
M.,Macias,F.,Hindmarsh,J.,MaciaAgullo,J.A.(2011).Contributiontocharacterisationof
Biochartoestimatethelabilefractionofcarbon.Org.Geochem.42:13311342.
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Smallscale Methodology AMS.IIIL. Avoidance of
methane production from biomass decay through controlled Pyrolysis. United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change. Retrieved from
http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/SSCmethodologies/approved.html (Last access on
21/09/2012).
Cheng,C.H.,Lehmann,J.,Thies,J.E.,Burton,S.D.(2008).Stabilityofblackcarboninsoilsacross
aclimaticgradient.JournalofGeophysicalResearchBiogeosciences113,G02027.
Cheng, C.H., Lehmann, J., Thies, J.E., Burton, S.D., Engelhard, M.H. (2006). Oxidation of black
carbonbybioticandabioticprocesses.Org.Geochem.37(11),14771488.
Cross,A.,Sohi,S.P.(2011).TheprimingpotentialofBiocharproductsinrelationtolabilecarbon
contents and soil organic matter status. Soil Biol Biochem 43:21272134.
doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.06.016
Davidson,E.A.,Ackerman,I.L(1993)Changesinsoilcarboninventoriesfollowingcultivationof
previouslyuntilledsoils.Biocgeochem20:161193
DeGryze, S., Cullen, M., Durschinger, L. (2010). Evaluation of the opportunities for generating
Carbon Offsets from soil sequestration of Biochar. Terra Globa Capital LLC. Commissioned
bytheClimateActionReserve.
Elmquist,M.,Cornelissen,G.,Kukulska,Z.,Gustafsson,.(2006).Distinctoxidativestabilitiesof
char versus soot black carbon: implications for quantification and environmental
recalcitrance.GlobalBiogeochem.Cy.20(2),GB2009.
Enders, A.,Hanley, K.,Whitman, T.,Joseph, S.,Lehmann, J. (2012) Characterization of biochars
toevaluaterecalcitranceandagronomicperformance.BioresourTechnol.114:64453.Epub
2012Mar21.
Fabbri, D., Torri, C., Spokas, K.A. (2012) Analytical Pyrolysis of synthetic chars derived from
biomass with potential agronomic application (Biochar). Relationships with impacts on
microbialcarbondioxideproduction.JournalofAnalyticalandAppliedPyrolysis.93:7784.
Foereid,B.,Lehmann,J.,Major,J.(2011).Modelingblackcarbondegradationandmovementin
soil.PlantSoil345:223236.

