CLIMATE CHANGE

13/2023
Interim Report

Certification of Carbon
Dioxide Removals
Evaluation of the Commission Proposal
by:
Dr. Nils Meyer-Ohlendorf
Ecologic Institute, Berlin

Anne Siemons, Dr. Lambert Schneider, Dr. Hannes Böttcher

Öko-Institut, Berlin

publisher:
German Environment Agency

German Environment Agency

CLIMATE CHANGE 13/2023

Ressortforschungsplan of the Federal Ministry for the

Environment, Nature Conservation, Nuclear Safety and
Consumer Protection

Project No. (FKZ) 3722 42 515 0

Report No. (UBA-FB) FB001128/ENG

Interim Report

Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals

Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

by
Dr. Nils Meyer-Ohlendorf
Ecologic Institute, Berlin

Anne Siemons, Dr. Lambert Schneider, Dr. Hannes

Böttcher
Öko-Institut, Berlin

On behalf of the German Environment Agency

Imprint

Publisher
Umweltbundesamt
Wörlitzer Platz 1
06844 Dessau-Roßlau
Tel: +49 340-2103-0
Fax: +49 340-2103-2285
buergerservice@uba.de
Internet: www.umweltbundesamt.de

/umweltbundesamt.de
/umweltbundesamt

Report performed by:

Ecologic Institute, Öko-Institut
Pfalzburger Straße 43/44
10717 Berlin
Germany

Report completed in:

February 2023

Edited by:
Section V.1.2 Strategies and Scenarios for Climate Protection and Energy; Section V 2.6
Emissions Reduction Projects – Designated National Authority (CDM) / Designated Focal
Point (JI)
Judith Voß-Stemping, Marcel Kruse

Publication as pdf:
http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen

ISSN 1862-4359

Dessau-Roßlau, March 2023

The responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the author(s).
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

Abstract: Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals

On 30 November 2022, the Commission proposed an EU carbon removal certification
framework (CRCF). The proposed framework could undermine the environmental integrity of
EU climate policies. This risk is aggravated by the fact that the EU has not agreed on the role of
removals for the time past the year 2030.
This report assesses the Commission’s proposal for the CRCF and discusses interlinkages of the
CRCF with other pieces of EU climate law. The report provides an overview of the proposal’s
main elements and assesses them. Criteria for assessment include (1) whether the proposal
strengthens EU climate policies, (2) whether it safeguards the integrity of climate policies, (3)
whether it contributes to strong environmental policies and (4) whether it takes account of
other aspects relevant for the uptake of carbon removals, such as energy consumption, cost
saving, and innovations.
Kurzbeschreibung: Zertifizierung von Kohlenstoffentnahmen
Am 30. November 2022 schlug die Kommission eine EU-Verordnung für die Zertifizierung von
CO2-Entnahme (CRCF) vor. Die vorgeschlagene Verordnung könnte die Umweltintegrität der EU-
Klimapolitik gefährden. Dieses Risiko wird dadurch verstärkt, dass sich die EU nicht auf die Rolle
von Kohlenstoffentnahme für die Zeit nach 2030 geeinigt hat.
Dieser Bericht bewertet den Vorschlag der Kommission für das CRCF. Der Bericht gibt einen
Überblick über die Hauptelemente des Vorschlags und bewertet sie. Zu den Bewertungskriterien
gehören, (1) ob der Vorschlag die EU-Klimapolitik stärkt, (2) ob er die Umweltintegrität wahrt,
(3) ob er zu einer starken Umweltpolitik beiträgt und (4) ob er andere für Kohlenstoffentnahme
relevante Aspekte berücksichtigt, wie Energieverbrauch, Kosteneinsparungen, Innovationen und
gesellschaftliche Akzeptanz.

5
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

Table of content
List of figures ........................................................................................................................................... 8
List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................................ 8
Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 9
Zusammenfassung................................................................................................................................. 12
1 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 16
2 The Commission’s Proposal: Main Elements and Assessment ..................................................... 17
2.1 Scope (Article 1) .................................................................................................................... 17
2.1.1 Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 17
2.1.1.1 Voluntary EU framework for certification of carbon removals .................................... 17
2.1.1.2 Use of carbon removal units ......................................................................................... 17
2.2 Definitions (Article 2) ............................................................................................................ 20
2.2.1 Carbon removal (Article 2.1(a)) ........................................................................................ 21
2.2.1.1 Assessment ................................................................................................................... 21
2.2.2 Permanent storage ........................................................................................................... 22
2.2.2.1 Assessment ................................................................................................................... 22
2.3 Certification requirements (Article 3-8) ................................................................................ 23
2.3.1 Quantification ................................................................................................................... 23
2.3.1.1 Assessment ................................................................................................................... 23
2.3.2 Additionality...................................................................................................................... 24
2.3.2.1 Assessment ................................................................................................................... 24
2.3.3 Long-term storage ............................................................................................................ 24
2.3.3.1 Assessment ................................................................................................................... 25
2.3.4 Sustainability ..................................................................................................................... 25
2.3.4.1 Assessment ................................................................................................................... 26
2.4 Validity of certified carbon removal units ............................................................................ 26
2.4.1 Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 26
2.5 Liability .................................................................................................................................. 27
2.5.1 Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 28
2.6 Certification bodies, certification schemes and certification process .................................. 29
2.6.1 Certification bodies ........................................................................................................... 29
2.6.2 Certification schemes........................................................................................................ 29
2.6.3 Certification process ......................................................................................................... 29
2.6.3.1 Assessment ................................................................................................................... 30
6
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

2.7 Power of delegation .............................................................................................................. 30

2.7.1 Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 31
3 Proposal on carbon removal certification: Interaction with EU laws and policies ....................... 32
3.1 Examples of legal interaction ................................................................................................ 32
3.2 Political implications of the CRCF.......................................................................................... 33
4 List of references ........................................................................................................................... 34

7
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

List of figures
Figure 1: Overview of proposed certification process ............................ 30

List of abbreviations
BECCS Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
CAP Common Agriculture Policy
CBs Certification bodies
CCS Carbon Capture and Storage
CCU Carbon Capture and Utilisation
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
CDR Carbon Dioxide Removal
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CORSIA Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation

CRCF Carbon Removal Certification Framework

CSs Certification schemes
DACCS Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage
ECL European Climate Law
ELD Environmental Liability Directive
ESR Effort Sharing regulation
ETS Emissions Trading System
EU European Union
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
GHG Greenhouse gas emissions
LULUCF Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry
NDC Nationally determined contributions
OIMP Other international mitigation purposes
TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

8
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

Summary
On 30 November 2022, the Commission proposed an EU Carbon Removal Certification
Framework (CRCF). The Commission’s proposal is an important initiative for promoting the
implementation of carbon removals within the EU. It aims to help generate additional funding
for removal activities.
However, the proposal remains vague on crucial regulatory aspects. This implies significant
risks regarding the quality of carbon removal units issued under the framework and their use.
Ultimately, the proposed framework could undermine the environmental integrity of EU climate
policies.
In more detail, the proposal raises the following questions:

► Unlimited use of removal units: The proposal contains no explicit rules on the eligible uses
of the removal units – one of the most significant regulatory issues of carbon certification. In
consequence, the units’ use remains unlimited; units can potentially be used for any possible
purpose.

The unlimited use of removal units raises concerns. For climate protection, it is risky to swap
carbon safely stored in coal, gas, or oil in geological reservoirs – which are not subject to
natural reversal risks – with carbon unsafely and temporarily parked in terrestrial
reservoirs, such as in biomass or products which are subject to significant anthropogenic
and natural reversal risks. Relying strongly on removals, rather than reducing emissions,
could also lock in emission pathways that make achieving 1.5 C more difficult and lead to
higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, setting into motion climate tipping points
that cause additional emissions and accelerate climate change. Moreover, an unlimited use,
including for offsetting, raises double counting risks.

For these reasons, the CRCF should prohibit the use of removal units for complying with
emission reduction obligations. In turn, the CRCF should limit the use of removal units to
(1) complying with carbon removal obligations under EU, national or sub-national policies
other than the EU ETS, ESR or LULUCF Regulation, (2) voluntary uses for purposes other
than offsetting, such as contribution claims, and (3) disbursing subsidies and other
incentives. Given the limited availability of sustainable biomass, bioenergy with carbon
capture and storage (BECCS) removals should generally not be eligible for certification
under the CRCF.

► Promoting carbon removals without a sense of direction: The EU has not agreed on the
contributions of carbon removals to its climate policies after 2030. The EU’s climate target
for 2030 limits and clarifies the contribution of removals to target achievement, but the
2050 climate neutrality target is silent on the role of removals, and the 2040 target is yet to
be adopted. Other relevant EU laws, such as the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) or the Effort
Sharing Regulation (ESR), currently do not allow an unlimited use of removals, but there are
already proposals to make carbon removals a currency for meeting obligations under these
rules.

In this context of strategic unclarity, it is risky to promote the use of removal units,
potentially including using removals of any type for offsetting emissions. Without adequate
safeguards that limit the use of carbon removal units and set high standards for their quality,
it is conceivable that the CRCF helps put the EU on a dangerous track that allows it to
substitute emission reductions with removal units. Given the inherent differences between

9
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

removals and reductions, such an approach would undermine the integrity of EU climate
action. Shortcomings in the proposed certification requirements (“QU.A.L.ITY” criteria)
aggravate these risks.

To avoid this, it is critical that the EU clarifies swiftly the contributions of carbon removals to
its climate policies – for example through separate removal targets for removals through
carbon farming as well as geological sequestration for 2040 and 2050.

