Every winter, a thick haze settles over north India. A large part of it comes from the fields of Punjab and Haryana, where farmers — facing a short window between the rice harvest and the wheat sowing, and few affordable alternatives — set fire to their paddy straw. The result is some of the worst urban air quality on the planet, and the loss of millions of tonnes of organic matter that could have rebuilt the soil.
Here is the paradox: that same straw is a high-quality feedstock for one of the most durable carbon-removal technologies available. Turned into biochar instead of smoke, crop residue keeps its carbon in a stable form for centuries, improves the land it came from, and can earn carbon-removal credits. The question for farmers, FPOs and agribusinesses isn't whether the opportunity exists — it's how to capture it without falling for the hype.
How much crop residue does India actually have?
The scale is enormous. By government estimates, India generates on the order of 500 million tonnes of crop residue a year — some analyses put it above 600 million once organic waste is included. Much of that is already used productively, as fodder, fuel and other purposes. But a large surplus is not.
Roughly 140 million tonnes of residue is surplus to other uses, and around 90 million tonnes is burned in the field annually. A peer-reviewed assessment of ten major crops put India's in-situ surplus residue at about 156 million tonnes — enough, the authors estimated, to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by hundreds of teragrams if managed well. Whichever figure you take, the conclusion is the same: there is far more feedstock than any near-term biochar industry could use.
From disposal problem to carbon asset
The conversion is straightforward in principle. Biomass is heated under low-oxygen conditions — a process called pyrolysis — which drives off gases and leaves behind a porous, carbon-rich solid. That solid resists decomposition, so when it is applied to soil or locked into building materials, its carbon stays put for a very long time. Pyrolysis also yields syngas and bio-oil, which can offset some fossil energy on site.
For the carbon market, the value sits in that stable carbon.
Biochar removal credits are a premium product because they are removals, not avoidance — and durable ones. Recent market assessments have put biochar credits in the region of $80–150 per tonne of CO2e, with long-term offtake deals often lower. Those are estimates in a young, offtake-driven market, and the revenue a project actually keeps depends on its production and verification costs. But the direction is clear: global buyers are paying real money for exactly the kind of durable removal that Indian crop residue can supply.
Which crop residues make good feedstock?
Not every residue is equal. Dry, abundant, reasonably clean materials are easiest to collect and pyrolyse consistently. The most promising candidates across India's belts:
| Residue | Main regions | Notes for biochar |
|---|---|---|
| Rice straw and husk | Punjab, Haryana, eastern India | The flagship feedstock; husk is already aggregated at mills |
| Cotton stalk | Maharashtra, Gujarat, Telangana | Woody, high-carbon; already used in early Indian projects |
| Sugarcane bagasse and trash | Maharashtra, UP, Karnataka | Concentrated at mills; competing energy uses to consider |
| Maize stalk | Bihar, Karnataka, MP | Widely available; collection logistics matter |
| Mustard and pulse residue | Rajasthan, MP | Seasonal; useful where rice straw is scarce |
The right feedstock for a specific project is a question of local supply, the cost and practicality of collection, and how consistent the material is — which is exactly what a feasibility and feedstock assessment is built to answer.
The catch: not all biomass counts
This is where good projects separate themselves from weak ones, and it is worth being blunt about.
The same logic applies to additionality — the project has to be something that needed carbon finance to happen, not business as usual. These integrity questions aren't red tape; they're what protects the price of the credit and the trust of the buyer.
Who actually gets paid — and the fair-share question
A single farm rarely produces enough residue to justify the cost of a verified carbon project on its own. Biochar projects work at scale, which means aggregation — through an FPO, a cooperative, a biomass aggregator, or an industrial operator who collects residue from many farms.
That structure raises a question India's carbon market hasn't always answered well: who keeps the money? When farmers supply the feedstock that makes a project possible, a fair and transparent share of the carbon revenue should flow back to them. Opaque arrangements, where intermediaries take the bulk of the value and growers see little, are both an ethical problem and a reputational risk for buyers who increasingly ask where their money goes. Treating benefit-sharing as a feature, not an afterthought, is what makes a programme durable.
What it takes to start
A workable biochar project from crop residue generally needs a few things lined up: a reliable supply of genuinely surplus feedstock; a production pathway (artisanal kilns or industrial reactors); a methodology and registry (such as Verra VM0044, Puro.earth or Isometric); the MRV to measure and verify what's produced; and — because the market runs on offtakes — buyer interest before you build. Crucially, the upfront costs of feasibility, validation and verification come before any credits are issued, so the economics have to be planned, not assumed.
Is this a government scheme or free money?
Neither. Budget 2026–27's roughly ₹20,000 crore CCUS programme is a tailwind for the whole carbon-removal ecosystem, and India's carbon market continues to take shape. But biochar income isn't a subsidy or a handout — project hosts and the farmers who supply them earn by producing biochar and selling verified credits into the voluntary and international market. Anyone promising guaranteed payouts or instant "free money" from stubble is selling something other than a real carbon project.
The bottom line
India burns, each year, a feedstock that the rest of the world is paying to turn into durable carbon removal. Closing that gap — converting surplus crop residue into biochar instead of smoke — improves air quality, rebuilds soil, and can generate genuine income, provided it's done with honest feedstock, real MRV, and a fair share for farmers.
If you're sitting on crop residue, run an FPO, or operate biomass infrastructure and want to know whether a biochar project stacks up, the first step is a feedstock and feasibility check. See how the soil side of biochar works, read our companion piece on why biochar stores soil carbon so efficiently, or request a biochar project feasibility assessment to test your own numbers.
Figures in this article are drawn from public research and market sources and are reported as estimates; residue volumes, prices and policy details change. Carbon credit revenue is never guaranteed, feedstock must be genuinely sustainable, and all framing is as of June 2026. Verify current methodology and eligibility requirements before making decisions.