Page|125
FranceLanord, C., Derry, L.A. (1997). Organic carbon burial forcing of the carbon cycle from
himalayanerosion.Nature390:6567.
Galy,V.,FranceLanord,C.,Beyssac,O.,Faure,P.,Kudrass,H.,Palhol,F.(2007).Efficientorganic
carbon burial in the bengal fan sustained by the himalayan erosional system. Nature
450:407410.
Glaser, B., Haumaier, L., Guggenberger, G. Zech W. (1998). Black carbon in soils: the use of
benzenecarboxylicacidsasspecificmarkers.OrganicGeochemistry29:811819.
Guggenberger, G., Rodionov, A., Shibistova, O., Grabe, M., Kasansky, O. A., Fuchs, H.,
Mikheyeva,N.,Zhazhevskaya,G.andFlessa,H.(2008).Storageandmobilityofblackcarbon
inpermafrostsoilsintheforesttundraecotoneinnorthernSiberia,GlobalChangeBiology
1:13671381.
Gundale, M.J., DeLuca, T.H. (2007). Charcoal effects on soil solution chemistry and growth of
Koeleria macrantha in the ponderosa pine/Douglasfir ecosystem. Biology and Fertility of
Soils,43:303311.
Hamer, U., Marschner, B., Brodowski, S., Amelung, W. (2004). Interactive priming of black
carbonandglucosemineralisation.Org.Geochem.35(7):823830.
Hammes, K., Torn, M.S., Lapenas, A.G., Schmidt, M.W.I. (2008). Centennial black carbon
turnoverobservedinaRussiansteppesoil.Biogeosci.5(5):13391350.
InternationalBiocharInitiative(IBI)(2012).StandardizedProductDefinitionandProductTesting
GuidelinesforBiocharThatIsUsedInSoil.May,2012.
Jeffery,S.,Verheijen,F.G.A.,vanderVelde,M.,Bastos,A.C.(2011).Aquantitativereviewofthe
effects of Biochar application to soils on crop productivity using metaanalysis.Agriculture,
EcosystemsandtheEnvironment.144,1,175187.
Jones, D.L., Murphy, D.V., Khalid, M., et al. (2011) Shortterm Biocharinduced increase in soil
CO2 release is both biotically and abiotically mediated. Soil Biology and Biochemistry
43:17231731.doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.04.018
Kaal, J., Martinez Cortizas, A., Nierop, K.G.J. (2008). Characterisation of aged charcoal using a
coil probe PyrolysisGC/MS method optimised for black carbon. Journal of Analytical and
AppliedPyrolysis.85:408416.
Kaal, J., Rumpel, C. (2009). Can PyrolysisGC/MS be used to estimate the degree of thermal
alterationofblackcarbon?OrganicGeochemistry40:11791187.
Kaal, J., Schneider M.P.W., Schmidt, M.W.I. (2012). Rapid molecular screening of black carbon
(Biochar) thermosequences obtained from chestnut wood and rice straw: A Pyrolysis
GC/MS.BiomassandBioenergy45:115128.

Page|126
Keith, A., Singh, B., Singh, B.P. (2011) Interactive Priming of Biochar and Labile Organic Matter
MineralizationinaSmectiteRichSoil.EnvironSciTechnol.doi:10.1021/es202186j
Knicker, H., Almendros, G., GonzalezVila, F.J., GonzalezPerez, J.A., Polvillo, O. (2006).
Characteristicalterationsofquantityandqualityofsoilorganicmattercausedbyforestfires
in continental Mediterranean ecosystems: a solidstate C13 NMR study. Eur. J. Soil Sci.
57(4),558569
Krull, E., Baldock, J., Skjemstad, J. (2003) Importance of mechanisms and processes of the
stabilization of soil organic matter for modeling carbon turnover. Funct Plant Biol 30:207
222.doi:10.1071/FP02085
Krull, E., Baldock, J., Skjemstad, J., Smernik, N. (2009). Characteristics of Biochar: organo
chemical properties. IN Lehmann J. and Joseph, S. (Eds.) Biochar for environmental
management:ScienceandTechnology.London,Earthscan.
Kuzyakov, Y., Subbotina, I., Chen, H.Q., Bogomolova, I., Xu, X.L. (2009). Black carbon
decomposition and incorporation into soil microbial biomass estimated by C14 labeling.
SoilBiol.Biochem.41(2):210219.
Kyoto Protocol (1998) COP3 Decision 2/CP.3 Methodological issues related to the Kyoto
Protocol,paragraph3.
Laird, D. (2008) The Charcoal Vision: A winwinwin scenario for simultaneously for producing
bioenergy, permanently sequestrating carbon while improving soil and water quality.
AgronomyJournal100:178181
Lehmann,J.,GauntJ.,andRondonM.(2006).Biocharsequestrationinterrestrialecosystems
areview,MitigationandAdaptationStrategiesforGlobalChange,Volume11.
Lehmann, J., Czimczik, C., Laird, D. and Sohi, S. (2009) Stability of Biochar in the soil. In
Lehmann, J. and Joseph, S. (Eds.) Biochar for environmental management, Science and
technology.London:Earthscan.
Leifeld,J.,Fenner,S.andMueller,M.(2007)Mobilityofblackcarbonindrainedpeatlandsoils,
Biogeosciences4:425432
Leinweber, P. Schulten, H. R., Kerschens, M. (1995). Hot water extracted organic matter:
chemical composition and temporal variations in a longterm field experiment. Biol Fertil
Soils20:1723.
Liang, B., Lehmann, J., Sohi, S.P., et al. (2010) Black carbon affects the cycling of nonblack
carboninsoil.OrganicGeochemistry41:206213.doi:10.1016/j.orggeochem.2009.09.007
Liang, B., Lehmann, J., Solomon, D., Sohi, S., Thies, J.E., Skjemstad, J.O, Luizao, F.J., Engelhard,
M.H., Neves, E.G., Wirick, S (2008) Stability of biomassderived black carbon in soils.
Geochim.Cosmochim.Acta72(24):60696078.

