From the sprawling rainforests of Southeast Asia to the fertile lands of Africa and the diverse ecosystems of South America, Dr. Romain Pirard has traversed the globe, connecting the dots between environmental challenges and practical solutions. 

With a PhD in environmental economics and a pragmatic approach honed through years with impactful organizations like CIFOR, the World Bank, and Greenpeace, Romain tackles complex issues head-on. Now an International Technical Expert at the University of Stellenbosch, his work in sustainable land management and value chain development to use biomassBiomass is a complex biological organic or non-organic solid product derived from living or recently living organism and available naturally. Various types of wastes such as animal manure, waste paper, sludge and many industrial wastes are also treated as biomass because like natural biomass these More from invasive alien species reflects a deep understanding of interconnected systems, a perspective highly relevant to the nuances of biocharBiochar is a carbon-rich material created from biomass decomposition in low-oxygen conditions. It has important applications in environmental remediation, soil improvement, agriculture, carbon sequestration, energy storage, and sustainable materials, promoting efficiency and reducing waste in various contexts while addressing climate change challenges. More. 

Whether it’s unraveling the dynamics of deforestation, navigating the complexities of sustainable oil palm, or pioneering market-based approaches for ecosystem services, Romain’s expertise is remarkably broad. But beyond impressive credentials lies a core mission: to move beyond research and forge the collaborations needed for real-world change. His diverse expertise isn’t just academic; it’s about finding practical solutions and building the collaborative networks needed to implement them. 

You’ve worked with organizations like the World Bank and Greenpeace. What led you to specialize in environmental economics and market-based solutions for climate mitigation?

Romain Pirard : Initially, I graduated with a degree in applied mathematics but was not excited about working for an insurance company or a bank. I thus decided to go for another Master providing training in environmental economics with a research orientation. This led me, in turn, to start a PhD on the pulp and paper sector in Indonesia in the early 2000’s, which was a very spectacular example of bad governance and unusual business models leading to large-scale clearing of natural tropical forests. I then realized that political economy was a fascinating field and a way to study environmental issues and their solutions. I could work for such different institutions as the WB and Greenpeace because I favor independent thinking devoid of ideologies and prejudices. These organizations have positive and negative sides, and one can learn more when moving from one to another. The same remark applies to market-based mechanisms: I have no prejudice against using markets, but one should be aware of their limitations and try to fix them.

With your extensive experience in climate and sustainability, how do you see biochar’s role evolving in the broader climate action landscape?

RP: Well, the more I study biochar, the more I find this product fascinating for many reasons. While it has been around forever, its role in the climate action landscape is undergoing a significant evolution. Initially recognized for its benefits as a soil amendmentA soil amendment is any material added to the soil to enhance its physical or chemical properties, improving its suitability for plant growth. Biochar is considered a soil amendment as it can improve soil structure, water retention, nutrient availability, and microbial activity.   More and fuel source, biochar’s potential for long-term biogenic carbon storage has brought it increasing attention in climate change mitigation discussions. 

The pyrolysisPyrolysis is a thermochemical process that converts waste biomass into bio-char, bio-oil, and pyro-gas. It offers significant advantages in waste valorization, turning low-value materials into economically valuable resources. Its versatility allows for tailored products based on operational conditions, presenting itself as a cost-effective and efficient More process, applied to various biomass feedstocks, enables the stable sequestration of carbon, effectively removing it from the active carbon cycle and contributing to the objectives of the Paris Agreement. It is essential to acknowledge the diversity within the term “biochar,” as its properties and optimal uses vary depending on production. 

Looking forward, biochar’s contribution is expected to grow in carbon removal strategies and its integration into agricultural practices for soil enhancement. Ongoing research continues to explore its applications in other areas, such as filtration and material science, with a necessary focus on sustainable production methods.

You’ve recently released a paper discussing why biochar should not be considered a Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) strategy despite mounting claims for it. Can you explain your perspective on this, and what do you think are the key misconceptions about biochar’s role in climate mitigation?

RP: This is a key question and a very contentious topic at the moment. To make things more straightforward, let’s say that climate mitigation actions are usually divided into two broad categories, namely reduced/ avoided emissions and carbon dioxide removals. Reduced/ avoided emissions typically come from changing technologies (e.g., moving to renewable energies), changing the nature of economic activities (e.g., moving from the secondary to the tertiary sector), or reducing or stopping activities (e.g., reducing mobility).

Carbon Dioxide Removals, by contrast, are activities that actively capture CO₂ from the atmosphere and then store it more or less permanently, for instance, in geological reservoirs or trees. Their rationale is to take over once emissions become too difficult and costly to abate, a stage we call the “residual emissions” stage. There is thus a complementary relationship between the two broad types of mitigation actions. 

Biochar is usually presented as a Carbon Dioxide Removal, but I argue (and hopefully demonstrate) that this is a misconception. Indeed, biochar is generally produced from biomass residues from agriculture or forestry, such as corn stovers or macadamia nut shells. This means that the capture of CO₂ in plants was due to farmers’ investments and the production of commercial food products. Residues are a byproduct for which there is little use, a kind of liability. Their fate is usually to decompose, or they are burned, which leads to GHG emissions, including CO₂ or methane. With biochar, such emissions are reduced as long as it is stored under the right conditions. So when you compare the business-as-usual scenario with the scenario of biochar production, you find as much carbon captured from the atmosphere but very different emissions levels afterward. Of course, the situation is different when you grow biomass exclusively for biochar production because you then actively capture carbon from the atmosphere in the first place.

Interestingly, it does not matter from a climate change perspective. However, many people promote biochar as a CDR because it leads to better levels of support, particularly with carbon credits that have higher value on the market. This is mainly a problem in terms of funding allocation because it diverts mitigation-related investments from potentially more cost-effective solutions. 

Indeed, if you spend USD 100 for 1 tCO2-e of reduced emissions with biochar rather than for 10 tCO2-e of reduced emissions with other mitigation activities, then you achieve much less for the same amount of spending. In a context with insufficient mitigation funding, we cannot let this happen.

Carbon credits play a significant role in funding climate solutions. Given your research, do you think biochar should be included in carbon markets, and if so, under what conditions?

RP: First, my argument for biochar to be considered in most cases as reduced/ avoided emissions rather than CDR does not mean that it does not have a fantastic potential for climate change mitigation. I think it does, and I’m eager to support its development. We even completed a study, now published, that explores how carbon credits could support the development of biochar value chains using biomass from invasive alien trees in South Africa and beyond. But I think it should be valued according to its impact, not less and not more. If it is a case of reduced/ avoided emissions, carbon credits issued for biochar production and storage should reflect this. And if it has other co-benefits, for instance, supporting adaptation of agriculture in a context of increasingly complex conditions due to climate change, then it should be promoted for this reason.

But the funding should not come from the wrong sources, otherwise, mitigation effects overall will be negatively affected. In fact, even the divide between CDR and reduced/ avoided emissions is misleading and should be refined. Whether a mitigation action is cost-effective, permanent, without leakage, and with co-benefits and limited negative impacts matters. Biochar tickets most of these boxes; let’s promote it for that and not for its alleged erroneous status as CDR.

What are the biggest challenges in aligning biochar production with sustainable land use and forestry management?

RP: The biggest challenges in ensuring biochar production aligns with sustainable land use and forestry boil down largely to how we source the biomass. We must avoid unsustainable practices like clearing natural forests or converting land needed for food production. Indirect land-use change, where our demand here causes deforestation elsewhere, is also a critical concern.

We’ve seen similar risks with other biomass-based industries, so the issues aren’t entirely new, and existing policies and standards are trying to address them. In regions like Southern Africa, we also worry about planting trees in naturally treeless areas like grasslands. Ultimately, the solution lies in strong certification schemes and supportive public policies, like the EU’s Carbon Removals framework, to guide responsible biochar production and ensure it truly contributes to sustainability.

What innovations or policy shifts are necessary to maximize biochar’s benefits while avoiding unintended consequences?

RP: As I said earlier, the various products associated with biochar, including carbon credits, should be subject to certification schemes that can guarantee they are produced sustainably. This is to avoid unintended consequences. We need to take action at least at two levels to maximize benefits. First, there must be recognition that biochar is an umbrella term that includes products with different characteristics depending on the feedstockFeedstock refers to the raw organic material used to produce biochar. This can include a wide range of materials, such as wood chips, agricultural residues, and animal manure. More used, the production process (e.g., temperature and time), and the environment where it is applied. Therefore, much attention must be paid to research to refine our understanding of biochar impacts, such as the permanence of carbon storage or its impact on plant growth also considering that the latter is not guaranteed and seems to depend on many factors.

The other level of action refers to finding ways to support the expansion of biochar production. I had interesting discussions recently with a company in South Africa, which explained that biochar is mostly a base product and that business models should rely primarily on higher-value products, such as organic fertilizers and green coking pellets (as a substitute for coal-based anthracite). With such higher-value products, there is much less dependency on the revenues from carbon credits, for instance. I would also add that public policies can help, for example, by incentivizing farmers to shift from chemical fertilizers to biochar-based fertilizers and this would open the door to a new market at scale.

You’ve raised questions about the actual impact of biochar. When evaluating its potential as a long-term climate solution, what is essential from your perspective?

RP: Initially, I think it’s crucial to acknowledge and underscore that biochar is potentially vital in climate change mitigation. This fundamental recognition is the starting point for serious consideration of its long-term potential. Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, we must ensure fair and precise recognition of biochar’s capabilities to avoid a situation where short-term opportunistic claims undermine its long-term credibility. There’s a risk of a “biochar bubble” if its benefits, particularly regarding carbon dioxide removal (CDR), are misrepresented or overstated. We need to be scrupulous in our claims to maintain trust and ensure its enduring relevance as a climate solution. In this context, it’s helpful to understand where biochar fits within the broader spectrum of climate actions. 

I agree that biochar often offers an intermediate solution in the range of climate mitigation actions, that scores highly on carbon storage potential and co-benefits. While it achieves carbon removal through durable storage, it also frequently provides valuable co-benefits like soil enhancement, water retention, and nutrient management. This combination makes it a compelling tool, distinct from pure emissions avoidance strategies and other CDR methods.

Furthermore, establishing sound business models is paramount for biochar’s long-term success. We must avoid confusion surrounding its classification, particularly concerning direct CDR. As was mentioned, viewing biochar primarily as a base product with opportunities for added value through downstream products like green coking pellets and organic fertilizers offers a more sustainable economic pathway. This approach reduces over-reliance on potentially volatile carbon credit markets and builds value based on tangible product applications.