The value of biochar depends on national priorities, local needs, and institutional capacity. Experiences from Kenya and Colombia show that biochar is not a uniform technology, but a differentiated opportunity shaped by context. 

In Kenya, biochar emerged from clean cooking 

In Kenya, biochar has grown alongside efforts to expand access to cleaner cooking technologies. Gasifier cookstoves were introduced to reduce smoke exposure and deforestation. Biochar emerged as a by-product of these stoves, as a “charcoal” that is later applied to soils.

This pathway connects biochar directly to public health improvements, as cleaner stoves reduce indoor air pollution that disproportionately affects women and children. It also contributes to reduced reliance on fuelwood, easing deforestation pressures. At the same time, when the biochar produced is applied to farms, it supports smallholder agriculture by improving soil structure and water retention.

Biochar production here is largely small- and medium-scale, embedded in rural communities. The technology has been adapted to local realities, and in some cases, has moved beyond pilot projects.

In Colombia, biochar is linked to soil restoration 

In Colombia, biochar has developed primarily through research institutions and pilot projects focused on agricultural productivity and land restoration. It is tested using residues such as coffee husks, cassava waste, and rice husks.

The emphasis is on improving degraded soils that have lost fertility due to intensive agriculture, restoring land affected by mining activities, and enhancing crop yields in small- and medium-scale farming systems. In this context, biochar is seen mainly as a soil amendment that can improve nutrient retention, support microbial activity, and increase long-term soil stability. Unlike Kenya, where biochar emerged through energy access initiatives, Colombia’s pathway has been driven largely by agronomic and environmental restoration concerns.

However, most initiatives remain at the laboratory or pilot scale. Coordination between actors is weak, and biochar has not yet become part of a broader national strategy in Colombia.

Scaling up changes the picture 

At larger scales, biochar takes on a different meaning. 

In both countries, industrial-scale biochar is increasingly linked to carbon credit markets. This introduces new economic incentives, but also new barriers. 

In Kenya, industrial systems often rely on imported equipment, increasing costs and limiting local control over the technology. In Colombia, locally designed systems exist, but projects face challenges in meeting international standards for carbon credit certification. 

Large-scale projects require high upfront investment, reliable biomass supply chains and access to international carbon markets. This creates a structural tension. Smallholders may produce and apply biochar, but large companies are often better positioned to benefit from carbon credit revenues. 

Carbon markets: opportunity or inequality? 

Carbon markets offer a potential revenue stream for biochar projects. But they also risk concentrating benefits among well-resourced actors. 

Smallholder farmers, who may already be applying biochar to improve soils, often lack access to certification systems or financing mechanisms. Without safeguards, scaling biochar could deepen existing inequalities. Ensuring transparency and community benefit-sharing will be critical if biochar is to contribute to equitable climate action. 

Regulation remains unclear 

Both Kenya and Colombia lack clear and comprehensive regulatory frameworks for biochar. 

Key questions remain unanswered: 

• What legally defines biochar?  
• How should it be distinguished from charcoal?
• What quality standards should apply?
• How should sustainability of biomass sourcing be ensured? 

In Kenya, biochar is mentioned in broader climate and carbon policies, but often indirectly. In Colombia, it remains largely absent from national regulatory language. 

Without regulatory clarity, investors face uncertainty and communities face risk. 

Biochar must fit national realities 

Biochar is often discussed in global climate debates as a gigaton-scale carbon removal option. Yet in practice, its development depends on local infrastructure, access to energy, transport systems, and institutional coordination. 

In rural areas without reliable electricity, water, or roads, industrial-scale projects may be unrealistic. However, these same areas often generate large amounts of crop waste. Adapting technologies to territorial realities rather than importing models wholesale will determine whether biochar can deliver meaningful impact. 

Moving forward 

Biochar holds real promise. It can support soil health, bring value to waste, generate rural employment, and store carbon. 

But it is not a plug-and-play solution. 

Kenya and Colombia demonstrate that biochar pathways are shaped by national priorities clean cooking in one context, soil restoration in another. Scaling must be accompanied by clear regulatory definitions, sustainable biomass sourcing rules, inclusive carbon market design, and local technological capacity building. 

If these elements align, biochar can bridge local development needs with global climate goals. If not, it risks becoming another climate technology that benefits a few while overlooking those most closely connected to the land. Therefore, biochar is not a one-size-fits-all climate solution. Its impact depends on how it is embedded in local energy systems, agricultural priorities, and regulatory frameworks.