Page|127
Luo, Y., Durenkamp, M., De Nobili, M., et al. (2011) Short term soil priming effects and the
mineralisationofBiocharfollowingitsincorporationtosoilsofdifferentpH.SoilBiologyand
Biochemistry43:23042314.doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.07.020
Major, J., Rondon, M., Molina, D., Riha, S. and Lehmann, J. (2010). Maize yield and nutrition
during 4 years after Biochar application to a Colombian savanna oxisol. Plant and Soil
333:117128.
Major, J., Lehmann, J., Rondon, M., Goodale, C. (2010b). Fate of soilapplied black carbon:
downwardmigration,leachingandsoilrespiration.GlobalChangeBiology16:13661379.
Masiello, C.A. (2004). New directions in black carbon organic geochemistry. Mar. Chem. 92(1
4):201213.
McBeath,A.V.,Smernik,R.J.(2009).Variationinthedegreeofaromaticcondensationofchars.
OrganicGeochemistry40:11611168.
McBeath, A.V., Smernik, R.J., Schneider, M.P.W., Schmidt, M.W.I., Plant, E.L. (2011).
Determinationofthearomaticityandthedegreeofcondensedaromaticcondensationofa
thermosequenceofwoodcharcoalusingNMR.OrganicGeochemistry.42:11941202.
Nguyen, B.T., Lehmann, J., Kinyangi, J., Smernik, R., Riha, S.J., Engelhard, M.H. (2008). Long
termblackcarbondynamicsincultivatedsoil.Biogeochem.89(3):295308.
Novak, J.M., Busscher, W.J., Watts, D.W., Laird, D.A., Ahmedna, M.A., Niandou, M.A.S. (2010).
Shortterm CO2 mineralization after additions of Biochar and switchgrass to a Typic
Kandiudult.Geoderma154(34):281288.
Rondon, M.A., Lehmann, J., Ramirez, J., Hurtado, M. (2007). Biological nitrogen fixation by
common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) increases with biochar additions. Biol. Fertil. Soils
43:699708.
Rumpel,C.andKgelKnabner,I.(2011)Deepsoilorganicmatterakeybutpoorlyunderstood
componentofterrestrialCcyclePlantandSoil338(12):143158
Rumpel,C.,Alexis,M.,Chabbi,A.,etal.(2005).Blackcarboncontributiontosoilorganicmatter
decompositionintropicalslopinglandunderslashandburnagriculture.Geoderma:3546
Schimmelpfennig, S.,Glaser, B.(2012) One Step Forward toward Characterization: Some
ImportantMaterialPropertiestoDistinguishBiochars.JournalofEnvironmentalQuality:41:
10011013doi:10.2134/jeq2011.0146doi:10.2134/jeq2011.0146
Schneider,M.P.W.,Hilf,M.,Vogt,U.F.,Schmidt,M.W.J.(2010).Thebenzenepolycarboxylicacid
(BPCA) pattern of wood pyrolyzed between 200 C and 1000 C. Organic Geochemistry
41:10821088.

