Carbon removals are becoming a more prominent feature of net-zero strategies, corporate climate claims and investor conversations. Yet the market has long faced a central challenge: not every tonne described as a “removal” is equivalent.
A tonne stored in geological formations through direct air carbon capture and storage is fundamentally different from a tonne associated with a biological process exposed to reversal risk. The duration of storage, method of measurement, treatment of uncertainty, allocation of liability and quality of monitoring all matter.
The EU’s Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) is an important attempt to bring greater consistency to this increasingly complex landscape.
In February 2026, the European Commission adopted its first voluntary certification methodologies for permanent carbon removals, covering direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS), BioCCS and biochar. The measures build on the CRCF framework and earlier rules governing certification schemes, certifying bodies and audit processes.
For corporate buyers, this development is not simply another regulatory update. It signals a shift from an emerging voluntary market built around competing approaches toward a more structured European framework for assessing quality.
What the framework is trying to solve
The credibility of a carbon-removal credit depends on more than its headline volume. Buyers need confidence that removals are real, appropriately quantified and not overstated. They also need clarity on how long carbon is expected to remain out of the atmosphere and what happens if storage fails.
The CRCF is designed to create common foundations for certification of carbon removals, carbon farming and carbon-storage activities. Its core purpose is to strengthen trust through clearer methodologies, independent certification and more consistent assessment of project performance.
For permanent removals, the focus on methodologies for DACCS, BioCCS and biochar is particularly significant. These approaches differ in technological maturity, feedstock requirements, energy demand, storage durability and cost. A common certification framework does not erase those differences; rather, it makes them more visible and comparable.
Five questions every buyer should ask
Before purchasing carbon removals, companies should look beyond the credit description and ask five practical questions.
1. What is being measured?
A buyer should understand whether the claimed climate benefit reflects gross carbon captured, net removals after lifecycle emissions or another metric. Energy use, transport, feedstock sourcing and leakage can materially affect the final climate outcome.
2. How long is the carbon stored?
Durability is central. Storage that lasts centuries or millennia has a different risk profile from storage exposed to fire, disease, land-use change or other reversal events. Buyers should ensure that permanence claims are specific rather than implied.
3. Is the activity additional?
A credible project should demonstrate that the removal would not have occurred under normal business conditions without the relevant carbon-finance incentive. Additionality is not a box-ticking exercise; it is one of the safeguards against paying for business-as-usual outcomes.
4. Who verifies the result?
Independent validation and verification are essential. Buyers should review the certification scheme, methodology, monitoring arrangements and the status of the certifying body.
5. What happens if the claimed removal is reversed or underdelivered?
Contracts should be explicit about remedies, buffer arrangements, replacement obligations and liability. The quality of a carbon-removal purchase is often tested not when everything goes as planned, but when it does not.
Claims discipline matters
Carbon removals can play a valuable role in climate strategies, especially for residual emissions that remain after robust mitigation. But they should not become a substitute for emissions reduction.
A credible corporate approach places decarbonisation first: reduce absolute emissions, improve energy efficiency, switch to lower-carbon energy and address material supply-chain impacts. Carbon removals can then be considered as a complementary tool for residual emissions or as a contribution to climate action beyond a company’s value chain.
This distinction matters for credibility. Stakeholders are increasingly alert to claims that rely heavily on offsets or removals while underlying emissions continue to rise.
A more mature market requires more sophisticated buyers
The next phase of the carbon-removal market will reward buyers that develop technical and commercial literacy. That means building internal capacity to assess methodologies, engaging specialist advisers where necessary and communicating transparently about the role removals play in a climate strategy.
The CRCF will not remove every complexity from the market. It does, however, offer a more credible reference point for European buyers and project developers.
The message for companies is clear: carbon removals should not be bought as a simple commodity. They should be assessed as long-term climate assets, with quality, risk and claims integrity considered from the outset.
Sources
European Commission, “Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming”: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/areas-action/carbon-removals-and-carbon-farming_en
European Commission, “EU sets world’s first voluntary standard for permanent carbon removals”: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/news-other-reads/news/eu-sets-worlds-first-voluntary-standard-permanent-carbon-removals-2026-02-03_en
Global Environmental Law, “Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming: Recent EU Developments”: https://www.globalelr.com/2026/03/carbon-removals-and-carbon-farming-recent-eu-developments/