► Definition of carbon removals: The Commission’s proposal defines carbon removals –

among others – as “the reduction of carbon release from a biogenic carbon pool to the
atmosphere.“ Hence, the proposed definition covers both – emission reductions and carbon
removals. This definition is incompatible with the terminology under the UNFCCC and the
IPCC’s definition, which defines removals as the withdrawal of greenhouse gases from the
atmosphere.

The proposed definition has significant implications. As it includes emissions reductions, it

inflates the number of potentially available removal units. In addition, the proposed
definition does not guarantee that CO2 is effectively removed from the atmosphere, thus
helping to generate negative emissions. This could undermine efforts to achieve negative
emissions as required by the European Climate Law (ECL). The proposed definition also
conflicts with requirements of regulatory clarity as set out in the EU’s Better Regulation
Guidelines.

► Definition of permanence: The proposal defines “permanent carbon storage” as a carbon

removal activity that […] “stores atmospheric or biogenic carbon for several centuries.” It is
yet to establish what “several centuries” means. As significant parts of emitted CO2 stay in
the atmosphere much longer than several centuries, the CRCF should define permanence at
least as the time that CO2 is expected to remain in the atmosphere. In contrast to the
Commission’s proposal, the Clean Development Mechanism’s (CDM) decision on CCS takes a
more prudent approach by considering geological storage as potentially non-permanent. It is
problematic that the Commission’s proposal defines geological storage as permanent while
this is not scientifically established.

► Expiry and validity of removal units: Expiry dates are one way of addressing non-
permanence. For removal activities storing carbon in geological formations, the proposal
sets no expiry date. These removal activities are considered to provide permanent storage –
unlike removals generated by carbon farming or carbon stored in products. As the latter
types of removals only park carbon temporarily, they expire at the end of the monitoring
period.

This system raises questions. If removal units could potentially be used to balance out
emissions, temporary units must be excluded from such use. Alternatively, the CRCF should
explicitly require temporary units to be or constantly renewed for the time that carbon
remains in the atmosphere. The proposal, however, makes no provisions to this end. Also,
strong liability mechanisms for addressing reversals during the monitoring period must be
put in place.

► No legal obligation for long-term storage: Although of great importance, the proposed
rules on long-term storage are incomplete. The proposal contains no legal obligation on
operators to ensure long-term storage. Operators are only obliged to demonstrate that the
removal activity “aims” at ensuring long-term storage. The proposal itself also contains no
definition of “long-term”.

10
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

► Transfer of responsibility to state and externalisation of costs: If the liability rules of the
CCS Directive are applicable to carbon removal and storage in geological formations, the
responsibility for monitoring, compensation and remedies would be transferred from the
operator to the state after the closure of the storage site. Given the large amounts of carbon
that could be stored in geological formations until 2050 and beyond, this transfer of
responsibility could present a significant burden for future generations – in particular if
leakages from geological formations are larger than currently anticipated.

► Quantification of removals through standardised baselines: The proposal’s formula for

the quantification of removals applies a standardised baseline. This baseline corresponds “to
the standard carbon removal performance of comparable activities in similar social,
economic, environmental and technological circumstances […].” If this provision is
understood as the average performance in the sector, it would lack ambition and could imply
that action that is already being undertaken becomes certified, thus undermining the
environmental integrity of the certification framework. Moreover, the proposal does not
specify how consistency of regional baselines with the national level can be achieved.

► Quantification of removals should be conservative, not accurate: International rules

require removals to be determined in a conservative manner, rather than according to the
most accurate estimates. All major carbon crediting programs apply this principle. By
contrast, the proposal does not mention the principle of conservativeness, but stipulates the
use of the most accurate estimates. This is a major weakness of the proposal.

► Delegation of power: The proposal empowers the Commission to regulate the certification
methodology through delegated acts, which includes issues as important as permanence, or
even the use of removal units. According to Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of
the European Union (TFEU), “essential elements“ of a legislative act may not be delegated to
the Commission. Because of the essential importance of the certification methodology to the
CRCF, it is questionable whether the proposed delegation of power is compatible with Article
290 TFEU.

11
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

Zusammenfassung
Am 30. November 2022 schlug die Kommission einen EU-Zertifizierungsrahmen für
Kohlenstoffentnahme (Carbon Removal Certification Framework, CRCF) vor. Der Vorschlag der
Kommission ist eine wichtige Initiative zur Förderung von Kohlenstoffentnahme in der EU. Ziel
ist es, zusätzliche Fördermittel für Aktivitäten zur Kohlenstoffentnahme zu generieren.
Allerdings bleibt der Vorschlag in Bezug auf wichtige regulatorische Aspekte vage. Dies birgt
erhebliche Risiken für die Qualität der Entnahmezertifikate, die in Zukunft vom CRCF
ausgegeben werden und deren Verwendung. Letztlich könnte der vorgeschlagene CRCF die
Umweltintegrität der EU-Klimapolitik untergraben.
Im Detail wirft der Vorschlag die folgenden Fragen auf:

► Unbegrenzte Nutzung von Entnahmezertifikaten: Der Vorschlag enthält keine

ausdrücklichen Regeln für die zulässigen Verwendungszwecke der Entnahmezertifikate –
eine der wichtigsten regulatorischen Fragen der Kohlenstoffzertifizierung. Infolgedessen
bleibt die Verwendung der Entnahmezertifikate unbegrenzt; die Zertifikate können
potenziell für jeden denkbaren Zweck verwendet werden.

Die unbegrenzte Verwendung von Entnahmezertifikaten ist problematisch. Für den

Klimaschutz ist es riskant, Kohlenstoff, der sicher in Kohle, Gas oder Öl in geologischen
Reservoiren (die keinen natürlichen Leckagerisiken unterliegen) gespeichert ist, mit
Kohlenstoff zu vertauschen, der unsicher und vorübergehend in terrestrischen Reservoiren
geparkt ist, z. B. in Biomasse oder Produkten, die erheblichen Risiken unterliegen, durch
anthropogene und natürliche Einflussfaktoren wieder freigesetzt zu werden. Wenn sich zu
stark auf die Entnahme von Kohlenstoff konzentriert wird, anstatt auf Emissionsreduktion,
könnten auch Emissionspfade festgeschrieben werden, die das Erreichen des 1,5 °C Ziels
weiter erschweren und zu höheren CO2-Konzentrationen in der Atmosphäre führen. Dies
könnte wiederum Kipp-Punkte in Gang setzen, die zusätzliche Emissionen verursachen und
den Klimawandel ihrerseits beschleunigen. Darüber hinaus birgt eine unbegrenzte
Verwendung, einschließlich Offsetting, die Gefahr von Doppelzählungen.

Aus diesen Gründen sollte der CRCF die Verwendung von Entnahmezertifikaten für die
Erfüllung von Emissionsreduktionsverpflichtungen ausschließen. Der CRCF sollte die
Verwendung von Entnahmezertifikaten beschränken auf (1) die Erfüllung von
Verpflichtungen zur Kohlenstoffentnahme, die in anderen EU, nationalen oder subnationalen
Gesetzen festgelegt sind, ausgenommen die Emissionshandelsverordnung, die Effort-Sharing
oder die LULUCF Verordnung, (2) die freiwillige Verwendung für andere Zwecke als
Offsetting, z. B. contribution claims (finanzielle Beiträge zum Klimaschutz ohne Anrechnung
auf eigene Emissionsreduktionsziele), und (3) die Bereitstellung von Subventionen und
anderen Anreizen, die an die Zertifizierung geknüpft sind. Angesichts der begrenzten
Verfügbarkeit von nachhaltiger Biomasse sollte Bioenergie mit Kohlenstoffabscheidung und
-speicherung (BECCS) generell nicht für eine Zertifizierung nach dem CRCF in Frage
kommen.

► Förderung von Kohlenstoffentnahme ohne Strategie: Die EU hat sich nicht darauf
geeinigt, welchen Beitrag die Entnahme von Kohlenstoff für ihre Klimapolitik nach 2030
leisten soll. Das EU-Klimaziel für 2030 quantifiziert und begrenzt den Beitrag von
Kohlenstoffentnahme zur Zielerreichung; das Klimaneutralitätsziel für 2050 tut dies nicht,
und für 2040 hat die EU noch kein Klimaziel verabschiedet. Andere einschlägige EU-Gesetze
wie der Emissionshandel oder die Effort-Sharing-Verordnung erlauben derzeit keine

12
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

unbegrenzte Nutzung von Kohlenstoffentnahme. Es gibt allerdings bereits Vorschläge,

Kohlenstoffentnahme zu einer Währung für die Erfüllung der Verpflichtungen im Rahmen
dieser Regeln zu machen.

In diesem Kontext strategischer Unklarheit ist es riskant, die Verwendung von

Entnahmezertifikaten zu fördern, einschließlich der Verwendung von Entnahmezertifikaten
für Offsetting. Ohne angemessene Sicherheitsvorkehrungen, die die Verwendung von
Kohlenstoffentnahmeeinheiten begrenzen und hohe Standards für ihre Qualität festlegen,
könnte der CRCF dazu beitragen, die EU auf einen gefährlichen Weg zu bringen, der es ihr
ermöglichen würde, Emissionsreduktionen durch Entnahmezertifikate zu ersetzen.
Angesichts der inhärenten Unterschiede zwischen Kohlenstoffentnahme und -reduzierung
würde ein solcher Ansatz die Integrität der EU-Klimamaßnahmen untergraben.
Unzulänglichkeiten in den vorgeschlagenen Zertifizierungsanforderungen ("QU.A.L.ITY"-
Kriterien) verschärfen diese Risiken.

Um dies zu vermeiden, ist es wichtig, dass die EU die Rolle der Kohlenstoffentnahme in ihrer
Klimapolitik schnell klärt - zum Beispiel durch separate Ziele für Kohlenstoffentnahme für
2040 und 2050.

► Definition des Kohlenstoffentnahme: Der Vorschlag der Kommission definiert den Begriff
der Kohlenstoffentnahme unter anderem als "die Verringerung der Freisetzung von
Kohlenstoff aus einem biogenen Kohlenstoffpool in die Atmosphäre". Die vorgeschlagene
Definition umfasst somit gleichermaßen Emissionsminderungen als auch
Kohlenstoffentnahme. Diese Definition ist unvereinbar mit der Terminologie der UNFCCC
und der Definition des IPCC, die Entnahme als das Entziehen von Treibhausgasen aus der
Atmosphäre definieren.

Die vorgeschlagene Definition hätte erhebliche Auswirkungen. Da sie auch

Emissionsreduktionen einschließt, bläht sie die Anzahl der potenziell verfügbaren
Entnahmezertifikate auf. Außerdem garantiert die vorgeschlagene Definition nicht, dass das
CO2 tatsächlich aus der Atmosphäre entfernt wird und so zu negativen Emissionen beiträgt.
Dies könnte die im Europäischen Klimaschutzgesetz festgesetzte Verpflichtung zur
Erreichung negativer Emissionen untergraben. Die vorgeschlagene Definition steht auch im
Widerspruch zu den Anforderungen an Regelungsklarheit, die in den EU-Leitlinien für
bessere Rechtsetzung festgelegt sind.

► Definition von Permanenz: Der Vorschlag definiert "dauerhafte Kohlenstoffspeicherung"

als „eine CO2-Entnahmetätigkeit, die [...] atmosphärisches oder biogenes CO2 über mehrere
Jahrhunderte speichert". Es ist noch nicht festgelegt, was "mehrere Jahrhunderte" bedeutet.
Da erhebliche Teile des emittierten CO2 viel länger als mehrere Jahrhunderte in der
Atmosphäre verbleiben, sollte der CRCF den Begriff Permanenz als die Zeit definieren, die
das CO2 voraussichtlich in der Atmosphäre verbleiben wird. Im Gegensatz zum Vorschlag der
Kommission wird in der Entscheidung des Clean Development Mechanismus (CDM) zu CCS
ein vorsichtigerer Ansatz gewählt, nach welchem die geologische Speicherung als potenziell
nicht dauerhaft angesehen wird. Es ist problematisch, dass der Vorschlag der Kommission
die geologische Speicherung als dauerhaft definiert, obwohl diese wissenschaftlich nicht
hinreichend fundiert ist.

► Verfall und Gültigkeit von Entnahmezertifikaten: Verfallsdaten sind eine Möglichkeit, die
Wiederfreisetzung von gespeichertem Kohlenstoff zu berücksichtigen. Für
Entnahmeaktivitäten, bei denen Kohlenstoff in geologischen Formationen gespeichert wird,
sieht der Vorschlag kein Verfallsdatum vor. Diese Entnahmeaktivitäten werden als
13
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

dauerhafte Speicherung angesehen - im Gegensatz zur Entnahme durch carbon farming oder
der Speicherung von Kohlenstoff in Produkten. Da die letztgenannten Arten von Entnahmen
Kohlenstoff nur vorübergehend speichern, verfallen sie am Ende des
Überwachungszeitraums.

Dieses Modell wirft Fragen auf. Wenn Entnahmezertifikate potenziell zum Offsetting von
Emissionen genutzt werden könnten, müssen temporäre Einheiten von einer solchen
Nutzung von vorneherein ausgeschlossen werden. Alternativ müsste der CRCF ausdrücklich
vorschreiben, dass temporäre Einheiten für die Zeit, in der der Kohlenstoff in der
Atmosphäre verbleibt, ständig erneuert werden müssen. Der CRCF enthält jedoch keine
diesbezüglichen Bestimmungen. Außerdem müssen starke Haftungsmechanismen für den
Fall von Umkehrungen während des Überwachungszeitraums eingeführt werden.

► Keine gesetzliche Verpflichtung zur langfristigen Speicherung: Die vom CRCF

vorgeschlagenen Regeln zur Langzeitspeicherung sind zwar von großer Bedeutung, aber
lückenhaft. Der Vorschlag enthält keine rechtliche Verpflichtung für Betreiber, eine
langfristige Speicherung sicherzustellen. Die Betreiber müssen lediglich nachweisen, dass
die Entnahmeaktivität darauf abzielt, eine langfristige Speicherung zu gewährleisten. Der
Vorschlag selbst enthält auch keine Definition des Begriffs "langfristig".

► Übertragung der Verantwortung auf den Staat und Externalisierung der Kosten: Wenn
die Haftungsregeln der CCS-Richtlinie auf Entnahme und anschließender Speicherung von
Kohlenstoff in geologischen Formationen anwendbar sind, würde die Verantwortung für
Überwachung, Entschädigung und Abhilfemaßnahmen nach der Schließung der
Speicherstätte vom Betreiber auf den Staat übertragen. Angesichts der großen Mengen an
Kohlenstoff, die bis 2050 und darüber hinaus in geologischen Formationen gespeichert
werden könnten, könnte diese Übertragung von Verantwortung eine erhebliche Belastung
künftiger Generationen darstellen - vor allem dann, wenn es zu größeren Leckagen aus
geologischen Formationen kommen sollte als derzeit angenommen.

► Quantifizierung der Entnahme durch standardisierte Baselines: Nach dem Vorschlag

soll die Entnahme in der Regel nach einer standardisierten Baseline quantifiziert werden.
Diese Baseline "entspricht der Standard-CO2-Entnahmeleistung vergleichbarer Tätigkeiten
unter ähnlichen sozialen, wirtschaftlichen, ökologischen und technologischen Gegebenheiten
[...]". Wenn diese Bestimmung als durchschnittliche Leistung in der Branche verstanden
wird, wäre sie nicht ambitioniert genug und könnte bedeuten, dass Maßnahmen, die bereits
ohnehin durchgeführt werden, zertifiziert werden könnten. Hierdurch würde die
Umweltintegrität des CRCF untergraben werden. Außerdem wird in dem Vorschlag nicht
erläutert, wie die Übereinstimmung von regionalen Baselines mit der nationalen Ebene
erreicht werden kann.

► Die Quantifizierung der Entnahmen sollte konservativ, nicht exakt sein: Einschlägige
internationalen Regeln verlangen, dass Entnahme konservativ und nicht nach den
genauesten Schätzungen ermittelt wird. Alle großen Zertifizierungsprogramme, die auf dem
Kohlenstoffmarkt operieren, wenden diesen Grundsatz an. Im Gegensatz dazu erwähnt der
Vorschlag den Grundsatz der Konservativität nicht, sondern schreibt die Verwendung der
genauesten Schätzungen vor. Darin liegt eine große Schwäche des Vorschlags.

► Delegierte Rechtsakte: Der Vorschlag ermächtigt die Kommission, die

Zertifizierungsmethodik durch delegierte Rechtsakte zu regeln, was wichtige Fragen wie
Dauerhaftigkeit oder sogar die Verwendung von Entnahmezertifikate umfassen kann.
Gemäß Artikel 290 des Vertrags über die Arbeitsweise der Europäischen Union (AEUV)
14
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

dürfen "wesentliche Elemente" eines Rechtsakts nicht an die Kommission delegiert werden.
Aufgrund der wesentlichen Bedeutung der Zertifizierungsmethodik für den CRCF ist es
fraglich, ob die vorgeschlagene Befugnisübertragung mit Artikel 290 AEUV vereinbar ist.

15
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

1 Introduction
To limit an increase in temperature to well below 2°C or below 1.5°C compared to pre-industrial
levels, drastic and immediate reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are essential, but
likely insufficient. According to the IPCC, effectively all emission reduction pathways that limit
warming to 1.5°C (>50% likelihood) with no or limited overshoot, and those that limit warming
to 2°C (>67% likelihood), assume that CO2 is removed from the atmosphere (Carbon Dioxide
Removal (CDR) (IPCC 2021). The deployment of CDR to counterbalance hard-to-abate
residual emissions is considered “unavoidable” (IPCC 2021).
EU policies and laws recognise the importance of carbon removals. The European Climate
Law (ECL), for example, establishes a legally binding target for the EU to become climate neutral
by 2050. By then, greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and removals regulated in the EU must be
balanced. The ECL also sets an EU net GHG emissions target for 2030 allowing a contribution of
net removals to this target of a maximum of 225 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Furthermore,
the ECL requires the EU to aim at removing more GHG than it emits after 2050. The LULUCF
Regulation and long-term climate strategies of Member States also require the removal of
carbon.
With the Commission's proposal on a Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) of 30
November 2022, the political debate in the EU on carbon removals has entered a new
phase. The Commission proposes a voluntary EU framework for carbon removal certification,
which includes criteria for the certification of removals, rules for the certification process and
the recognition of certification schemes. With this proposal, the Commission intends to support
the effective upscale of carbon removals.
Against this backdrop, this report assesses the Commission’s proposal for the CRCF. The
report provides brief overviews of the proposal’s main elements and assesses them. Criteria for
assessment include (1) whether the proposal strengthens EU climate policies, (2) whether it
safeguards the integrity of climate policies, (3) whether it contributes to strong environmental
policies and (4) whether it takes account of other aspects relevant for the uptake of carbon
removals, such as energy consumption, cost saving, and innovations. In its last section, the
report discusses the interaction of the CRCF with other pieces of EU climate law.
Another report by Ecologic Institute and Oeko-Institut provides a detailed evaluation of the
CRCF certification criteria from the perspective of climate-friendly soil management activities
(McDonald et al. 2023). Accordingly, we do not cover these issues in detail in this paper.

16
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

2 The Commission’s Proposal: Main Elements and

Assessment
2.1 Scope (Article 1)
According to Article 1, the proposal establishes an EU framework for carbon removal
certification. For this purpose, the proposal establishes criteria for issuing carbon removal units
in the EU. The proposal also sets rules for carbon removal certification and for the recognition of
certification schemes. The main objectives of the proposed framework are to ensure that carbon
removal units in the EU are of high quality, to avoid greenwashing and to promote action in
implementing and funding carbon removals within the EU (recitals 3 and 4).

2.1.1 Assessment
2.1.1.1 Voluntary EU framework for certification of carbon removals
The regulation establishes a voluntary EU certification framework. This means that there is no
legal obligation for operators1 or certifiers to use this framework. It does not mean, however,
that the regulation establishes no legal obligations:

► If operators wish to obtain an EU certification under this regulation, they must comply with
the various obligations established by the CRCF.

► The regulation also places obligations on Member States (e.g. supervision of certification
schemes) and on the Commission (e.g. recognition of certification schemes).
2.1.1.2 Use of carbon removal units
The proposal contains no explicit rules on the use of carbon removal units. In consequence,
carbon removal units could be used for any possible purpose. Recital 21 confirms this
interpretation.2
In principle, carbon removal units could be used for several different purposes:

► Compliance use under the EU regulations governing the target architecture: In theory,
it is conceivable that entities under the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) could be allowed
to use carbon removal units to fulfil their obligations.3 Similarly, it is theoretically also
possible that Member States could use removal units to meet their obligations under the ESR
or the LULUCF regulation. Such use is not possible because all three EU regulations do not
allow the use of carbon removal units from the CRCF. In fact, such uses would lead to double
counting of removals and thus undermine the EU climate architecture. This is because

1An operator is any legal or physical person who operates or controls a carbon removal activity, such as farmers, land-user, or
technology plant operators (Article 2.1 d)).
2Recital 21 states “it is appropriate that carbon removal certificates underpin different end-uses, such as the compilation of national
and corporate greenhouse gas inventories, including with regard to Regulation (EU) 2018/841 of the European Parliament and of
the Council, the proof of climate-related and other environmental corporate claims (including on biodiversity), or the exchange of
verified carbon removal units through voluntary carbon offsetting markets (emphasis added).”
3However, Art. 2.1 of the proposal states that the framework does not apply to emissions falling within the scope of ETS Directive,
with the exception of the storage of carbon dioxide emissions from sustainable biomass that are zero-rated by the Directive.

17
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

Member States automatically count these removals in measuring progress towards their
obligations under the EU LULUCF regulation.4

► Compliance use under the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International
Aviation (CORSIA): In theory, it is conceivable that carbon removal units be recognised
under CORSIA. This is, however, questionable because the set-up of the CRCF differs in
several aspects from common carbon crediting programs as recognised under CORSIA.
Moreover, using carbon removal units towards CORSIA would require that the EU authorises
the underlying mitigation outcomes under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement for use towards
other international mitigation purposes (OIMP) in order to avoid double claiming with the
EU NDC. In this case, these removals could no longer be used by the EU to achieve its own
NDC, which could undermine the ability of the EU to achieve its NDC. Indeed, the proposal
does not mention this type of use.

► Compliance use under other EU, national or sub-national policies: As another

conceivable option, the EU, its Member States, or sub-national jurisdictions could adopt laws
that require or allow certain entities to surrender carbon removal units to fulfil other
obligations. For example, operators under the EU Fuel Quality Directive could be allowed to
use carbon removal units to fulfil their compliance obligations regarding the emissions
intensity of transport fuels under the Directive. In this way, the units would become eligible
for meeting the targets under this Directive. The proposal does not mention whether this
type of use is covered.

► Voluntary use for offsetting by companies, institutions, jurisdictions, or individuals:

The carbon removal units could be used by different entities to voluntarily offset their
emissions. This may include companies, administrations such as cities, non-governmental
institutions or even individuals. There is considerable debate among stakeholders on
whether double claiming with nationally determined targets (NDCs) must be avoided for
such type of units to be used for offsetting purposes (Fearnehough et al. 2020). If double
claiming is to be avoided, this would require that the underlying mitigation outcomes must
be authorised under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement for other international mitigation
purposes (OIMP). As a consequence, the underlying removals could no longer be used by the
EU to achieve its own NDC. Moreover, the same removals would be used both by EU Member
States to fulfil their obligations under the EU LULUCF regulations and by the entities using to
the carbon removal units for offsetting. This raises similar concerns as double claiming with
NDCs. The proposal does not mention these matters.

► Voluntary use for purposes other than offsetting: To address double claiming challenges
associated with offsetting, several stakeholders have proposed that such type of units could
be used by companies, institutions, jurisdictions, or individuals to make climate mitigation
contributions, without counting the associated removals toward own goals or targets. These
concepts are also referred to as “contribution claims” or “climate responsibility” (WWF
2021; WWF 2022; NewClimate Institute 2020). This could also entail the development of a
respective label.

► Use as vehicle to disburse subsidies or provide incentives: The removal units could also
be used as a vehicle to help disburse public subsidies or provide incentives. For example,

4 As a result of the removal activities, Member States report higher removal levels in their national GHG inventories and thus also
count these removals under the EU LULUCF regulation. In some instances, removals may not (yet) be visible in national GHG
inventories. However, inventories may improve over time in their granularity and not considering double counting risks in such
instances is not recommended (Schneider et al. 2022).

18
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

subsidies may be provided for each unit that farmers surrender, or farmers may access
certain subsidies under the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) if they also generate and
surrender units. This use does not imply any risk of double claiming.

It is crucial to note that the environmental integrity5 of the CRCF largely depends on the
purpose for which removal units are used. While removal units used for meeting emission
reduction obligations can undermine the integrity of climate policies (see text box below), units
used for other labelling purposes and the disbursement of subsidies are less likely to have such a
detrimental effect.

Carbon removals and the integrity of climate policies

Compared to emission reductions, carbon removals are an inherently weaker way of climate
action as they face challenges that do not apply to emission reductions:

► Permanence: Unlike carbon stored in coal, gas or oil in the ground, storage of carbon in
biomass is only temporary. After certain periods, carbon stored in plants or soils is released
back into the atmosphere. Put differently, while biotic carbon is part of the short-term and
active carbon cycle, fossil carbon sinks are not. These different temporal characteristics of
fossil vs. biotic carbon “represent a fundamental barrier to equivalence” (Carton et al. 2021).
Carbon stored in products faces similar challenges. Atmospheric or biogenic carbon stored in
e.g. building materials will only be kept out of the atmosphere during a building's lifetime.
Utilising carbon in production processes (CCU) postpones the emission of the stored CO2 for
up to several decades (European Commission 2022).
Technology-based removal options promise to solve problems of permanent storage. They can
store carbon for centuries or even longer. However, their long-term impacts are unclear, and
they struggle with biodiversity problems, land use challenges, issues of energy consumption,
as well as high costs and low removal potentials (IPCC 2005). Innovation might solve some of
these problems over time.

► Locking in too high emission levels and risk of earth feedbacks: Relying strongly on removals,
rather than reducing emissions, could lock in emission pathways that make achieving 1.5 C
more difficult. Removals can thus not simply substitute deep cuts in emissions today. If
extensive use of removals today results in in higher overall emissions pathways, this could also
lead to negative earth feedbacks, as higher levels of accumulate in the atmosphere, leading to
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere that are more likely to set in motion tipping
points of the climate systems, which – in turn – can lead to additional emissions and
accelerating climate change (IPCC 2021). Carbon removals cannot simply repair delayed or
foregone emission reductions (Zickfeld et al. 2021).

► Challenges with ensuring high quality of removal units: Compared to emission reductions
from fossil fuels or abatement of non-CO2 gases, the certification of nature-based carbon
removals is challenging. First, data quality of removal activities and their wider environmental
impacts and global implications with regard to leakage and food security is often poor. Second,
the establishment of baselines for some removal activities struggles with significant
uncertainties.

► Inventory visibility: There are significant challenges to make carbon removals visible in
national GHG inventories. First, for carbon removal activities such as DACCS, storage in long-
5 We refer here to environmental integrity in the light of climate policy and follow a definition provided by Schneider and La Hoz
Theuer (2019) who define the term as “no increase in global aggregate emissions”. Environmental integrity would be ensured if the
framework leads to aggregated GHG emissions that are not higher as compared to a situation where the framework was not in place.

19
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

lasting products, rock carbonisation/enhanced weathering or marine geo-engineering, no

quantification methodologies have (yet) been agreed under the IPCC and approved under the
UNFCCC. Second, the allocation of some of the potential removal activities to the different
inventory categories has not yet been clarified. Moreover, for some land-use activities such as
enhancement of soil carbon, the granularity of national GHG inventories is often not sufficient
to ensure visibility (Schneider et al. 2022). Visibility of removal activities in inventories and
allocation to inventory categories is, however, crucial for the EU in order to account these
removals towards achievement of its NDC. While most emission reductions are clearly visible
in national GHG inventories, some removals may not be visible.

► Expected removals could not materialise: Partly linked to issues of data quality, it is
challenging to project the EU’s removals potentials. Significant uncertainties persist, in
particular because of expected and unexpected impacts of climate change or natural
disturbances on the removal capacities of natural sinks. In light of these uncertainties, there is
the danger that emissions continue, while projected removals do not materialise.

Against this backdrop, we recommend that Article 1 should prohibit the use of removal units
for complying with emission reduction obligations or for offsetting purposes. In turn, Article 1
should limit the use of carbon removal units to the following:

► Uses for complying with carbon removal obligations under EU, national or sub-national
policies other than the EU ETS, ESR or LULUCF Regulation, in case those exist,

► Voluntary use for purposes other than offsetting, such as contribution claims,

► Use as vehicle to disburse subsidies or provide incentives.

It is important to limit the use of carbon removal units to these uses not only up to 2030 but also
beyond, as the double counting risks described above would continue to apply after 2030.
Because the purposes for which removal units may be used are an essential element of the CRCF,
the eligible and non-eligible uses should be regulated by the Articles of the Regulation, not
only mentioned in a legally non-binding recital.
Moreover, we recommend establishing targets that clearly separate between emission
reductions and removal. Quantified removal targets for carbon farming approaches as well as
geological sequestration that are separate from reduction targets – such as the EU climate target
for 2030 – can safeguard the integrity of climate policies (McLaren et al. 2019; see below,
chapter 3).
Lastly, defining the eligible uses is an important aspect for setting the QU.A.L.ITY criteria.
For uses other than offsetting, including contribution claims, less stringent standards for
certification may be justified in some areas, as the removal units would not be used for meeting
emission reduction targets. Therefore, the risks for environmental integrity are lower for such
uses. Nevertheless, all four QU.A.L.ITY criteria remain essential to ensure that funding for
removal activities is used effectively and that the activities deliver and do not undermine
broader social and environmental benefits (McDonald et al. 2023).

2.2 Definitions (Article 2)

Article 2 lays down the definitions governing the CRCF, among them definitions of carbon
removal, carbon removal activities, biogenic carbon pools, long-lasting products, and
permanence. This provision is of critical importance.

20
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

2.2.1 Carbon removal (Article 2.1(a))

The proposal defines carbon removal as

► “either the storage of atmospheric or biogenic carbon within geological carbon pools,
biogenic carbon pools, long-lasting products and materials, and the marine environment”, or

► “the reduction of carbon release from a biogenic carbon pool to the atmosphere” (emphasis
added).

Along the same lines, the proposal defines ‘carbon removal activity’ as “one or more practices or
processes carried out by an operator resulting in permanent carbon storage, enhancing carbon
capture in a biogenic carbon pool, reducing the release of carbon from a biogenic carbon pool to
the atmosphere, or storing atmospheric or biogenic carbon in long-lasting products or
materials” (Art. 2.1(b)). In the logic of the proposal, there are three types of carbon removal
activities, i.e.

► ‘permanent carbon storage’ (see definition discussed in 2.2.2, below)

► ‘carbon farming’ (defined in Art. 2.2(h) as “a carbon removal activity related to land
management that results in the increase of carbon storage in living biomass, dead organic
matter and soils by enhancing carbon capture and/or reducing the release of carbon to the
atmosphere”) and

► ‘carbon storage in products’ (defined in Art 2.1(i) as, a carbon removal activity that stores
atmospheric and biogenic carbon in long-lasting products or materials).

Furthermore, it is important to differentiate between ‘certificates’ that merely state conformity

of removals activities with the rules of the CRCF and ‘carbon removal units’ that identify
certified net carbon removal benefits in tonnes of CO2 generated by activities.
2.2.1.1 Assessment
The IPCC defines CDRs as "the withdrawal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere as a result
of deliberate human activities."6 The proposal’s definition under Article 2.1(a) is incompatible
with the IPCC’s definition:

► Reductions vs removals: Unlike the IPCC, the proposal’s definition includes the “reduction
of carbon release from a biogenic carbon pool to the atmosphere.” In other words, the
definition includes reductions of emissions – effectively the opposition of removals: while
reductions only slow down the increase of GHG concentration in the atmosphere, removals
decrease it.

► Carbon releases vs greenhouse gases: The proposal refers to carbon releases, while the
IPCC’s definition is based on GHG. The term “carbon releases” is ambivalent but it seems to
include any carbon containing molecule and thus encompasses carbon dioxide (CO2) and
methane (CH4) and to exclude greenhouse gases that do not contain a carbon atom.

The proposal’s definition of carbon removals has negative consequences:

► Lack of regulatory clarity: The proposal title – ‘Regulation establishing a Union

certification framework for carbon removals’ – states that this legislation is about
subtracting carbon; it is not about adding carbon to the atmosphere (although at a slower

6 https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/faq/faq-chapter-4/.

21
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

pace). Hence, the inclusion of emission reductions in a removal framework undermines

regulatory clarity, as required by the EU’s Better Regulation Guidelines. It also makes an
already complex system even more complex.

► Definition treats all removal options the same: Although the proposal takes account of
the significant differences of various carbon removal options (recital 5), the proposal’s
definition does not. It includes permanent as well as non-permanent removals and treats
them alike in principle. In line with this rationale, Article 1.1(o) any 'carbon removal unit' is
defined as one tonne of certified net carbon removal benefit generated by a carbon removal
activity and registered by a certification scheme.

► Climate neutrality: If carbon removals and emission reductions are mixed, achieving
climate neutrality and net negative emissions becomes more difficult. As removals would
also include avoided emissions according to the approach proposed by the Commission, not
all removals could be used to balance out emissions, blurring the achievement of the ECL’s
climate neutrality target. Moreover, monitoring the pathway towards the EU objective of
climate neutrality and ultimately achieving climate neutrality cannot be verified.

2.2.2 Permanent storage

The permanence of carbon storage is a crucial regulatory item. The proposal defines ‘permanent
carbon storage’ as “a carbon removal activity that, under normal circumstances and using
appropriate management practices, stores atmospheric or biogenic carbon for several centuries,
including bioenergy with carbon capture and storage and direct air carbon capture and storage”
(Art. 2.1(g), emphasis added).
Art. 6.3 stipulates that for carbon farming and carbon stored in products, the carbon stored by a
carbon removal activity shall be considered released to the atmosphere at the end of the
monitoring period.7 These removal activities are thus not considered as ‘permanent’ carbon
storage (see also section 2.3.3).
Pursuant to Article 8.2, the Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts to establish the
technical certification methodologies for activities related to permanent carbon storage, carbon
farming and carbon storage in products.
2.2.2.1 Assessment
Although delegated acts will regulate the details defining permanence at a later stage, the
proposed definition of permanence is likely to remain deficient:

► Duration of storage: Storage of carbon for several centuries – as proposed – would be

significantly shorter than the thousands of years that significant parts of emitted CO2 usually
remain in the atmosphere8, let alone the millions of years that fossil carbon is stored in coal,
gas, and oil in the ground. To take account of this, the proposal should define permanence as
the time that CO2 stays in the atmosphere, not by the vague term “several centuries”.

► Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and Direct Air Carbon Capture
and Storage (DACCS) are not per se permanent: As such, neither BECCS nor DACCS
ensure permanent storage. The storage of carbon in geological formations is associated with

7According to the proposal, ‘carbon storage in products’ means a carbon removal activity that stores atmospheric and biogenic
carbon in long-lasting products or materials (Art. 2.1.(i), emphasis added).
8Inman (2008) citing IPCC (2007): “About 50% of a CO2 increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, and a
further 30% will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years.”
But if cumulative emissions are high, the portion remaining in the atmosphere could be higher than this, models suggest.

22
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

some reversal risks. In contrast to the Commission’s proposal, Parties to the Kyoto Protocol
have recognised that CCS involves material non-permanence risks and have developed a
ruleset under the CDM to avoid, monitor and compensate for any reversals from CCS
activities.

2.3 Certification requirements (Article 3-8)

The proposal stipulates that carbon removals are eligible for certification if they:

► are quantified, resulting in a net removal benefit (Article 4),

► are additional (Article 5),

► aim at ensuring long term storage of carbon (Article 6),

► comply with the Regulation’s sustainability criteria (Article 7), and

► are independently verified (Article 8).

2.3.1 Quantification
The proposal contains various requirements for the quantification of carbon removals:

► Net carbon removal benefit: A carbon removal activity must provide a net carbon removal
benefit, which is quantified according to this formula: Net carbon removal benefit = carbon
removals under the baseline (CRbaseline) – total carbon removals of the carbon removal
activity (CRtotal) – GHG increases due to the implementation of the carbon removal activity
> 0 (Art. 4.1).

► Baseline: In principle, removals are quantified applying a standardised baseline. This

baseline corresponds “to the standard carbon removal performance of comparable activities
in similar social, economic, environmental and technological circumstances and take into
account the geographical context” (Article 4.5). Only in exceptional cases is an individual
baseline applied, which would be “based on the individual carbon removal performance of
that activity” (Article 4.6).

► General quantification requirements: Article 4.4 sets additional requirements for the
quantification of carbon removals. Accordingly, carbon removals must be “quantified in a
relevant, accurate, complete, consistent, comparable, and transparent manner.”

► Uncertainties: Article 4.8 determines that the quantification of the carbon removals shall
account for uncertainties in “accordance with recognised statistical approaches.”
2.3.1.1 Assessment

► Quantification should be conservative, not accurate: The rules for quantification include
any increase in greenhouse gas emissions related to the implementation of the carbon
removal activity. These include direct emissions, such as those resulting from the use of
additional fertilisers, fuel or energy, or indirect emissions, such as those resulting from land
use change caused by displacement of production, also referred to as ‘leakage’. Such rules
should ensure that carbon removal activities result in net positive climate impacts.

International rules under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the Article 6.4
mechanism of the Paris Agreement require that removals are determined in a conservative
manner to address uncertainty and avoid overestimation of emission reductions, rather than

23
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

using the most accurate estimates. All major carbon crediting programmes apply these
principles. By contrast, the proposal does not mention the principle of conservativeness, but
requires using the most accurate estimates. This is a major weakness of the proposal and
sets ambitions lower than what is required under the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris
Agreement and common practice in the carbon market.

► Ambition of baselines: The Paris Agreement stipulates in both Article 6.2 and Article 6.4
that baselines should be set below business-as-usual emissions and be aligned with the goals
of the Paris Agreement. In international negotiations, a key demand of the EU was that all
countries implement ambitious baselines. By contrast, the proposal allows the "standard
carbon removal performance of comparable activities" to be used as a baseline. If this is
understood as the average performance in the sector, this provision could undermine
integrity, as this implies that operators performing better than the average would be eligible
for certification even for activities they are already undertaking. The standardised baseline
should be oriented at ‘Best Available Performance’ of comparable activities and this
benchmark should be updated within short time intervals (e.g. 5-year).

► Carbon removal units: The CRCF proposal is not explicit about the metrics of carbon
removal units. It only uses the term “carbon removal benefit” but not does not explicitly
require the use of “carbon dioxide equivalents”.

2.3.2 Additionality
According to Article 5, carbon removal activity must be “additional”.
To be “additional”, the removal activity must (1) go beyond EU and national statutory
requirements and (2) must take place due to the incentive effect of the certification. As an
additional requirement, the removal activity must be in excess of the baselines that are used for
the quantification of carbon removals (see section 2.3.1 above).
2.3.2.1 Assessment
The proposed standardised baselines (Art. 4.5) raise significant concerns regarding nature-
based removals, as these are unlikely to be additional if compared to standard practices of
comparable activities (McDonald et al. 2023). Products based on biogenic carbon are also
unlikely to be additional as they are common practice in many areas.
For technical removals, the risk of non-additionality is low. While operators of nature-based
removals are subject to various legal obligations that lead to carbon removals, operators of
technical removals do not face such obligations. Neither EU rules nor national rules require them
to engage in activities that remove carbon. Hence, there is no significant risk of non-additionality
due to activities being caused not by the CRCF, but by other policies. Moreover, for products
storing atmospheric carbon (CCU), current EU legislation is limited to fuels produced from
captured CO2 (Directive 2018/2001), so that additionality for other types of products is likely.

2.3.3 Long-term storage

According to Article 6.1, operators must “demonstrate that a carbon removal activity aims at
ensuring the long-term storage of carbon.” The proposal offers no fixed time spans defining
long-term. Instead, the proposal determines that operators must

► monitor and mitigate any risk of release of the stored carbon occurring during the
monitoring period, and

24
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

► be subject to appropriate liability mechanisms to address reversals during the monitoring

period.

Article 8 grants the Commission the right to adopt delegated acts to establish the certification
methods as outlined in Annex 1. Annex 1 does not include further criteria defining “long-term”.
2.3.3.1 Assessment

► No legal obligation for long-term storage: The proposal contains no legal obligation for
operators to ensure long-term storage. Operators are only obliged to demonstrate that the
removal activity aims at ensuring long-term storage. The verb “to aim” indicates that the
legislator does not establish a legal obligation. The Commission only proposes an obligation
for operators to monitor and mitigate risks of release for a defined monitoring period but
does not include an appropriate liability mechanism.

► Liability for achieving long-term storage is unclear: Recital 14 of the proposal lists
several liability mechanisms, including discounting of carbon removal units, collective
buffers or accounts of carbon removal units and up-front insurance mechanisms. All of these
mechanisms have weaknesses and may not be able to guarantee storage for several decades
in practice (Carbon Plan 2021; CCQI 2022a; Badgley et al. 2022). The specific liability
mechanisms to be applied for carbon farming yet remain to be specified. The language in
recitals 13 and 14 also suggests that liability mechanisms may not be compulsory
(“appropriate liability mechanisms should be introduced to address cases of reversal”). It
would be crucial though, to make operators liable for intentional reversals during the
monitoring period. Liability must also be ensured in case operators cease to fulfil their
obligations, e.g. because they terminate a project or go bankrupt. To compensate for
unintentional reversals during the monitoring period (e.g. through storms, droughts or other
instances of force majeure), buffer pools could be put in place. The specific rules for liability
mechanisms need to fulfil high standards to ensure long-term storage (see e.g. CCQI 2022b).

► Short-term storage is not legally excluded: The “long-term” criterion seems to ban the
certification of carbon farming activities or products that store carbon only for the short
term (possibly less than 1 – 3 years). However, as the proposal does not set a legal obligation
to ensure long-term storage, the certification of carbon farming activities or products with
short-term storage remains legally possible. This counteracts the purpose of the framework
to deliver removals that deliver long-lasting mitigation benefits.

2.3.4 Sustainability
According to Article 7.1, carbon removal activities must have a neutral impact on or generate
co-benefits for various sustainability objectives. Article 7.2 lists these objectives, including
climate change mitigation and adaptation, circular economy, pollution prevention and control,
protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems and sustainable use and protection of
water and marine resources.
Recital 15 offers further guidance. This recital states that sustainability criteria for forestry
activities could draw on the EU Taxonomy’s sustainability criteria and on the Renewable Energy
Directive’s sustainability criteria for forest and agriculture biomass raw material. It also states
that activities that harm biodiversity should not be certified, highlighting forest monocultures as
an example.

25
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

2.3.4.1 Assessment
As proposed, the sustainability criteria are vague and have no regulatory effects. They need to be
specified by delegated acts. Going beyond the requirements of the CRCF, delegated acts should
require net positive sustainability impacts of removal activities to be certified. All types of
removal activities eligible under the framework need to be carefully designed to avoid negative
social or environmental impacts (see also McDonald et al. 2023 for further details). Carbon
removal units under the CRCF should include clear and transparent information on their
sustainability impacts in order to communicate the benefits that set carbon farming activities
apart from other types of removals.
The reference to the Renewable Energy Directive’s sustainability criteria for forest and
agriculture biomass raw material is useful. It is important that no backsliding from these rules
occurs.

2.4 Validity of certified carbon removal units

The proposal does not determine fixed periods of validity of removal units. It sets no explicit
expiry dates. Instead, the validity of the certified carbon removals should “depend on the
expected duration of the storage and the different risks of reversal associated with the given
carbon removal activity” (recital 13).
Because removals generated by carbon farming or stored in products are temporary, their
validity should be subject to an expiry date (recital 13). This expiry date matches with the end of
the relevant monitoring period. After the end of the monitoring period, the carbon should be
assumed to be released into the atmosphere (Article 6), unless the operator “proves the
maintenance of the carbon storage through uninterrupted monitoring activities” (recital 13).
For the storage of carbon in geological formations, the proposal seems to assume no expiry
date. According to recital 13, carbon storage in geological formations “provide[s] enough
certainties on the very long-term duration of several centuries for the stored carbon and can be
considered as providing permanent storage of carbon.”

2.4.1 Assessment
The duration of validity of removal units is an essential element of the proposal. The proposed
rules on validity, however, raise concerns:

► No obligation to renew or replace expired removal units: The proposal contains no

obligation to renew removal units after the monitoring period. The proposal only obliges the
certification body to carry out a periodic re-certification but places no obligation on the
operators or any other entity to ensure (constant) renewal of removal units. Moreover, there
is no obligation on buyers to repeatedly purchase new removal units when temporary units
expire.

This is problematic if the unit is used to balance out emissions. As CO2 stays in the
atmosphere for very long periods (see above), it must be ensured that the emissions are
removed for the same period – either through storage in geological formations or through
uninterrupted renewal of removal units for the same period. However, removal units with a
validity of 1000 years or an obligation of uninterrupted renewal for the same period are an
implausible regulatory approach.

► No monitoring period for storage in geological formations and hence no monitoring

and liability obligations: The proposal considers storage in geological formations as

26
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

permanent (recital 13). Presumably for this reason, activities that store carbon in geological
formations are not subject to monitoring periods. This has important implications: according
to Article 6.2, operators must monitor and mitigate risks of carbon releases only during the
monitoring period; similarly, operators are liable for potential leakage only during the
monitoring period. In consequence, it is not clear to what extent operators of activities
storing carbon in geological formations are subject to monitoring, mitigation, and liability
obligations.

► Reversals that occur before the end of the monitoring period are not addressed: If the
certified carbon is released before the end of the monitoring period, the proposal does not
contain specific rules ensuring that the removal unit becomes invalid and/or the reversal is
compensated for.

2.5 Liability
To aim at ensuring long term storage, operators shall be “subject to appropriate liability
mechanisms” (Article 6.2 in conjunction with Article 6.1). According to recital 14, “such
mechanisms could include e.g., discounting of carbon removal units, collective buffers or
accounts of carbon removal units, and up-front insurance mechanisms.”
The Commission is empowered to adopt delegated acts to regulate details of liability.
To avoid double regulation, recital 14 states that liability mechanisms and relevant corrective
measures laid down by the CCS and ETS Directives also apply to leakages from geological
formations. According to Article 34 of the CCS Directive, the Environmental Liability Directive is
applicable in principle.

Liability under the CCS Directive

In principle, an operator of a CCS project remains responsible for monitoring, reporting and
corrective measures until the storage site has been closed (Article 18 of the CCS Directive). The
storage site is closed once the requirements of the storage permit have been fulfilled, i.e. when
the storage sites has been sealed and injection facilities have been removed.

Upon closure of the storage site, the operator’s legal obligations are transferred to the competent
authority or the host state of the storage site. In addition to the closure of the site, this transfer of
responsibility or externalization of costs to the state requires that (1) stored CO2 will be
“completely and permanently contained”, (2) a so-called minimum period has elapsed (to be
determined by the competent authority but generally no less than 20 years), (3) the financial
obligations referred to in Article 20 have been fulfilled and (4) the site has been sealed and the
injection facilities have been removed (Article 18 CCS Directive). ‘Complete and permanent
containment’ is interpreted as the passage of a 10-year period without leakage and conformity
with the storage site’s models (Weber, 2018).

After the transfer of responsibility, obligations of the operators cease – in principle. In cases of
deficient data, concealment of relevant information, negligence, wilful deceit or a failure to
exercise due diligence, however, the competent authority may recover costs from the former
operator even after the transfer of responsibility (Article 18 (7)).

Article 19 of the CCS Directive obliges operators to provide financial securities to ensure that
obligations arising under the storage permit are met. In principle, this financial security remains
valid until the responsibilities of the operator are transferred to the competent authority. The
operator is also obliged to provide a report documenting permanent and complete storage of CO2.

27
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

According to Article 20 of the CCS Directive, Member States must ensure that operators make “a
financial contribution available to the competent authority before the transfer of responsibility.”
This contribution shall cover at least the anticipated cost of monitoring for a period of 30 years
and for other expenses arising from the maintenance of the storage site. Member States decide
details of this financial contribution, taking into account the criteria referred to in Annex I goes
here.

2.5.1 Assessment
Liability for leakage is an essential element of the regulation. The proposal contains a few rules
for carbon storage in products and biomass, requiring an “appropriate system” of liability (see
section 2.3.3 and 2.4). Concerning carbon storage in geological formations, the proposal refers to
the more detailed liability rules of the ETS and CCS Directive.
Against this backdrop, the following questions still require an answer:

► Externalisation of costs for 1000s of years? The proposal contains no rules that would
make operators liable for the time CO2 remains in the atmosphere. If applicable, the CCS
directive would transfer the responsibility of leakage to the state after the closure of the
storage site – i.e. well before CO2 has left the atmosphere. Given the large amounts of carbon
to be stored until 2050 and beyond, this transfer of responsibility could present a significant
burden for future generations – in particular if leakages from geological formations are
larger than currently expected. It should be noted that the durability and long-term
environmental implications of storing carbon in geological formations have not been tested
for long periods.

► Sufficient financial contributions? The CCS directive requires operators to make financial
contributions that cover at least the anticipated cost of monitoring for a period of 30 years
and for other expenses arising from the maintenance of the storage site. Assuming the CCS
directive is applicable to storage in geological formations, this contribution would not cover
costs arising from the leaked CO2 after the transfer of responsibility.

► Preference for a specific liability system? There are different liability systems available
for carbon storage (see above). The proposal gives no preference to specific systems. The
proposal Recital 14 offers some details but has no legal force. It also does not mention
personal liability of operators as another option to ensure liability. In the voluntary carbon
market, no liability system has proven to be able to robustly account for reversals and
ensure permanence for sufficiently long periods.

► Environmental Liability Directive relevant? In principle, Article 34 of the CCS directive

makes the Environmental Liability Directive (ELD) applicable to geological storage of carbon
dioxide. It should be noted, however, that the ELD only applies to “environmental damage or
to an imminent threat of such damage caused by pollution of a diffuse character, where it is
possible to establish a causal link between the damage and the activities of individual
operators” (Article 4.5 of the ELD). Given the diffuse causal link between leakage from
geological storage and climate damage, it is questionable whether the ELD would establish
an additional layer of liability.

► Legal consequences if no appropriate liability system is in place? The proposal

stipulates that the removal activity cannot be certified if no appropriate liability system is in
place. The proposal, however, does not regulate the legal consequences if a liability system
ceases to function after certification but before the end of the monitoring period. It is also

28
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

unclear which the consequences are if the operator does not fulfil the obligation to mitigate
risks of reversal.

2.6 Certification bodies, certification schemes and certification process

2.6.1 Certification bodies
Certification bodies (CBs) play a central role in the CDR certification. The CB conducts the
certification audit and - upon satisfactory verification – issues the certificate. The CB is also in
charge of the recertification of certificates.
To perform these tasks, the CB must be:

► competent to carry out the audits (Art. 10.2(a)),

► independent of operators and act in the public interest (Art. 10.2.(b)),

► accredited by a national accreditation authority pursuant to Regulation No 765/2008 (Art.

10.1.).

The CB concludes an agreement with a certification scheme to carry out certification audits and
subsequently issues certificates. Member States supervise the operation of CBs. In case of non-
compliance, Member States inform the CB and the relevant certification scheme thereof without
delay (Art. 10.4.).

2.6.2 Certification schemes

Certification schemes (CSs) are another central part of the certification process. Operators may
only use CSs that are recognised by the Commission.
According to the proposal, a CS is a scheme managed by a private or public organisation that
oversees the certification of compliance of operators or groups of operators with this Regulation
(Art. 2.1.(k)). CSs must operate on the basis of reliable and transparent rules and procedures set
out in an implementing act (Art. 11.2.). The Commission may repeal a decision recognising a CS
if the CS fails to implement the obligations set out in the implementing acts (Art. 13.3.).
In addition, the proposal obliges CSs to publish a list of the appointed certification bodies (Art.
11.4.) on at least an annual basis, to maintain a public registry of carbon removal activities and
certified carbon removal units. Registries use automated systems (Art. 12.1.). CSs report to the
Commission annually about their operations (Art. 14.1.).

2.6.3 Certification process

The proposal contains a three-step application process (Art. 9):

► First, the operator submits the application for certification submitted to the certification
scheme. The application must contain a management plan which outlines expected total CDR
and carbon removal benefits. The management plan also demonstrates how the removal
activity intends to comply with the Regulation.

► Second, the management plan is submitted to the certification body for certification audit. If
the certification body confirms compliance, it issues a certificate. The certificates must
contain the information set out in Annex II (see below).

► Third, the certified activity is entered into the registry (see below).

29
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

To verify the implementation of the management plan, the certification body carries out periodic
re-certification audits. The re-certification audits are intended to reconfirm compliance of the
carbon removal activity with Articles 4 to 7 and verify the generated carbon benefit. Delegated
acts define the details of the certification methodology, including permanence and other
important elements of the ECRF. Figure 1 illustrates the certification process in detail.

Figure 1: Overview of proposed certification process

Source: Own compilation based on CRCF proposal.

2.6.3.1 Assessment
The proposed certification process raises the question what periodic re-certification means, and
whether implementing acts would be a sufficient basis for repealing certification. The proposed
public registry is an important feature of the CRCF. An essential element that is missing in Annex
II is information about the quantification of certified removals which should be accessible to the
public. Making this information public is currently also common practice in the voluntary carbon
market.

2.7 Power of delegation

The proposal grants the Commission the power to adopt implementing and delegated acts for an
indeterminate period (Article 16.2). According to Article 8, the Commission has the power to
determine the details of the certification methodology and the content of certificates as set out in
Annex II.
The regulation limits the Commission’s power to some extent:

► Scope: The regulation limits the scope of this mandate only in vague terms. When adopting
the delegated act, the Commission must take into account requirements as vaguely defined
as the robustness of carbon removals, recognition of the protection and restoration of
ecosystems, or minimising administrative burden. It must also take into account Annex I,
which includes only broad principles and requirements for necessary content, confirming
the Commission’s wide discretion.

► Process: The regulation also stipulates that the power of delegation may be revoked by the
European Parliament or by the Council at any time. The Commission is required to consult
experts designated by each Member State in accordance with the Inter-institutional

30
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

Agreement on Better Law-Making. Delegated acts only enter into force if Parliament or
Council do not object within a period of 2 months of the notification.

2.7.1 Assessment
According to Article 290 TFEU, the “essential elements “of a legislative act must be reserved for
the legislator. Essential elements may not be delegated to the Commission.
The European Court of Justice has ruled that essential elements include provisions “which are
intended to give concrete shape to the fundamental guidelines of Community policy."9 Accordingly,
the modification of the material, geographical or temporal scope of a basic act constitutes
an essential element of that act.10
Article 16 of the proposal empowers the Commission to regulate the certification methodology
by delegated act. The certification method includes issues as important as permanence and the
use of removal units. Annex 1 is intended to limit the Commission's discretion but it establishes
no meaningful limits due to its broad terminology.
In consequence, it is questionable whether the proposed article 16 is compatible with Article
290 TFEU. It is hard to argue that defining permanence by the Commission is “non-essential”.

9 Judgment of 27 October 1992, Germany v Commission "German sheep meat", C-240, ECR 1992, p. I 5383
10 Legal Service, April 2011: Application of Articles 290 (delegated acts) and 291 (implementing acts) TFEU, 8970/1

31
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

3 Proposal on carbon removal certification: Interaction

with EU laws and policies
3.1 Examples of legal interaction
The CRCF contains procedural rules; it does not set material obligations. As a voluntary
framework, the CRCF introduces no obligation to use removal units. It is a tool to certify carbon
removals.
Because of its procedural and voluntary nature, the CRCF would have no immediate effect on
the implementation of these EU laws:

► European Climate Law: The European Climate Law (ECL) establishes various climate
targets. Among others, these targets require Member States to remove GHG from the
atmosphere – quantified in the case of the 2030 climate target, and unquantified in the case
of the 2050 target. In either case, Member States do not have to certify these removals
according to the rules of the CRCF. For this reason, the CRCF has no immediate effects on the
implementation of the ECL.

► LULUCF Regulation: Like the ECL, the LULUCF Regulation establishes removal targets for
Member States but does not require Member States to certify removals according to the
CRCF. However, CRCF does not necessarily ensure visibility and coverage of certified
removal actions in GHG inventories. Many Member States‘ inventory methods are likely not
sufficiently granular and accurate to actually reflect certified removal activities, lowering the
effectiveness of the CRCF as a policy tool of Member States for increasing removals to meet
national targets.

► Emission Trading Scheme and Effort Sharing Regulation: The EU ETS Directive currently
does not permit the use of removals for complying with the obligations under the ETS
Directive. However, for avoided emissions captured and stored geologically, no allowances
need to be surrendered (Art. 12.3(a) of the ETS Directive), meaning that fossil CCS can
already be used for meeting ETS targets (while they are not occurring at large scale yet).
Deliberations on the role of negative emissions technologies in the EU ETS in the future are
currently ongoing. Article 9 of the ESR allows the use of up to 280 Mt of LULUCF removal for
meeting national targets, but this possibility does not depend on the certification of removals
according to the CRCF.

► Nature Restoration Law: The Commission’s proposal for an EU nature restoration law
includes legally binding restoration targets for various ecosystems across the EU. In
addition, Member States shall set satisfactory levels for various indicators, including carbon
stocks of organic carbon in cropland mineral soils and stocks of organic carbon in forests.
This proposal is currently being negotiated. At this point, the CRCF could support meeting
objectives relevant for carbon stock in soils, but there are no immediate links between the
CRCF and the restoration law – as the restoration law commits Member States while the
CRCF does not.

In contrast to these EU rules, the CRCF would have more direct impacts on the international
negotiations under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. The proposed CRCF is not compatible
with the baselines and quantification rules being discussed in the context of the Article 6
negotiations. The proposed CRCF framework would be weaker than the discussed international

32
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

framework (see above). This discrepancy does not render the CRCF illegal – as it is a voluntary
framework – but it undermines the EU’s position in international negotiations.

3.2 Political implications of the CRCF

Although the CRCF has no immediate effects on EU climate rules, it has significant political
implications:

► Promoting emission offsetting means jeopardising the integrity of climate action: The
CRCF aims to introduce a certification framework at a time when the EU has not agreed on
the role of carbon removals in its overall climate efforts. Apart from the 2030 climate target,
it is unclear to what extent the EU intends to use removals to achieve its climate targets – the
2050 climate neutrality target is silent on the share of permissible removals to balance out
residual emissions, and the EU has yet to adopt a 2040 climate target.

In this context of strategic unclarity, it is risky to promote the use of removal units, including
the use for offsetting of emissions. Without adequate safeguards that limit the use of carbon
removal units and set high standards for their quality, it is conceivable that the CRCF helps
put the EU on a dangerous track that allows it to substitute emission reductions with
removal units. Such an approach would undermine the integrity of EU climate action.

Furthermore, substituting emission reductions with carbon removals could deter required
mitigation (Carton et al. 2021). There are already proposals to make carbon removals a
currency for meeting ETS obligations (Rickels et al. 2022). Such proposals will gain
momentum once removals are certified with the authority of EU law. To safeguard the
integrity of EU climate action, the EU should not establish a framework of removal
certification before a general decision about the role of removals in EU climate efforts has
been made.

► Separate and quantified removal targets necessary: Separate and quantified removal
targets – such as the EU’s 2030 climate target – set the eligible amounts of removals and
residual emissions. As they are transparent and prevent mixing removals and reductions,
they address the concerns of environmental integrity. Their designs facilitate verification,
accountability and – ultimately – the environmental integrity of EU climate policies. This
design contrasts with the EU’s 2050 climate neutrality target – which treats reductions and
removals the same.

It remains to be seen whether or not the CRCF will facilitate the adoption of clearly separate
removal targets for the EU. On the one hand, this seems to be a less likely outcome – given
the low prices of some removal options and strong interests in using such removals to
comply with reduction obligations. On the other hand, the EU’s 2030 climate target already
sets the precedent for such separate targets – an important safeguard for the integrity of EU
climate policies.

33
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

4 List of references
Badgley, Grayson; Chay, Freya; Chegwidden, Oriana S.; Hamman, Joseph J.; Freeman, Jeremy; Cullenward,
Danny (2022): California’s forest carbon offsets buffer pool is severely undercapitalized. In: Front. For. Glob.
Change 5, Artikel 930426. DOI: 10.3389/ffgc.2022.930426.

Carbon Plan (2021): Soil carbon protocols. https://carbonplan.org/research/soil-protocols.

Carton, W.; Lund, J.F.; Dooley, K. (2021): Undoing equivalence. Rethinking carbon accounting for just carbon
removal. Frontiers in Climate 3, DOI: 10.3389/fclim.2021.664130.

CCQI (2022a): Explore carbon credit quality with CCQI's scoring tool. Carbon Credit Quality Initiative (CCQI).
https://carboncreditquality.org/scores.html.

CCQI (2022b): CCQI methodology. https://carboncreditquality.org/methodology.html.

Dautzenberg, G., & Bruhn, T. (2013): Environmental Impacts of Carbon Capture Technologies. An overview of
the state of development, potential side effects and current challenges for science and society. IASS Working
Paper (December 2013). https://www.rifs-
potsdam.de/sites/default/files/files/working_paper_environmental_impacts_of_carbon_capture_technologies.
pdf

European Commission (2022): Impact assessment on the Regulation establishing a Union certification
framework for carbon removals. https://climate.ec.europa.eu/document/ab53e63b-4b85-4d28-ac67-
6bd742506bae_en.

European Commission (2011): Application of Articles 290 (delegated acts) and 291 (implementing acts) TFEU,
8970/1. European Commission, Legal Service.

European Court of Justice: Judgment of 27 October 1992, Germany v Commission "German sheep meat", C-
240, ECR 1992, p. I 5383

Fearnehough, H.; Kachi, A.; Mooldijk, S.; Warnecke, C.; Schneider, L. (2020): Future role for voluntary carbon
markets in the Paris era,
https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/5750/publikationen/2020_11_19_cc_44_2020_
carbon_markets_paris_era_0.pdf.

Inman, M. (2008): Carbon is forever. Nature Climate Change 1, 156–158

https://www.nature.com/articles/climate.2008.122#article-info.

IPCC (2005): IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Prepared by Working Group III of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Metz, B., O. Davidson, H. C. de Coninck, M. Loos, and L. A. Meyer
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA,
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/srccs_wholereport-1.pdf.

IPCC (2021): Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press.

McDonald, H.; Siemons, A.; Bodle, R.; Hobeika, M.; Scheid, A.; Schneider, L. (2023): QU.A.L.ITY soil carbon
removals? Assessing the EU Framework for Carbon Removal Certification’s from a climate-friendly soil
management perspective. Ecologic Institute, Berlin.
https://www.ecologic.eu/sites/default/files/publication/2023/50061-QUALITY-soil-carbon-removals.pdf

McLaren, Duncan P. et al. (2019): Beyond “Net-Zero”: A Case for Separate Targets for Emissions Reduction and
Negative Emissions, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fclim.2019.00004/full.

34
CLIMATE CHANGE Certification of Carbon Dioxide Removals – Evaluation of the Commission Proposal

NewClimate Institute (2020): Our climate responsibility approach

https://newclimate.org/sites/default/files/2020/04/NewClimate_ClimateResponsibiltyApproach.pdf

Rickels, W. et al. (2020): The Future of (Negative) Emissions Trading in the European Union. https://www.ifw-
kiel.de/fileadmin/Dateiverwaltung/IfW-
Publications/Wilfried_Rickels/The_Future_of__Negative__Emissions_Trading_in_the_European_Union/KWP_2
164.pdf.

Schneider, Lambert; La Hoz Theuer, Stephanie (2019): Environmental integrity of international carbon market
mechanisms under the Paris Agreement. In: Climate Policy 19 (3), S. 386–400. DOI:
10.1080/14693062.2018.1521332.

Schneider, L; Weber, F.; Füssler, J.; Moosmann, L.; Böttcher, H. (2022): Visibility of carbon market approaches
in greenhouse gas inventories. Carbon Management 13(1): 279-293.

Weber, V. (2018). Uncertain liability and stagnating CCS deployment in the European Union: Is it the Member
States’ turn? In: RECIEL 27 (2), S. 153–161. DOI: 10.1111/reel.12235.

WWF (2021): Fit für Paris. Ein Leitfaden, wie sich unternehmerische Klimastrategien mit dem Pariser
Abkommen vereinbaren lassen. https://www.wwf.de/fileadmin/fm-wwf/Publikationen-
PDF/Unternehmen/WWF-Leitfaden-Klimastrategien-Fit-fuer-Paris.pdf.

WWF (2022): Fit für Paris. Ein Nachfolgemodell für die CO2-Kompensation: Wie Unternehmen zusätzlichen
Klimaschutz finanzieren sollten. https://www.wwf.de/fileadmin/fm-wwf/Publikationen-
PDF/Unternehmen/WWF-Fit-fuer-Paris-Nachfolgemodell-CO2-Kompensation.pdf.

Zickfeld, K.; Azevedo, D.; Mathesius, S.; Damon, M.H.(2021). Asymmetry in the climate–carbon cycle response
to positive and negative CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change 11(7), pp. 613-617. DOI: 10.1038/s41558-021-
01061-2.

35