Page|128
Schumacher, B. (2002). Methods for determination of Total Organic Carbon (TOC) in soils and
sediments. US EPA, Environmental Sciences Division National Exposure Research
Laboratory,OfficeofResearchandDevelopment.
Singh, B.P., Cowie, A.L,, Smernik, R.J. (2012). Biochar carbon stability in a clayey soil as a
function of Feedstock and Pyrolysis temperature. Environmental Science & Technology
46(21),pp1177011778DOI:10.1021/es302545b.
Smernik,R.J.(2009).Biocharandsorptionoforganiccompounds.InLehmann,J.andJoseph,S.
(Eds.)Biocharforenvironmentalmanagement,Scienceandtechnology.London:Earthscan.
Spokas,K.A.(2010)ReviewofthestabilityofBiocharinsoils:predictabilityofO:Cmolarratios.
CarbonManagement289303.
Spokas,K.A.,Reicosky,D.C.(2009)ImpactsofsixteendifferentBiocharsonsoilGreenhouseGas
production.AnnalsofEnvironmentalSciencevol.3:179193.
VanOost,K.,Quine,T.A.,Govers,G.,DeGryze,S.,Six,J.,Harden,J.W.,Ritchie,J.C.,McCarty,
G.W.,Heckrath,G.,Kosmas,C.,Giraldez,J.V.,MarquesdaSilva,J.R.,Merckx,R.(2007)The
ImpactofAgriculturalSoilErosionontheGlobalCarbonCycle,Science26(318):626629
Van Zwieten, L., Kimber, S., Morris, S., Chan, K. Y., Downie, A., Rust, J., Joseph, S., Cowie, A.
(2010)EffectsofBiocharfromslowPyrolysisofpapermillwasteonagronomicperformance
andsoilfertility.PlantandSoil327(12):235246
Wang,T.,CampsArbestain,M.,Hedley,M.(2013)PredictingCaromaticityofbiocharsbasedon
their
elementalcomposition.OrganicGeochemistry.accepted,inpress.
Wardle, D.A., Nilsson, M.C., Zackrisson, O. (2008) Firederived charcoal causes loss of forest
humus.Science320,629.
Woolf, D., Lehmann, J. (2012) Modelling the longterm response to positive and negative
priming of soil organic carbon by black carbon. BioGeoChem 113. DOI:10.1007/s10533
01297646
Yanai,Y.,Toyota,K.andOkazaki,M.(2007).EffectsofcharcoaladditiononN2Oemissionsfrom
soil resulting from rewetting airdried soil in shortterm laboratory experiments. Soil Sci.
Plant Nutr.53:181188.Yao, F., Arbestain, M., Virgel, S., Blanco, F., Arostegui, J., Marcia
Agullo,J.,Marias,F.(2010).Simulatedgeochemicalweatheringofamineralashrichbiochar
inamodifiedSoxhletreactor.Chemosphere.80:724732.
Zhang, W., Niu, J., Morales, V.L., Chen, X., Hay, A.G., Lehmann, J. and Steenhuis, T.S. (2010)
Transport and retention of Biochar particles in porous media: effect of pH, ionic strength,
andparticlesize.Ecohydrology3:497508.

Page|129
Zimmerman,A.R.(2010)AbioticandmicrobialOxidationofLaboratoryProducedBlackCarbon
(Biochar).Environ.Sci.Tech.44(4):12951301.
Zimmerman, A.R., Gao, M., Ahn M.Y. (2011). Positive and negative carbon mineralization
primingeffectsamongavarietyofBiocharamendedsoils.SoilBio.&Biogeochem.43:1169
1179.
Zimmerman, A.R. and Gao, B. (2013). The Stability of Biochar in the Environment. In: Biochar
and Soil Biota, (N. Ladygina and F. Rineau, eds.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

Page|130
APPENDIX3:PRIMINGOFSOCMINERALIZATIONBYBLACK
CARBON
Priming can be defined as any change (positive or negative, persistent or ephemeral) in the
turnover rate of soil organic matter caused by the addition of a new substrate (Woolf and
Lehmann 2012). Increased or decreased turnover rates are dened as positive or negative
priming,respectively.OnlypositiveprimingisconsideredinthisMethodology,becausethisisa
risk factor that might reduce the net C sequestration of Biochar systems. Negative priming is
notconsideredhereduetoapplicationoftheconservativenessprinciple,wherebydetrimental
feedbacks should be included in the Methodology if there exists a nonnegligible probability
thattheymayberealized,whereasbeneficialfeedbacksshouldnotbeincludedunlesstheyare
unequivocal.
Addition of Biochar to soils has been shown to alter the mineralization rate of nonpyrogenic
SOC (npSOC). Positive priming of npSOC has been reported by Abiven and Andreoli (2010);
Cross and Sohi (2011); Hamer et al. (2004); Jones et al. (2011); Keith et al. (2011); Liang et al.
(2010);Luoetal.(2011);Novaketal.(2010);SpokasandReicosky(2009);Wardleetal.(2008);
Zimmerman et al. (2011). Negative priming of npSOC mineralization has been reported by
Keithetal.(2011);Kuzyakovetal.(2009);Liangetal.(2010);SpokasandReicosky(2009);and
Zimmermanetal.(2011).Zimmermanetal.(2011)foundthatinitialpositivepriminggaveway
tonetnegativeprimingovertime.Whereithasbeenpossibletodiscriminatebetweenlabile
andstableSOCdecomposition,eithernoprimingofstableSOC(CrossandSohi2011;Joneset
al. 2011) or an increase in the stabilized SOC fraction (i.e. negative priming; Liang et al. 2010)
wasobserved.
Only a few studies have allowed discrimination between priming of labile or stablenpSOC
decomposition. Where it has been possible to discriminate between labile and stablenpSOC
decomposition,eitherzeroornegativeprimingofstablenpSOChasbeenreported.Liangetal.
(2010) added organic matter (AOM) with a distinct
13
C isotopic signature (from a C
4
plant) to
BCrichAnthrosolsandBCpooradjacentsoils.Theyfounda19340%increaseinAOMcarbon
in the organomineral fraction (assumed to indicate an increase in C stabilized by mineral
associations) after 1.5 yr in BCrichrelative to adjacent soils. Cross and Sohi (2011) compared
the priming effect in a siltyclay loam from Rothamsted Research, U.K., where three different
managementpracticeshadbeenmaintainedfor>60years:(1)barefallow(soilkeptcompletely
bare, with regular cultivation), (2) continuous arable (wheat) and (3) managed grassland. The
fallow soil was assumed to contain only stable npSOC due to the long period without organic

Page|131
matterinputs.Slight(nopstatisticgiven,maynotbesignificant)negativeprimingwasobserved
fromadditionsofBCtothefallowsoil.Jonesetal.(2011)foundnegativeprimingofa
14
Clabel
thathadbeenappliedtothesoil(Ahhorizon,TypicDystrochrept)6yearspriortoadditionofBC
in an incubation study. Due to the long interval between applying the radiocarbon label and
thesubsequentincubationtrial,the
14
CwasassumedtobepresentonlyinstablenpSOC.
Wardleetal.(2008)conducteda10yearlitterbagstudywithcharcoalinaborealforestlitter
layer in which positive priming was observed only during the first year. Other studies have
observed positive priming over a period of a few weeks to months in shortterm incubations
(Luo et al. 2011; Keith et al. 2011; Zimmerman et al. 2011). Nonetheless, the precautionary
principle suggests that one should consider the possibility that priming effects might persist
long term. Woolf and Lehmann (2012) modeled the impact of Biochar on priming over 100
years in a system designed to probe the upper bounds of priming impacts on npSOC.
Specifically,theyassumed
22
:
1. priming effects up to and including the largest that have been measured in any
publishedshorttermstudy;
2. thatprimingeffectspersistlongterm;
3. that BC stocks accumulate in soil at a high rate (because they are produced from the
abundantresiduesfromahighNPPcrop;theBCisproducedinanengineeredPyrolysis
systemthatgiveshighyieldsofBCperunitbiomassFeedstock;andtheBCisproduced
undercontrolledconditionswhichensurethatitdecomposesonlyslowly).
Under this set of highly conservative assumptions, Woolf and Lehmann (2012) found that no
morethan3to4%ofinitialnpSOCmightbemineralizedduetoprimingbyBCover100years.In
absolute quantities, this loss of npSOC was greatest in soils with the highest initial stocks of
npSOC.BiocharproductionwasalsopositivelycorrelatedwithinitialnpSOC,duetothegreater
production of crop residues for Feedstock on more fertile soils. Table A31 shows the initial
npSOC (npSOC
0
), potential loss of npSOC due to positive priming over 100 yrs ( npSOC
p+
), BC
remaining in soil after 100 years (BC
+100
), and npSOC
p+
expressed as a percentage of BC
+100
,
(denoted as RPL = Relative Priming Loss) for each of the locations studied in Woolf and
Lehmann(2012).
TableA31.Lossofsoilcarbonover100yrduetopositiveprimingcausedbyBCatthreestudylocations.Source:Woolfand
Lehmann,2012
22
Inthispaper,Biocharisaddedgraduallyover100yearsandnotinonelargetreatmentinyearzero.However,
themodelhasbeenrunusinginitiallargeapplicationofBiochartosoilandprimingresultsweresimilarin
magnitude.

