Considerations on COM(2022)672 - Union certification framework for carbon removals - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2022)672 - Union certification framework for carbon removals. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2022)672  |
| date | November 27, 2024 |
(2) On a global scale, the reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) point towards a decreasing likelihood of limiting global warming to 1,5 oC unless rapid and deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions occur throughout the remainder of this decade and in the coming decades. The IPCC reports also clearly state that the deployment of carbon dioxide (CO2) removal to counterbalance hard-to-abate residual emissions is unavoidable if net-zero CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions are to be achieved. This will require the large-scale deployment of sustainable activities for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere and durably storing it in geological, terrestrial or marine reservoirs, including oceans, or in long-lasting products. Today and with current policies, the Union is not on track to deliver the required carbon removals: carbon removals in terrestrial ecosystems have been decreasing in recent years, and no significant industrial carbon removals are currently taking place in the Union.
(3) The aim of this Regulation is to develop a voluntary Union certification framework for permanent carbon removals, carbon farming and carbon storage in products (the ‘Union certification framework’), with a view to facilitating and encouraging the uptake of high-quality carbon removals and soil emission reductions, in full respect of the Union’s biodiversity and the zero-pollution objectives, as a complement to sustained emission reductions across all sectors. The Union certification framework will thus be a tool to support the achievement of the Union objectives under the
Paris Agreement, in particular the collective achievement by 2050 of the climate-neutrality objective laid down in Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5). All carbon removals and soil emission reductions certified under the Union certification framework should contribute to the achievement of the Union’s nationally determined contribution (NDC) and its climate objectives. Therefore, in order to avoid double counting, those carbon removals and soil emission reductions should not contribute to third-party NDCs or international compliance schemes. The Union also committed to generating negative emissions after 2050. An important instrument to enhance carbon removals in terrestrial ecosystems is Regulation (EU) 2018/841 of the European Parliament and of the Council (6) on the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions and removals from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) in the 2030 climate and energy framework, which sets out a Union target for net removals of 310 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent by 2030 and allocates targets to each Member State.
(4) In its communication of 6 February 2024 entitled ‘Towards an ambitious Industrial Carbon Management for the EU’, the Commission envisages assessing overall objectives for carbon removal needs in line with the Union’s 2040 climate ambition and the goal to reach climate neutrality by 2050 and negative emissions thereafter; developing policy options and support mechanisms for industrial carbon removals, including if and how to account for them in the Union emissions trading system; and in parallel, boosting Union research, innovation and early-of-a-kind demonstration for novel industrial technologies to remove CO2 under Horizon Europe, the framework programme for research and innovation established by Regulation (EU) 2021/695 of the European Parliament and of the Council (7), and the Innovation Fund established by Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (8). In addition, it is appropriate that the Commission assess options for Union targets for carbon removals, including clearly setting a separate target for permanent carbon removals.
(5) A harmonised Union certification framework is expected to enhance the environmental integrity and transparency of permanent carbon removals, carbon farming and carbon storage in products and promote trust in their certification, while reducing the associated administrative costs. The voluntary nature of the Union certification framework means that existing and new public and private certification schemes will be able to apply for recognition by the Commission under this Regulation but will not be obliged to do so in order to operate in the Union.
(6) Regulation (EU) 2021/1119 also sets out a binding Union climate target of a domestic reduction of net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55 % compared to 1990 levels by 2030. In order to ensure that sufficient mitigation efforts are deployed up to 2030, the contribution of net removals to the Union 2030 climate target is limited to 225 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent.
(7) The Union certification framework will support the development of permanent carbon removals, carbon farming and carbon storage in products in the Union that result in an unambiguous positive climate impact, while avoiding greenwashing. In the case of carbon farming, the Union certification framework should also promote the uptake of activities that generate co-benefits for biodiversity, thereby contributing to achieving the nature restoration targets set out in Union law.
(8) It is appropriate that the Union certification framework also encourage research and innovation, including by emphasising the role of relevant research programmes, with the aim of facilitating access to the market for new technologies. In this regard, the Commission and the Member States are encouraged to engage in cross-disciplinary cooperation, involving national and regional research institutions, scientists, farmers and small and medium-sized enterprises.
(9) In order to support operators willing to make additional efforts to increase carbon removals or reduce soil emissions in a sustainable way, the Union certification framework should take into account the different types of activities, their specificities and the related environmental impact. Therefore, this Regulation should provide clear definitions of permanent carbon removals, carbon farming and carbon storage in products, and other elements of the Union certification framework. Its scope should include activities that enhance carbon storage in geological, terrestrial or marine reservoirs, including oceans, and in long-lasting products. Activities should include one or more practices or processes that remove carbon from the atmosphere. Certain activities, such as those based on the use of biochar, can result in different types of net carbon removal benefits and durations of carbon storage, depending on the specific conditions under which the activities take place. Accordingly, appropriate monitoring and liability rules should be set out in the applicable certification methodologies to be established at Union level pursuant to this Regulation.
(10) In the case of carbon farming, relevant activities can include practices and processes carried out in marine and coastal ecosystems. Relevant activities can also include practices or processes that reduce greenhouse gas emissions from soils or result in the reduction of carbon release into the atmosphere from soil carbon pools as listed in Section B, points (e) and (f), of Annex I to Regulation (EU) 2018/841, as is the case, for instance, for activities that improve soil management or restore degraded peatlands. In addition, reductions of emissions from agricultural soils, corresponding to the emissions from the IPCC source category of agriculture, subcategory of agricultural soils, as reported in table 3.D of the common reporting format tables under the UNFCCC reporting guidelines on annual inventories for Parties included in Annex I to that Convention, should also be included in the quantification of carbon farming activities as long as those emission reductions result from an activity that, overall, reduces the emission of carbon from soil carbon pools or increases carbon removals in biogenic carbon pools. On the contrary, activities which do not result in either carbon removals or soil emission reductions, such as avoided deforestation projects or renewable energy projects, should not be included in the scope of the Union certification framework.
(11) This Regulation should set out the requirements under which carbon removals and soil emission reductions are eligible for certification under the Union certification framework. To that end, carbon removals and soil emission reductions should be quantified in an accurate and robust way, and should be generated only by activities that generate a net carbon removal benefit or a net soil emission reduction benefit, are additional and aim to ensure long-term storage of carbon. They should do no significant harm to the environment and should be able to result in a co-benefit in relation to sustainability objectives. Carbon removals and soil emission reductions should be subject to independent third-party auditing carried out by certification bodies in order to ensure the credibility and reliability of the certification process. Furthermore, this Regulation should set out rules on the issuance and use of certified units.
(12) Mandatory Union carbon pricing rules established through Directive 2003/87/EC regulate the treatment of emissions from activities covered by that Directive. This Regulation should be without prejudice to Directive 2003/87/EC, except in relation to the certification of capture and storage of CO2 emissions from biofuels, bioliquids and biomass fuels that meet the sustainability and greenhouse gas emissions saving criteria established under Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (9), with any necessary adjustments for application under Directive 2003/87/EC, as set out in the implementing acts referred to in Article 14 of Directive 2003/87/EC, in accordance with Annex IV to Directive 2003/87/EC.
(13) An activity should result in a net carbon removal benefit or a net soil emission reduction benefit, thereby showing that it delivers a positive climate impact. The net carbon removal benefit or the net soil emission reduction benefit should be quantified following two steps.
(14) In the first step for quantifying the net carbon removal benefit or the net soil emission reduction benefit, operators should quantify the amount of additional carbon removals or soil emission reductions that an activity has generated in comparison to a baseline. In the case of carbon farming, the manner of quantification of carbon removals or soil emission reductions should ensure that any carbon release occurring in a carbon pool is taken into account in an
appropriate way in quantifying the net benefit of the activity. The certification methodologies should establish standardised baselines which should be highly representative of the standard performance of comparable practices and processes in similar social, economic, environmental, regulatory and technological circumstances and take into account the geographical context, including local pedoclimatic and regulatory conditions. This approach to establishing the standardised baselines should be preferred because it ensures objectivity, minimises compliance and other administrative costs, and recognises positively the action of first movers who have already engaged in eligible activities. In the context of carbon farming, only practices and processes that go beyond the common practice should be certified. Therefore, a specific carbon farming activity should not be rewarded if it is already widely adopted within a region with similar pedoclimatic and regulatory conditions. The standardised baselines should ensure that, once an activity becomes the common practice, such activity can no longer be certified. To that end, the Commission should review at least every five years and update, where appropriate, the standardised baselines in light of evolving regulatory circumstances and of the latest available scientific evidence, to reflect social, economic, environmental, regulatory and technological developments and to encourage increased ambition over time in line with the Paris Agreement. In addition, the use of available digital technologies, including electronic databases and geographic information systems, remote sensing, novel on-site carbon quantification systems, artificial intelligence and machine learning, and of electronic maps should be promoted to decrease the costs of establishing standardised baselines and ensure the robustness of the monitoring of the activities. However, where it is not possible to set such standardised baselines, an activity-specific baseline based on the operator’s individual performance should be used. The activity-specific baselines should be updated by the operator at the beginning of each activity period, unless otherwise stated in the applicable certification methodologies.
(15) The second step for quantifying the net benefit should consist of subtracting any associated greenhouse gas emissions occurring during the lifecycle of the activity and related to the implementation of the activity. Relevant greenhouse gas emissions that should be taken into consideration include direct emissions, such as those resulting from the use of fertilisers, chemicals, fuel or energy, other material inputs and transportation, or indirect emissions, such as those resulting from land use change with consequent risks for food security due to displacement of agricultural production, or displacement effects due to competing demand for energy or waste heat. Any increase in greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the implementation of the activity should be subtracted from the net carbon removal benefit or from the net soil emission reduction benefit in an appropriate way, in accordance with the technical rules set out in the applicable certification methodology. Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the implementation of the activity, with the exception of the reduction of soil emissions from agricultural soils, should not be taken into account to quantify the net carbon removal benefit or the net soil emission reduction benefit, but should be considered to provide a co-benefit towards the sustainability objective of climate change mitigation and be reported on the certificates of compliance. Such reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, like the other sustainability co-benefits, could increase the value of the certified carbon removals or soil emission reductions.
(16) Operators carrying out activities covered under this Regulation should include any natural or legal person or public entity operating or controlling an activity, or to which or to whom decisive economic power over the technical functioning of the activity has been delegated. In the case of carbon farming, the definition of ‘operator’ should apply to ‘farmer’ as defined in Article 3, point (1), of Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council (10), to any other manager of an activity in a terrestrial or coastal environment, to a forest owner or manager as defined by national law, or to a competent public entity. ‘Group of operators’ should cover any legal entity that represents at least two operators, including cooperatives or producer organisations or producer groups, and ensures that those operators comply with this Regulation.
(17) An activity delivers a net carbon removal benefit when the carbon removals above the baseline exceed any increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with the implementation of that activity. For instance, in the case of permanent carbon removals that inject carbon underground, the amount of permanently stored carbon should
exceed the energy-related greenhouse gas emissions from the industrial process. Similarly, in the case of soil emission reductions through carbon farming, the net soil emission reduction benefit is positive if the soil emission reductions compared to the baseline exceed any increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with the implementation of the activity. Carbon farming activities generally improve soil quality, which has a positive impact on soil resilience and productivity, but in some circumstances they might also generate a decrease in food production and therefore lead to a carbon leakage effect from indirect land use change, and accordingly the related indirect emissions should be taken into account. Any carbon captured and stored by afforestation or soil emission reduction by means of peatland re-wetting should exceed the emissions from the machinery used to carry out the activity or the indirect land use change emissions that could be caused by carbon leakage.
(18) Carbon removals and soil emission reductions, as well as the corresponding direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions associated, should be quantified in a relevant, conservative, accurate, complete, consistent, transparent and comparable manner. Uncertainties in the quantification should be duly reported and accounted for in a conservative manner in order to limit the risk of overestimating the quantity of CO2 removed from the atmosphere or of underestimating the quantity of direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions generated by an activity. Temporary carbon removals and soil emission reductions generated by carbon farming should be quantified with a high level of accuracy to assure the highest quality and minimise uncertainties; and they should be based, where feasible, on the use of tier 3 methodologies in accordance with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories and any further refinement to these 2006 IPCC Guidelines. Moreover, in order to incentivise synergies between Union climate and biodiversity objectives, enhanced monitoring of land needs to be required, thereby helping to protect and enhance the resilience of nature-based carbon removals throughout the Union. The monitoring of emissions and removals needs to closely reflect those synergies, should be based on an appropriate combination of on-site measurements with remote sensing or modelling in accordance with rules set out in the applicable certification methodology, should make the best use of advanced technologies available under Union programmes, such as in the Copernicus component of the Union Space Programme established by Regulation (EU) 2021/696 of the European Parliament and of the Council (11), should make full use of already existing tools, and should ensure consistency with the national greenhouse gas inventories.
(19) In the choice of methods relevant to the calculations of greenhouse gas emissions and removals, a conservative approach should be applied in line with the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventory estimates, where applicable. This means that the methods used should result in conservative emission or removal estimates so that emissions are not underestimated and removals are not overestimated.
(20) The Union certification framework should incentivise activities that are additional, meaning that they go beyond the standard practice. Therefore, those activities should go beyond statutory requirements at the level of an individual operator, that is, operators should carry out activities that are not already imposed upon them by the applicable law. Moreover, activities should become financially viable due to the incentive effect of the certification. Such effect is present when the incentive created by the potential revenues resulting from the certification changes the behaviour of operators in such a way that they engage in the additional activity to achieve additional carbon removals or soil emission reductions.
(21) A standardised baseline should reflect the statutory and market conditions in which the activity takes place. If an activity is imposed upon operators by the applicable law, or it does not need any incentives to take place, its performance will be reflected in such standardised baselines. For this reason, an activity that generates carbon removals or soil emission reductions in excess of such a baseline should be presumed to be additional. Hence, the use of a standardised baseline would simplify the demonstration of additionality for operators, and it would reduce the administrative burden of the certification process, which is particularly important in the case of small-scale operators.
(22) Atmospheric or biogenic carbon that is captured and stored through permanent carbon removals, carbon farming or carbon storage in products risks being released back into the atmosphere due to natural or anthropogenic causes. Therefore, operators should take all relevant preventive measures to mitigate those risks and duly monitor whether
carbon continues to be stored over the monitoring period set for the relevant activity. The validity of the certified unit should depend on the expected duration of the storage and the different risks of reversal associated with the given activity. Permanent carbon removals provide enough certainties as to the very long-term duration of storage, namely a duration of several centuries. Products with permanently chemically bound carbon present a very low or no risk of carbon release. Carbon farming and carbon storage in products are more exposed to the risk of voluntary or involuntary release of carbon into the atmosphere. To account for that risk, the validity of the carbon farming sequestration unit and the carbon storage in product unit should be subject to an expiry date coinciding with the end of the relevant monitoring period, which should cover at least 35 years for carbon storage in products. Thereafter, the carbon captured and stored should be considered released into the atmosphere, unless the operator or group of operators commits to prolonging the monitoring period. The certification methodologies should promote the prolongation of the monitoring period of the relevant carbon farming activities, with the aim of ensuring that CO2 captured is stored long-term in soils or biomass and of providing financial incentives to carbon farming operators over the long term. To that end, it is appropriate that the certification methodologies incentivise operators to prolong the monitoring period several times, with the aim of storing captured carbon for at least several decades.
(23) In addition to measures taken to minimise the risk of carbon release into the atmosphere during the monitoring period, the certification methodologies should include appropriate liability mechanisms to address cases of reversal. The certification methodologies should also include rules to address the risk of failure of the liability mechanisms. Such mechanisms could include collective buffers and up-front insurance mechanisms. In order to avoid double regulation, liability mechanisms in respect of geological storage and CO2 leakage, and relevant corrective measures, laid down by Directive 2003/87/EC and Directive 2009/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (12), should apply. In addition, to ensure regulatory consistency, the applicable certification methodologies should include monitoring rules and liability mechanisms which are consistent with the rules concerning permanently chemically bound carbon in products laid down in delegated acts adopted pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC.
(24) Permanent carbon removal, carbon farming and carbon storage in product activities have a strong potential to deliver win-win solutions for sustainability, even if trade-offs cannot be excluded. Therefore, it is appropriate to establish minimum sustainability requirements to ensure that those activities do no significant harm to the environment and are able to generate co-benefits for the objectives of: climate change mitigation and adaptation; the protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems, including soil health and avoidance of land degradation; the sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources; the transition to a circular economy, including the efficient use of sustainably sourced bio-based materials; and pollution prevention and control. Carbon farming activities should at least generate co-benefits for the objective of protection and restoration of biodiversity and eco-systems, including soil health as well as avoidance of land degradation. Those minimum sustainability requirements should take into account the impact of the activity both within and outside the Union as well as local conditions, and, where appropriate, be consistent with the technical screening criteria for the ‘do no significant harm’ principle, and be in line with the sustainability and greenhouse gas emissions saving criteria for forest and agriculture biomass raw material laid down in Directive (EU) 2018/2001. Practices that produce harmful effects on biodiversity, such as forest monocultures producing harmful effects on biodiversity, should not be eligible for certification.
(25) Farming and forestry practices that remove CO2 from the atmosphere or reduce soil emissions contribute to the climate-neutrality objective and should be rewarded, via the common agricultural policy or other public or private initiatives. Specifically, this Regulation should take into account farming and forestry practices as referred to in the Commission communication of 15 December 2021 on Sustainable Carbon Cycles, including afforestation, reforestation and sustainable forest management activities; agroforestry and other forms of mixed farming; use of catch crops, cover crops, conservation tillage and increasing landscape features; conversion of cropland to fallow or of set-aside areas to permanent grassland; and restoration of peatlands and wetlands. When developing certification methodologies in the context of carbon farming, the Commission should take into account the need to contribute to
ensuring food security, the need to promote the protection and the restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems, and the need to avoid the acquisition of land for speculative purposes resulting in negative effects on rural communities, as well as the need to respect the rights of local communities and indigenous people affected by those activities, where relevant in accordance with national law, both within and outside the Union. It should promote those activities that have the largest potential to provide positive co-benefits for biodiversity, as well as consider long-term forest structure, the long-term stability of carbon pools, ecosystem health, resilience and the risk of natural disturbances.
(26) Operators or groups of operators should be able to report co-benefits that contribute to the sustainability objectives beyond the minimum sustainability requirements. To that end, their reporting should comply with the certification methodologies tailored to the different carbon removal activities, developed by the Commission. Certification methodologies should, as much as possible, incentivise the generation of co-benefits for biodiversity going beyond the minimum sustainability requirements, with a view to generating a market premium for the certified units, by including, for instance, positive lists of activities that are deemed to generate co-benefits. Those additional co-benefits would give more economic value to the certified units and would result in higher revenues for the operators. In the light of those considerations, it is appropriate that the Commission prioritise the development of tailored certification methodologies for carbon farming activities that provide significant co-benefits for biodiversity, and contribute to the sustainable management of agricultural land and forests.
(27) The Commission should establish, by means of delegated acts, detailed certification methodologies for the different types of activities provided for in this Regulation, taking into account their specific characteristics in order to enable operators to apply, in a standardised, verifiable, cost-effective and comparable way, the quality criteria laid down in this Regulation. Those methodologies should ensure the robust and transparent certification of the net carbon removal or net soil emission reduction benefit generated by the activity, while avoiding a disproportionate administrative burden on operators or groups of operators, in particular on small farmers and small forest owners and managers, in particular by allowing the use of simplified certification and auditing rules such as group auditing. Those methodologies should be developed in close consultation with the Expert Group on Carbon Removals established by the Commission and with all other interested actors. The methodologies should be based on the best available scientific evidence, build upon existing public and private schemes and methodologies for certification of carbon removals or soil emission reductions, and take into account any relevant standards and rules adopted at Union and national level.
(28) Given the need to rapidly scale up carbon removals in the Union, the Commission should, at the first stage of the development of certification methodologies, prioritise the following activities: activities that are the most mature, that can provide sustainability co-benefits or in respect of which Union law relevant for the development of those methodologies has already been adopted; carbon farming activities that contribute to the sustainable management of agricultural land, forests, and the marine environment, as well as activities that store carbon in wood-based and bio-based construction products. The Innovation Fund sets out rules relevant for the development of certification methodologies for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage and direct air capture. In order to avoid an unsustainable demand for biomass raw material, the financial benefits related to the certification should not lead to an increase of the capacity of a bioenergy plant beyond what is necessary for the operation of the carbon capture and storage. It is appropriate that certification methodologies related to activities storing carbon in the marine environment, including oceans, take into account international progress in carbon removal reporting and the latest scientific information available and, when available, the findings of the Commission’s report prepared pursuant to Article 17(2) of Regulation (EU) 2018/841. Furthermore, in order to promote the sustainable and efficient use of limited biomass resources, it is appropriate that certification methodologies related to activities using biomass ensure that the principle of the cascading use of biomass as laid down in Article 3(3) of Directive (EU) 2018/2001 is applied, while relying on existing rules and procedures and avoiding duplication. The rules for the implementation by national authorities of that principle are laid down in Article 3(3), (3a) and (3b) of that Directive.
(29) In order to ensure that the certification process is credible and reliable, activities should be subject to independent third-party auditing carried out by certification bodies. In particular, all activities should be subject to an initial certification audit before their implementation, verifying their compliance with the quality criteria set out in this Regulation, including the correct quantification of the expected net benefits. All activities should also be subject to periodic re-certification audits at least every five years, or otherwise more frequently as specified in the applicable
certification methodology based on the characteristics of the relevant activity. The re-certification audits should verify the compliance of the activity with the quality criteria of this Regulation and the net carbon removal benefit or net soil emission reduction benefit generated by the activity. As a result of a re-certification audit, the certification body should issue a re-certification audit report that includes a summary and, where appropriate, an updated certificate of compliance. It should be possible to conduct more frequent re-certification audits, including annually, for all activities, in particular carbon farming activities. To reduce the administrative costs of certification and re-certification, operators should be able to use reliable geographical information provided by paying agencies through the identification system for agricultural parcels set out in Regulation (EU) 2021/2116 of the European Parliament and of the Council (13). To that end, the Commission should adopt implementing acts to set out the structure, format and technical details of an activity plan and of a monitoring plan, and of the certification audit and re-certification audit reports.
(30) Providing carbon farming operators with improved knowledge, tools and methods for a better assessment and the optimisation of certified carbon removals and soil emission reductions is essential for the cost-efficient implementation of mitigation actions and for securing their engagement in carbon farming. This is particularly relevant for Union small farmers or small forest owners and managers that often lack the know-how and the expertise required to implement carbon farming activities and to comply with the required quality criteria and related certification methodologies. Therefore, it is appropriate to require that producer organisations facilitate the provision of relevant advisory services to their members. The common agricultural policy and national State aid, inter alia, can be a means of providing financial support for interactive innovation projects involving farmers and forest owners and managers, and the provision of advisory services, knowledge exchange, training, and information actions.
(31) In its communication of 6 February 2024 entitled ‘Securing our future - Europe’s 2040 climate target and path to climate neutrality by 2050 building a sustainable, just and prosperous society’, the Commission indicates that it is crucial to create further business opportunities for a sustainable agrifood value chain and leverage private funds in synergy with public funding. This could be done with new market-based mechanisms to boost sustainable food, as this could result both in a better food price to reflect sustainability, as well as a fair reward for farmers and new source of funding for investments. Only firm coordination with all industrial actors in the entire food value chain and focus on fair trading practices across that chain can unlock the right incentives for sustainable farming practices, ensure a decent and sustainable income for farmers and generate revenues to support the transition.
(32) To ensure that verification is accurate, robust and transparent, certification bodies responsible for performing the certification process should have the required competences and skills and should be accredited by a national accreditation body pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (14) or be recognised by a national competent authority. To avoid possible conflicts of interest, the certification bodies should also be completely independent of the operator or of the group of operators carrying out the activity that is subject to the certification. In addition, Member States should contribute towards ensuring the correct implementation of the certification process by supervising the operation of certification bodies that are accredited by national accreditation authorities, and by informing the certification bodies and the relevant certification schemes about relevant non-conformity findings.
(33) Certification schemes should be used by operators to demonstrate compliance with this Regulation. Therefore, certification schemes should operate on the basis of reliable and transparent rules and procedures and should ensure the non-repudiation of the origin of, and protection against fraud relating to, information and data submitted by operators, as well as the accuracy, reliability and integrity of such information and data. They should also ensure that there is correct accounting of the certified carbon removal or soil emission reduction units, in particular by avoiding double counting. To that end, the Commission should adopt implementing acts setting out technical harmonised rules on certification, including adequate standards of reliability, transparency and accounting and of independent auditing to be applied by certification schemes, so as to ensure the necessary legal certainty as regards the rules
applicable to operators and to certification schemes. To ensure a cost-effective certification process, those technical harmonised rules on certification should also have the objective of reducing an unnecessary administrative burden on operators, or groups of operators, in particular on small and medium enterprises, including small farmers and small forest owners and managers.
(34) In order to ensure that the control of certification is reliable and harmonised, the Commission should be able to adopt decisions recognising certification schemes that meet the requirements set out in this Regulation, including with respect to technical competence, reliability, transparency and independent auditing. Such recognition decisions should be limited in time and should be made publicly available. To that end, the Commission should adopt implementing acts on the content and processes of Union recognition of certification schemes.
(35) The provisions of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (the ‘Aarhus Convention’), approved by means of Council Decision 2005/370/EC (15), relating to public participation and to access to justice are applicable, where relevant.
(36) In order to ensure transparency and full traceability of certified units, and to avoid the risk of fraud and double counting, the Commission should establish within four years of the date of entry into force of this Regulation and thereafter maintain a Union registry for permanent carbon removals, carbon farming and carbon storage in products (the ‘Union registry’). The Commission should take into account the reports referred to in Article 30(5), point (a), of Directive 2003/87/EC and Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) 2018/841. Where a concern related to fraud is raised, the Commission should investigate the matter and take appropriate action, including by repealing relevant decisions or cancelling the affected units. For example, fraud could be deemed to have been committed if more than one certificate of compliance is issued for the same activity because the activity has been registered under two different certification schemes or has been registered twice under the same scheme. Fraud could also be deemed to have been committed when the same certificate of compliance is used several times to make the same claim based on an activity or a certified unit. The Union registry should use automated systems, including electronic templates, to make publicly accessible, as a minimum, the information set out in an Annex to this Regulation. The operation of the Union registry should be financed by annual fixed fees payable by users, proportionate to their use of the Union registry, and sufficient to contribute to the coverage of its establishment costs and its annual operating costs, such as those for staff or IT tools. Resources from such fees should constitute external assigned revenue for the purpose of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council (16). They should, in particular, cover the costs of IT tools, services and security, including the operation and licensing systems, and the costs of staff working on the management of the Union registry. The Commission should, by means of delegated acts, set out the necessary requirements concerning the Union registry and the factors to be considered for determining the level of user fees and their recovery. When setting out those requirements, the Commission should also consider the need to ensure sufficient oversight of the trading of certified units. During each last quarter of the year preceding the calendar year of application, the Commission should adopt one or more implementing acts to set out or revise the individual amounts of user fees to be applied for that calendar year. Until the establishment of the Union registry, certification schemes recognised by the Commission should establish and maintain interoperable certification registries. In order to ensure that there is transparency and full traceability in relation to certified units, and to avoid the risk of fraud and double counting, the certification schemes should also use automated systems, including electronic templates, to make publicly available, as a minimum, the information set out in an Annex to this Regulation. In order to ensure a level playing field within the internal market, the Commission should adopt implementing acts setting out standards and technical rules on the functioning and the interoperability of those certification registries. Certified units should be issued by certification registries or, once established, by the Union registry only after the generation of a net carbon removal benefit or net soil emission reduction benefit, based on a valid certificate of compliance resulting from a re-certification audit. To avoid double issuance and double use, any certified unit should not be issued more than once and should not be used by more than one natural or legal person
| at any point in time. Permanent carbon removal units, carbon farming sequestration units, carbon storage in product units and soil emission reduction units should remain distinct from one another. In order to account for the inherent risk of reversal of removed carbon, carbon farming sequestration units and carbon storage in product units should expire at the end of the monitoring period for the relevant activity, and be cancelled in the certification registry or, once established, in the Union registry, unless the operator or the group of operators commits to prolonging the monitoring period, in accordance with the rules set out in the applicable certification methodology. | |
| (37) | Certification schemes play an important role in demonstrating compliance with this Regulation. Therefore, certification schemes should report to the Commission regularly on their activity. Such reports should be made publicly available, in full or, where appropriate, in an aggregated form, in order to increase transparency and to improve supervision by the Commission. Furthermore, such reporting would provide the necessary information for the Commission to report on the operation of the certification schemes with a view to identifying best practices and submitting, if appropriate, a legislative proposal to further promote such best practices. In order to ensure comparable and consistent reporting, the Commission should adopt implementing acts setting out the technical details on the content and format of the reports drawn up by the certification schemes. |
| (38) | In order to amend or supplement non-essential elements of this Regulation, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be delegated to the Commission in respect of establishing detailed certification methodologies for different types of activities, setting out standards and technical rules on the functioning of the Union registry, and amending Annexes I and II. It is of particular importance that the Commission carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level, and that those consultations be conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Interinstitutional Agreement of 13 April 2016 on Better Law-Making (17). In particular, to ensure equal participation in the preparation of delegated acts, the European Parliament and the Council receive all documents at the same time as Member States’ experts, and their experts systematically have access to meetings of Commission expert groups dealing with the preparation of delegated acts. |
| (39) | In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (18). In order to exercise the implementing powers laid down in this Regulation, the Commission should be assisted in its tasks under this Regulation by the Climate Change Committee established by Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council (19). |
| (40) | The Commission should review the application of this Regulation by 27 December 2027, and subsequently within six months of the outcome of each global stocktake agreed under Article 14 of the Paris Agreement. This Regulation should be kept under review in all aspects, taking into account: relevant developments concerning Union legislation, including its consistency with Regulation (EU) 2018/841, Regulation (EU) 2018/842 of the European Parliament and of the Council (20) and Regulation (eU) 2021/1119, as well as Directives 2003/87/EC and (Eu) 2018/2001; relevant developments concerning the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, including rules and guidelines related to the implementation of Article 6 of that Agreement; technological and scientific progress, best practices and market developments in the field of carbon removals; the potential for permanent carbon storage in third countries, subject to the existence of international agreements referred to in Chapter III of Regulation (EU) 2024/1735 of the European |
| (17) (18) (19) | OJ L 123, 12.5.2016, p. 1. Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission’s exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13). Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the Governance of the Energy Union and Climate Action, amending Regulations (EC) No 663/2009 and (EC) No 715/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directives 94/22/eC, 98/70/EC, 2009/31/EC, 2009/73/EC, 2010/31/EU, 2012/27/EU and 2013/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Directives 2009/119/Ec and (EU) 2015/652 and repealing Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 328, 21.12.2018, p. 1). |
| (20) | Regulation (EU) 2018/842 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on binding annual greenhouse gas emission reductions by Member States from 2021 to 2030 contributing to climate action to meet commitments under the Paris Agreement and amending Regulation (EU) No 525/2013 (OJ L 156, 19.6.2018, p. 26). |
Parliament and of the Council (17), while providing for conditions equivalent to those laid down in Directive 2009/31/EC to ensure that geological storage of CO2 that is captured is permanently secure and environmentally safe; the environmental impact of increased biomass use resulting from the application of this Regulation, including the impact on land degradation and ecosystem restoration; the impact on Union food security and land speculation; and the cost of the certification process.
(41) By 31 July 2026, the Commission should review the inclusion of the IPCC source category of agriculture, subcategories of 3.A enteric fermentation and 3.B manure management, as determined pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 and the implementing acts adopted pursuant to that Regulation, in the emission reductions covered by this Regulation, taking into consideration opportunity costs, the evolution of the regulatory framework, possible negative effects leading to a greenhouse gas-emission increase, and the Union 2040 climate target as proposed in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2021/1119, should submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council and, where appropriate, should submit a legislative proposal. In the context of that review, it is appropriate to consider how the potential units generated by such activities should be categorised. It is also appropriate to accelerate the development of a pilot certification methodology for activities that reduce agricultural emissions from enteric fermentation and manure management, in preparation of the 2026 review by the Commission.
(42) It is appropriate that certificates of compliance and certified units underpin different end-uses, such as the proof of climate-related and other environmental corporate claims, including in relation to biodiversity, or the exchange of certified units through voluntary carbon markets. To that end, the Commission should assess and, where appropriate, present a legislative proposal on the need for additional requirements to align this Regulation with the rules and guidance in Article 6(2) and (4) of the Paris Agreement and with best practices in the voluntary carbon markets. That assessment should compare methodological requirements, including baselines, monitoring periods, activity periods, additionality, leakage, non-permanence and liability, as well as address requirements related to authorisation and corresponding adjustments. It should also determine whether it is appropriate to differentiate end-uses for each type of unit, as well as identify the corresponding requirements for the use of units by private actors or third parties, including for the voluntary carbon markets and international compliance schemes, ensuring consistency with relevant Union legal acts such as Regulations (EU) 2018/1999 and (EU) No 2021/1119, and Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council (18), the registry for internationally transferred mitigation outcomes pursuant to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement referred to in Article 40 of Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 and a future directive on substantiation and communication of explicit environmental claims.
(43) Since the objective of this Regulation, namely to promote the deployment of high-quality carbon removals and soil emission reductions while minimising the risk of greenwashing, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the scale and effects of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective.