Puro.earth and Engineered Removals: Relevance for Land Projects

Updated 2026-11-02 · 4 min read · By the akar.earth specialist team

Puro.earth standard explained: how durable removal credits work, biochar and wood-based methods, CCP status and relevance for Indonesian land projects.

Puro.earth is a carbon crediting program for durable carbon removal: it certifies methods such as biochar that store carbon for long periods and issues CO2 Removal Certificates (CORCs), one per tonne removed. It is not a forest carbon standard, but it matters to Indonesian land businesses that hold large biomass residue streams, such as palm, rice or wood processing.

What Puro.earth is

Puro.earth is a standard and registry built around engineered and hybrid removals, where carbon is captured by biology or chemistry and then stored in a durable form. Its methodologies typically cover:

• Biochar, from pyrolysis of biomass residues.
• Enhanced rock weathering, where crushed silicate rock reacts with CO2.
• Geologically stored carbon, including bioenergy and direct air capture pathways.
• Carbonated materials, where CO2 is mineralised in construction products.
• Wood-based storage, such as long-lived wooden building elements.

The list changes as methods are added or revised. Check Puro’s site for the current methodology set and versions.

How it differs from land-use standards

Removals are increasingly preferred in corporate net-zero claims. See removals vs avoidance for the distinction.

Who uses it

• Technology developers running biochar plants, mineralisation or storage projects.
• Corporate buyers seeking durable removals for residual emissions, often through long-term offtakes.
• Agro-industrial companies with residue streams that can supply durable-storage projects.

Key requirements

Requirements vary by methodology, but most Puro methods test similar questions:

• Feedstock sustainability. Biomass must come from eligible sources, typically residues or sustainably managed supply, not from clearing forest.
• Life-cycle emissions. Energy, transport and process emissions are subtracted from gross storage.
• Durability evidence. For biochar, lab analysis of the char supports a permanence claim.
• Additionality and financial need.
• Third-party audits before credits are issued.

How it applies in Indonesia and Southeast Asia

Indonesia’s land sector produces large residue volumes: palm oil empty fruit bunches and shells, rice husks, coconut shells, sawmill and plywood residues. These can feed biochar projects that link to Puro or to other biochar methodologies such as Verra’s VM0044.

Points to check for an Indonesian biochar project:

• Deforestation-free feedstock. Palm residues from plantations established on land cleared after 31 December 2020 would raise EUDR-style concerns with buyers even where carbon rules allow them.
• Competing uses. Many residues already fuel boilers. Diverting them can raise emissions elsewhere, which counts against net removals.
• Domestic carbon rules. Perpres 110/2025 governs carbon trading in Indonesia, and units traded on IDXCarbon must be recorded in SRUK. Engineered removals do not fit neatly into forestry rules such as Permenhut 6/2026, so confirm which ministry and sector rules apply. Our Indonesia regulatory navigation service covers this.
• Soil application. If biochar goes onto smallholder farms, field records and chain of custody matter. The same plot data can support agroforestry and soil carbon work.

Questions to ask before choosing Puro

Use these questions to screen an Indonesian residue-to-removal idea:

• Feedstock volume and continuity. Is there a steady, documented residue supply for years, not just one season?
• Current use. Is the residue already burned for energy, mulched or sold? If so, what replaces it?
• Storage pathway. Will the biochar go to soil, construction materials or another use, and can that end use be documented?
• Plant location. Transport distance from mills or farms changes life-cycle emissions.
• Program choice. Compare Puro with other biochar routes on fees, buyer demand and audit cost. A feasibility and eligibility screen answers most of these questions with site data.

Common pitfalls

• Assuming forest projects can use Puro. Standing-forest carbon is outside its scope.
• Ignoring feedstock origin. Residues from recently cleared land damage credibility.
• Underestimating lab and audit cost. Durable methods need sampling and analysis at every batch or period.
• Mixing claims. A biochar credit and a land-use credit for the same tonne would be double counting.

Relationship to ICVCM CCP status

ICVCM lists Puro.Earth as a CCP-Eligible program. Biochar and engineered CDR appear among CCP-approved methodology categories on ICVCM’s site. Check the status table for the exact Puro methodology and version. See our CCP label explainer.

Next steps

Compare Puro with Isometric, read the biochar glossary entry, or return to the standards hub.