Page|132
Site
npSOC
0
(kgCm
2
,intop
0.15mofsoil
profile)
npSOC
p+
(kgCm
2
)
BC
+100
(kgCm
2
)
RPL
Colombia 0.94 0.037 3.31 1.1%
Kenya 1.56 0.05 3.29 1.5%
Iowa 6.29 0.26 5.95 4.4%
AlinearregressionofRPLversusnpSOC
0
yieldstherelationship
RPL=0.0062npSOC
0
+0.0053 (R
2
=0.99992)
FromwhichitfollowsthatthemaximumnpSOC
0
forwhichRPLislessthan5%is7.2kgCm
2
in
the top 0.15m of the soil profile. (i.e. For soils starting with less than 7.2 kg npSOC m
2
,
cumulative priming losses will be less than 5% of the BC remaining after 100 years.) If a 5%
threshold for positive priming enhancement due to the addition of Biochar to soil would be
defined as a condition to disregard the effect of priming for Biochar carbon stability
estimations,Biocharshouldnotbeappliedtosoilswithmorethan7.2kgnpSOCm
2
.However,
soilswithsuchconcentrationsarerarelyfoundwithinagriculturalsoils,andaremorefrequent
in forestland or peat soils (Davidson and Ackerman, 1993), where Biochar would not likely be
applied. In the case that Biochar were applied to soils with concentrations higher than 7.2 kg
npSOC m
2
, it could lead to positive priming, which is factored into the calculations of stable
carbon, with a discount factor of 5%, although as stated it would be rare to find soils with
organic carbon content higher than the stated limit, in order to maintain a conservative
approach to stability estimations. Additionally, it would not make much sense to apply a
carbonaceousrich material to a carbonrich soil, if agronomic and environmental benefits are
soughtfromBiocharuse.
SeereferencesinAppendix2.

Page|133
APPENDIX4:SUSTAINABLEFEEDSTOCKCRITERIA
Overview
Biochar hasthe potential to improve soil quality when usedas a soil additive, especiallywhen
combinedwithnutrientrichmaterials,suchascompost.Biocharalsohascarbonsequestration
potential, which means it reduces greenhouse gas emissions from avoided decomposition
emissions of the biomass. It is necessary to ensure that these benefits are not offset by
negative impacts elsewhere in the Biochar production cycle. The most common feedstock
types, forest and agricultural feedstocks, will be addressed in more detail. This appendix
providesfeedstockrequirements:
GeneralRequirements(ApplicabletoallFeedstocks)
Any Biomass Residue, as defined in 1.4 and meeting the Feedstock expectations of the
IBI Biochar Standards (2013), is eligible for Biochar production under this methodology
provideditmeetstheapplicableSustainableFeedstockcriteriainthisAppendix.Eligible
Biomass Residues include, but are not limited to: insect/pathogenkilled wood (with
precautions taken to avoid contamination of other sites), forest thinning for wildfire
mitigation, any forest residue meeting the Forestry Feedstock criteria of this Appendix,
any agricultural residue meeting the Agricultural Feedstock criteria of this Appendix,
landscaping and clean construction residues, biomass cogeneration residues, and non
toxicbiosolids.
ProjectProponentmustprovideevidencethatnolandusechange(LUC)hastakenplace
inthepast7years.
Evidence should be provided that no net negative impacts are likely from diverting
residue from its alternative use based on most common alternative uses from the
previous seven years. For instance, would diverting this residue have any broader
impactsonthelocalcommunitythatusedtheresidueforanotherpurpose,suchasheat
generation,orcreategreater(indirect)GreenhouseGasimpacts?
ProjectProponentmustensurethatcarbonstocksandothercriticalsoilandecosystem
attributes are not depleted or negatively impacted by residue harvests. Assessment of
sustainable residue removal rates (for carbon and other critical nutrients) should be

Page|134
conducted and a monitoring plan implemented. At least 25% of the residues must be
leftinplacetoreplenishsoilnutrients.Thisisrelevantforbothforestryandagriculture.
Theremustbeamanagementandmonitoringplaninplaceforsustainableharvestingof
biomass.Ataminimum,thisshouldaddressavoidanceof:
o OverharvestingandthusreducingtheSoilCarbonandothernutrientsinthesoil
o Causingsoilerosionorsoilcompaction
o Waterpollution
Otherimpactsthatmustbeaddressedinclude:
Documentation of biomass treatment with pesticides, herbicides, or other chemicals
(includingdateapplied,frequencyapplied,type,brand,amountandconcentration)
If the feedstock is produced from Biosolids, it must be free of toxic materials, such as
radioactive materials, carcinogens or heavy metals, as this is intended for agricultural
soilapplication(refertoIBIBiocharStandardslatestversion).
Chain of Custody documentation and site location (GIS Shapefile preferred) for the
feedstock site must be collected and retained (for the 7 year term of the project) for
eachfeedstocksitebytheBiocharproducer.

Each Biochar producer will be initially evaluated for using qualified feedstock. The Crediting
Period of the project is 7 years. If the Biochar producer would like to continue for additional
terms, they must pass the evaluation of feedstock criteria again prior to the Crediting Period
renewal.
It is the responsibility of the Biochar producer to collect necessary documentation from each
feedstock: supplier, source, and site. The Biochar producer will submit the Feedstock
Documentation form to an ACRapproved Validation/Verification Body (VVB) for review for
eachnewfeedstockpriortoregisteringcredits.
Biochar producers will be periodically and randomly evaluated for adhering to the document
collection requirementsand feedstock suppliers for meeting the qualification criteria. This will
be performed by a VVB at least every 5 years and may be more frequent at the Project
Proponentsdiscretion.

Page|135
AdditionalRequirementsforForestryandAgriculturalFeedstocks
Additional guidelines have been provided for forest and agricultural feedstocks. Projects using
each type of feedstock must comply with the general criteria above, as well as the relevant
criteriainthissection.
ForestryFeedstocks
Forest residues may only be permitted as Feedstock sources if there is substantive proof that
they were harvested in a sustainable manner that does not result in the depletion of soil
organic Carbon Stocks or significantly impact soil, water, and biodiversity the harvested land
area.
Substantiveproofmaybeprovidedthroughthefollowingattestations:
Sustainable forest certified by the approved standard, Forestry Stewardship Council
(FSC) US national standard https://ic.fsc.org/nationalstandards.247.htm or if
international,thelocaljurisdictionalequivalentversionofFSC.
Each feedstock site must provide documentation that the feedstock has been certified
byFSC.Includedinthewrittenattestation,thefeedstocksupplierconfirmsthatatleast
25% of the residue was left in the forest to replenish the Carbon Stocks. Chain of
custody,feedstockharvestingmethodandlocationdatawillalsobecollected.
OR
Verification Statement by an independent thirdparty professional for each feedstock
site. This professional must be forestry certified by a recognized provincial, state, or
nationalbody(e.g.professionalforester,etc.),certifyingtheforestryfeedstockcriteria.
AgriculturalFeedstocks
Agricultural residues may only be permitted as Feedstock sources if there is substantive proof
that they were harvested in a sustainable manner that does not result in the depletion of soil
organicCarbonStocksorinsignificantcompactionorerosionofsoilontheharvestedlandarea.
Substantiveproofmaybeprovidedthroughthefollowingattestations:

