Why Biomass Carbon Removal and Storage Need Better Validation Methods

Biomass carbon capture methods, like BECCS and biochar, are attracting more attention as the world seeks scalable ways to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

In 2025, both support and urgency for these solutions are growing. But meaningful progress requires accurate data and strong validation systems to prove real and lasting climate change. Sadly, weak validation has left room for confusion, doubt, and the risk of greenwashing.

In this article, we explain why biomass carbon removal and storage is important, explore the validation problem facing the industry, show how Sylvera can help solve these issues, and more.

Biomass carbon capture: why it matters for net zero

Carbon capture using biomass is critical to global climate efforts. This is especially true for companies that want to reach net zero, or even net negative, emissions in the next few years.

If you're unfamiliar with the term, biomass carbon capture is the process of using plant-based materials, such as crop and forestry residues, to sequester carbon dioxide.

Done correctly, this approach not only deals with greenhouse gases, but does so in a way that avoids competition with typical food production activities. For example, quality biomass feedstocks come from resources that would naturally return carbon to the atmosphere, like dead trees. It doesn’t come from dedicated fields that could have been used to grow food.

Biomass carbon capture (which falls under carbon dioxide removal, or CDR) sequesters carbon that would have otherwise been part of the regular carbon cycle. This is valuable because cutting emissions, while important, isn't enough.

Common biomass carbon capture methodologies

There are two leading biomass carbon capture methodologies to be aware of:

The first is BECCS, which stands for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. (Some people refer to it as biomass energy with carbon capture and storage.) This methodology captures and stores carbon dioxide during biomass energy generation.

The second is biochar. This methodology uses pyrolysis to heat biomass sources in zero-oxygen environments. Doing so creates a charcoal-like material that can store carbon in a stable condition for up to 1,000 years. (Biochar durability depends on the process used.)

BECCS and biochar represent alternatives to more popular NBS strategies. In an ideal world, companies will invest in both NBS and CDR projects to build diversified carbon portfolios and tackle the climate crisis in multiple ways. 

Governments seem to agree with this approach. The CREST Act, proposed by the U.S. Senate, offers financial support to projects that remove and store carbon via biomass. And the Paris Agreement, joined by almost every nation in the world, promotes diverse strategies to achieve climate change.

The validation problem in biomass carbon capture

Unfortunately, current monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) practices for biomass carbon capture see uncertainty at nearly every stage of the carbon capture and biomass process.

Inconsistent or incomplete validation clouds whether projects deliver real climate benefits, which increases regulatory risk and undermines market and buyer confidence.

Let's dig deeper into a few specific issues:

• Feedstock sustainability and additionality: Variations in chemical composition, supply fluctuations, and impurity levels complicate process optimization for methods like biomass fermentation or burning biomass. Furthermore, sourcing can impact food security if farmland and/or crops are diverted from food supplies.
• Lifecycle assessment across supply chains: Lifecycle assessments often use generic models rather than location-specific data. This can lead to misreporting and inaccurate carbon balances. Additionally, setting correct boundaries is a crucial step for BECCS projects to ensure they have accounted for all emissions associated with the removal.
• Land use change and leakage impacts: The effect of direct and indirect land use changes are poorly quantified. This raises the risk of hidden emissions, creates threats to food security, and could generate other unintended consequences.

These issues open the door to regulatory setbacks, financial liability, and skeptical buyers. Worse, they stall momentum for truly effective biomass solutions.

Why the market needs better carbon data for biomass

The demand for biomass-based carbon credits is growing—but so is the desire for transparency, durability, and accurate baselines. Without these things, buyers question credit quality. This hesitation slows investment and prevents the industry from reaching its potential.

Transparent, project-specific carbon data, on the other hand, not only reassures buyers but also lets the market compare initiatives, recognize the most effective approaches, and drive funding toward high-integrity solutions that actually help reduce global emissions.

Additionally, better carbon data unlocks significant value by clarifying which sources—such as municipal solid waste—are truly sustainable. It also avoids credits tied to problematic land use or inefficient biomass conversion and helps weed out low-quality projects.

There are compliance issues to consider as well. Governments around the world are introducing stricter quality standards. Rigorous data is needed to comply with modern regulations.

There's just one problem: lots of existing tools and data don't give buyers confidence or help maintain compliance. The good news is, Sylvera is filling the gap with industry-leading solutions.

The Sylvera difference: raising the bar for carbon validation

Sylvera is stepping up to solve the validation problem in biomass carbon capture.

Most methodologies are inconsistent, lag behind standards, and create reputational risk for corporate buyers and investors. Some methodologies don't even distinguish between avoided emissions and removals in the LCA, which undermines the integrity of net removal calculations.

Sylvera provides methodology assessments and Pre-issuance Ratings to help buyers and investors identify quality credits and manage risk effectively.

Our methodology assessments and Pre-issuance Ratings are especially valuable in the biomass carbon capture space, as biomass sourcing happens in many countries. Without an eye on the process, buyers and investors can't make purchase decisions with confidence. 

Sylvera gives you the information you need to fully assess biomass carbon capture projects.

The Importance of BECCS and Biochar Validation Frameworks

Standards are just the first step towards a quality project, it’s impossible for them to cover every aspect of project integrity.

BECCS and biochar projects are complex, and getting them right means tracking every stage of the biomass lifecycle — from harvesting and transport to storage and application. For BECCS, that means avoiding indirect emissions; for biochar, it means proving that carbon is truly locked away and won’t re-enter the carbon cycle.

Existing standards often fall short, missing key details and allowing inconsistent tracking that can lead to social or environmental harm. To address this, new frameworks need to enforce robust MRV, apply full lifecycle assessments, and set clear, science-based criteria for success.

They must also cover risks such as shifts from waste biomass to new energy crops that compete with food production or strain land availability.

The cost of getting it wrong

What happens when validation processes fail? A lot of bad things, actually…

Misestimations limit the effectiveness of biomass-based projects and erode trust in the entire carbon credits system.

Poor validation can also lead to public backlash. After all, consumers want to support brands with similar values. If your company is accused of greenwashing—even if it unknowingly purchased low-quality credits—this could lead to major reputational damage.

And in terms of government regulations,failure to comply with climate laws could result in hefty fines, which will put a dent in business profitability.

Finally, poor validation harms the planet. For example, unsustainable biomass production can cause biodiversity loss, disrupt local economies, or increase competition with food production. Technical failures—like leaks after biomass combustion—can release carbon dioxide. And money spent on these projects could have supported true climate change.

Better validation = better markets

Strong validation helps build a strong, healthy carbon market. And a strong, healthy carbon market will attract more investment and deliver greater environmental benefits.

Strong validation also creates transparency, which allows corporate buyers and investors to trust the credits they purchase, offering greater peace of mind. And it becomes much easier to not only follow government regulations, but prove compliance in the event of an audit.

As for project developers, strong validation leads to faster financing and the ability to charge premium prices. Buyers will pay for quality if they're confident in the credits available to them.

Support quality biomass carbon capture projects

Biomass carbon capture projects are a growing opportunity.

Investing in them offers the promise of real climate benefits and supports their growth - vital in the progress towards minimizing global emissions. But this is only true if said projects are backed by strong validation methods.

By accurately tracking the carbon cycle—from biomass production to long-term carbon storage—investors can ensure claims about emissions reduction, soil health, etc. are accurate.

Sylvera will give you the data, tools, and scientific methods to effectively vet biomass carbon capture projects and ensure the credits they generate are high quality. Ready to invest in the best, most thorough carbon data available? Request a free demo of Sylvera today.