The key to scaling greenhouse gas removals? Robust monitoring, reporting, and verification
As reports of low-quality carbon credits abound, MRV frameworks must be carefully developed and judiciously implemented, writes the Grantham Research Institute’s Leo Mercer
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) this month released its Sixth Assessment synthesis report, which makes another urgent call for nations to implement rapid and deep cross-sectoral emissions cuts to limit global temperature rise to 1.5C and no more than 2C above pre-industrial levels.
Alongside a call for emission cuts, the IPCC has affirmed the need for greenhouse gas removal (GGR) – also commonly referred to as carbon dioxide removal – to support near-term decarbonisation goals, and to ‘neutralise’ residual emissions from aviation, agriculture, long-distance transportation, heavy industry and baseload electricity post-2050.
The extent to which GGR will play a part in global climate change mitigation efforts was made apparent in a 2022 IPCC report which called for 100 to 1000 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 to be removed from the atmosphere by 2100. These include biological methods of GGR such as afforestation or bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS), chemical methods such as direct air capture (DAC) and geochemical methods such as enhanced rock weathering.
The scientific consensus is clear that removal efforts must not come at the expense of deep, economy-wide decarbonisation. Furthermore, political and financial support for GGR must not blind policymakers to the risks inherent to individual GGR techniques – for instance, the high reversibility risks associated with forest plantations, or promising but under-researched approaches such as ocean alkalinity enhancement.
Unfortunately, the multi-decadal delays in implementing emission cuts leave no alternative but to pursue emissions reductions and removals in parallel. Although there is evidence that GGRs such as DAC and BECCS can permanently remove emissions for periods of 10,000 years or longer through mineralisation or subsurface injection, these techniques remain controversial. Notwithstanding these challenges, momentum is gathering for GGR.
It is estimated that between 2020 and 2022, governments worldwide contributed $4bn towards GGR research, development and demonstration and private capital contributed a further $200m over this period. Despite these substantial finance flows, there are significant challenges in scaling up GGR activity (largely from land-based removal) from current levels of 2GtCO2 per year in 2022.
Developments in this sector are relevant to the UK as the government’s 2021 Net Zero Strategy set a target that GGR contributes at least five MtCO2 removal per year by 2030. The Climate Change Committee estimates that removals will need to be operating at between 75 and 145 MtCO2 per year by 2050 to achieve the UK’s net zero target.
The role and risks of monitoring, reporting and verification
Monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) frameworks are increasingly seen as a GGR ‘market shaper’, in other words a targeted intervention that addresses a market failure, thus removing a scaling obstacle. They are also important for gaining widespread public acceptance of, and trust in, GGR as a valid climate mitigation option. MRV involves a multi-step process to measure the emissions removed – whether from biochar, mangrove restoration, or DAC – and certify that these removals are indeed real, additional, verifiable and permanent. These findings are then reported to an accredited third party who certifies that the removal methodology has been completed according to the relevant MRV protocol.
However, poor MRV can also result in the certification of non-additional, non-permanent, high-leakage carbon credits, for instance credits that displace polluting activities, subsidise an activity that was going to happen irrespective of carbon finance or do not result in real or permanent emission reductions. Recent reporting by The Guardian, Die Zeit and SourceMaterial indicated that MRV for certain REDD+ projects has substantive flaws and resulted in systematic over-crediting of rainforest conservation projects. Experience from the Kyoto Protocol’s Joint Implementation Initiative, and the estimated 75 per cent of ‘hot air’ carbon credits arising from this mechanism, provides another cautionary tale for what can occur if MRV is not carefully developed and judiciously implemented.
It is in the interest of the whole GGR industry to ensure that where claims of ‘permanent’ CO2 removal are made, that they are indeed permanent – and that MRV frameworks can provide assurance of this permanence over a minimum period of 100 to 1000 years. The risk of inaccurate or poorly designed MRV frameworks undermines confidence in the market, halts capital flows, and stymies innovation and policy development which will ultimately slow global mitigation efforts.
Although the importance of MRV has been recognised, the ecosystem is crowded, complex and evolving rapidly. This not only raises questions about oversight and quality, but navigating this landscape also becomes more challenging for regulators, policymakers and developers.
To support MRV development, there is a need for coordination between GGR project developers, researchers, and policymakers to identify gaps in coverage and risks in existing MRV methods, and to promote better knowledge circulation. Beyond this, policymakers need to continue to clearly signal their priorities, both through the provision of R&D funding and publishing of policy statements, so that GGR and MRV innovators can better respond to the challenge of scaling.
Action on integrity
Efforts to improve the integrity of removals have begun at the national and supranational level with the European Union convening an expert group to develop a Carbon Removal Certification Framework to certify high quality GGR.
The GGR industry itself is showing maturity as various start-ups and intermediaries have recently coalesced to form the Carbon Removal Alliance, which seeks to “promote technology inclusive policies that will foster and support GGR growth”.
These developments are timely, as without well-developed MRV, project developers will not be able to deliver the billions of tonnes of CO2 removals needed by 2050. As the IPCC has made clear, we cannot focus climate mitigation efforts entirely on removals, but without GGR – and certainly without strong MRV – the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C by 2050 will be dangerously out of reach.
Leo Mercer is policy analyst at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics
