Certified storytelling

Why the new EU Carbon Removals certification rules will not deliver trustworthy credits 

Companies producing and selling carbon credits under the 2024 EU Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming (CRCF) Regulation must have these credits certified by certification schemes (private operators) that comply with specific certification process rules. Carbon removal activities considered under the CRCF include Direct Air Capture, Biomass with Carbon Capture and Storage (BioCCS/BECCS), biochar (charcoal), and carbon farming. 

While the CRCF Regulation is not yet operational, its certification rules have been set by an Implementing Regulation “laying down rules on certification schemes, certification bodies, and audits”, adopted by the European Commission on 20 November 2025 after a vote of the EU’s Climate Change Committee (representing EU Member States). 

This briefing explains what these certification rules entail, and their close resemblance with the certification system set up under the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED), from where they inherited several shortcomings. 

It also examines the largest private certification schemes operating on the carbon removals voluntary market (Puro.earth, Carbon Standards International, Isometric), as they are expected to apply to be recognised by the European Commission as able to deliver CRCF certificates. 

The analysis reveals that adopted EU certification rules for CRCF credits cannot guarantee trustworthiness, nor remedy problems found in the three voluntary certification schemes examined. The certificates generated by these rules will tell stories about carbon removal, but these stories will not necessarily reflect the reality of the certified activities.

The main observations include:

• The CRCF certification rules replicate known failures of RED voluntary schemes and voluntary carbon markets
• Supervision of carbon credits certification under the CRCF is not fit for purpose, partly due to oversight and reporting being split awkwardly between the European Commission, Member States, certification schemes and certification bodies
• CRCF certification rules are undermined by conflicts of interest enabled at the structural, institutional and personal levels
• There are insufficient on-site auditing requirements
• In case of misconduct, no sanctions are foreseen for auditors or certification bodies
• Complaints will be handled by certification schemes themselves, with no requirement for transparency 

Instead of certifying carbon removals, the rules may in fact do quite the opposite: stimulate increased logging, at a time when the EU’s forests are sharply reducing carbon dioxide absorption rates.

The briefing concludes with recommendations including that rules must be improved before any case can be made for using them for compliance and that environmental policy must not be outsourced to private voluntary certification schemes.

Read the briefing

Categories: Reports, Carbon offsetting, LULUCF