Page|136
Scientificallypublished,peerreviewedstudies;regionalresearchstationanalysis;orsoil
carbon modeling that provide proof that the level of agricultural residue removal is
sustainable for soil organic carbon stock maintenance under the regional conditions
(crops,soiltypes,removalrates)oftheaffectedarea.
OR
Each feedstock site must provide documentation that the feedstock has been certified
byanapprovedstandard(CouncilonSustainableBiomassProductionorRoundtableon
SustainableBiomaterialsorifinternational,thelocaljurisdictionalequivalent).Included
in the written attestation, the feedstock supplier confirms that at least 25% of the
residuewasleftintheforesttoreplenishtheCarbonStocks.Chainofcustody,feedstock
harvestingmethodandlocationdatawillalsobecollected.
o Council on Sustainable Biomass Production (CSBP), website:
http://www.csbp.org/Portals/0/Documents/CSBP%20Standard%20For%20Sustai
nable%20Production%20of%20Agricultural%20Biomass%2006122012_1.pdf
o RoundtableonSustainableBiomaterials(RSB),website:Standardforcertification
ofbiofuelsbasedonbyproductsandresidueshttp://rsb.org/pdfs/standards/13
0318%20RSBSTD01
020%20RSB%20Standard%20on%20residues%20and%20byproducts.pdf
OR
Verification Statement by an independent thirdparty professional for each feedstock
site. This professional must be certified in agrology or agronomy by a recognized
provincial,state,ornationalbody(e.g.professionalagronomist,certifiedcropadvisors,
agricultural extension agents, etc.), certifying the agricultural feedstock criteria,
including that soil organic Carbon Stocks will not be depleted through the harvest of
agriculturalresiduesforthepurposeofBiocharproduction.

Biochar Meth - Public Comment Draft

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Biochar Meth - Public Comment Draft

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

American

Trusted solutions for the carbon market

Documenting/tracking the location and ownership history of

Following the definition of developed nation provided above, a

Feedstock: The material undergoing thermochemical processes to create

MaterialChange: Material Changes in Feedstock reflect shifts in Feedstock type

Solid, nonhazardous refuse that originates from residential,

An individual or entity that undertakes, develops, and/or owns a

ProximateAnalysis: This methodological approach establishes the loss of material as

Pyrolysis: The thermochemical decomposition of a material or compound

providing an improved rooting environment (Davis and Wilson

A verification statement provides assurance that, through

A competent and independent person, persons or firm

as it is of higher value when applied to soil. It is perceived that the majority of

Source Gas Included? Justification/Explanation

The methane emissions due to the anaerobic decomposition of Feedstock in a wastewater

The nitrous oxide emissions due to the nitrification/denitirification of manure Feedstocks in a

If the project occurs in a country or region in which there is an operational capandtrade

Y = year, where the baseline year is 0 and the first year of

Project Proponent can alternatively conduct a site visit at

Sourceofdata: Forexisting plants:

Sourceofdata: If the Feedstock would have produced electricity in the

If thermal heat would have been produced in the baseline,

Anycomment: This parameter shall be monitored by continuous flow

Total nitrogen determination should be performed

renewable electricity being generated from the Biochar

due to the production of heat that would have been

data sources, conduct additional measurements. Ensure

Biochar A solid material obtained from the thermochemical conversion of biomass in an

4 Significance and Use

6 Sample Collection and Handling

(Alternatively, use calculated values of C

at least 70% of the C

include systematically relating structural information to improved Alphatype methods, as

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen