EU outlines proposals for certification of carbon farming

Removal includes carbon stored in soils and forests, or CO2 extracted from the air by technology and stored underground or in building materials.

While there are already some voluntary certification schemes that allow project developers to sell carbon removal certificates to companies looking to offset their emissions, Brussels wants to create a more widely used and trusted standard.

Brussels said it will now develop legislation that includes detailed criteria for certain types of extraction, such as farming practices that suck CO2 into natural ecosystems.

The Commission proposes a first EU-wide voluntary certification framework for CO2 removal.

Today’s proposal establishes requirements for third-party verification and certification of carbon removal, the administration of certification schemes and the functioning of registers.

In particular, carbon removal activities must meet four criteria:

• Quantification: Carbon removal activities must be accurately measured and deliver clear carbon removal benefits. The additional carbon removals caused by an activity (compared to a baseline scenario) should outweigh any greenhouse gas emissions caused as a result of carrying out the activity over its entire life cycle. The “net benefit of CO2 removal” should be robustly and accurately quantified.
• Additionality: Carbon removal activities must go beyond standard practices and legal requirements. The preferred method of demonstrating additionality is to establish a “standardized” baseline that accurately reflects standard practices and the regulatory and market conditions under which the activity takes place. A standardized baseline facilitates cost-effective and objective demonstration of additionality and also has the benefit of recognizing the early efforts of land managers and industries that have engaged in carbon removal activities in the past. To ensure ambition over time, the standardized baseline should be updated regularly.
• Long-term storage: Carbon removal activities must ensure that the carbon removed is stored for as long as possible, and the risk of carbon release should be minimized. The certificates will clearly show the duration of the CO2 storage and distinguish permanent storage from temporary storage.
• Sustainability: Carbon removal activities must have a neutral impact on or generate a positive co-benefit to other environmental goals such as biodiversity, climate change adaptation, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, water quality, zero pollution or circular economy. For example, industrial solutions such as BECCS must not lead to unsustainable demand for biomass. The Commission will prioritize the development of tailor-made certification methods for CO2 farming activities that offer significant co-benefits for biodiversity. At the same time, practices such as forest monocultures that have detrimental effects on biodiversity should not be eligible for certification.

carbon farming

The commission said carbon farming encompasses those agricultural practices that remove CO2 from the atmosphere and contribute to the goal of carbon neutrality.

A vivid example is the rewetting of peatlands: raising their water table has several advantages as it helps reduce CO2 emissions, preserves biodiversity, provides ecosystem services related to water purification and contributes to flood control and drought prevention, while trade-offs result Dem Loss of agricultural land could be countered by supporting paludiculture (agriculture in wet conditions).

Other examples of carbon farming practices include:

• Afforestation and reforestation that respect ecological principles conducive to biodiversity, and improved sustainable forest management, including biodiversity-friendly practices and forest adaptation to climate change
• Agroforestry and other forms of mixed farming that combine woody vegetation (trees or shrubs) with crop and/or animal production systems on the same land;
• Use of cover crops, cover crops, conservation tillage and enhancement of landscape features: protecting soils, reducing soil loss from erosion and increasing soil organic carbon on degraded farmland;
• Targeted conversion of arable land to fallow land or set-aside land to permanent grassland.

With certification under today’s proposal, carbon farming could offer farmers a new source of income, the Commission says.

Use of Emission Allowances

The commission said carbon removal certificates can be used for outcome-based rewards from private or public sources. It outlined several examples, including:

Food companies can reward farmers for higher carbon removal resulting from higher carbon storage in soils or other climate-friendly practices such as agroforestry. While farmers benefit from additional income, food companies can credibly document their carbon footprint. Thanks to harmonized certification rules, it will be easier for consumers and investors to compare the climate claims of food companies.

Public bodies or private investors that want to fund innovative carbon removal projects or procure carbon removals – e.g. through reverse public auctions or advance market pledges – can use the certification rules to better compare the offers and reward the projects based on the amount of certified removals.

Regional authorities can fund the creation or expansion of nature parks through the sale of carbon removal certificates, thereby monetizing both climate and biodiversity benefits.

The UN climate science panel has said expanding CO2 removal is “inevitable” if the world is to limit global warming to 1.5C. But removal remains controversial and has been criticized by activists as a way for companies to avoid their emissions while buying carbon removal credits or investing in technology that promises to remove carbon in the future.

Wijnand Stoefs, head of carbon removals at campaign group Carbon Market Watch, said the EU proposal was a “necessary first step” but left many questions unanswered – including how certified removals will ultimately be integrated into governments’ climate targets.

“We don’t know where these things end up,” he said. “[The proposal] doesn’t really give us the details of what that’s going to look like – what the governance framework, the institutional framework actually looks like.”

Additional reporting Reuters