A significant milestone for carbon removals in Europe just landed. The European Commission has adopted the first set of certification methodologies under the EU Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming (CRCF) regulation, covering Direct Air Capture and Carbon Storage (DACCS), Biogenic Emissions Capture with Carbon Storage (BioCCS), and Biochar.
This is one of those announcements that sounds technical – and is – but also deeply consequential. For anyone who does due diligence for a living, the publication of an 86-page methodology document on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) by EU policymakers feels a bit like Christmas morning. An excellent present.
It's the first time we've been able to compare what the EU is saying with the methodologies we know so well from the VCM.
So rather than just celebrating the update, the ClimeFi team went straight to the text. Here’s what stood out.
Why this is more than just another EU CRCF announcement
First of all, this is real policy. The methodologies are explicit, prescriptive, and, crucially, agreed upon. That alone is a big step forward in a market often defined by interpretive ambiguity.
Second, the framework is cross-pathway but internally consistent. For now, only three pathways qualify as permanent CDRs in the EU – Biochar, DACCS, and BioCCS. While many suppliers are pushing for broader eligibility, there is a positive signal in how these first three are treated.
For example, activity periods and application limits differ by removal pathway, but the core logic does not: accounting rules, durability definitions, and monitoring expectations are aligned. That fungibility matters. Without it, Europe would be laying the groundwork for three siloed systems, not a CDR market that can scale with credibility.
Lastly, it gives suppliers and CDR market makers something concrete to work towards. Developers and Standards Bodies can now see where their current methodologies exceed or fall short of what EU integration would require. Even for projects outside Europe, this is a directional signal.
The smallprint that actually matters
These are just some of the highlights we found most interesting. For those inclined, the full methodology text is where the real detail lives.
Reviewing the document through a VCM methodologies lens, there are clear points of alignment with existing approaches from Puro.earth, Isometric, Gold Standard, and others. Some tweaks will almost certainly be required – much like the refinements needed to achieve CCP approval by the ICVCM – but the foundations largely rhyme. Taken together, this suggests a credible path toward convergence rather than a wholesale rethink.
So, what comes next?
These methodologies tell us which projects, and indirectly which Standards Bodies and methodologies, are plausibly on a path toward EU integration. They are also a clear forward step toward embedding CDR into EU policy tools, potentially even the EU Emissions Trading System.
Are we there yet? Absolutely not. Registries, market interfaces, and governance questions remain wide open. But this is a credible, serious path forward – and that alone is a positive signal for CDR in Europe.
The hard part starts now: translating methodology into market reality.
