Let’s explore how carbon removal featured at COP27, the relevant developments in climate change negotiations, and what to watch out for through 2023 and up to COP28.

The Egyptian Presidency called COP27 the “African COP” and the “implementation COP”. The meeting in Sharm El-Sheikh could, however, also have adopted the strapline of the “removals COP”, given the levels of activity on the subject across the two-week conference.

Eve Tamme

Paul Zakkour

Let’s explore how carbon removal featured at COP27, the relevant developments in climate change negotiations, and what to watch out for through 2023 and up to COP28.

The Egyptian Presidency called COP27 the “African COP” and the “implementation COP”. The meeting in Sharm El-Sheikh could, however, also have adopted the strapline of the “removals COP”, given the levels of activity on the subject across the two-week conference.

The dedicated carbon removal community presence was probably the highest ever seen at a COP; more than 70 side events relating to carbon removal were listed on a 

 established by the UN Climate Change High-Level Champions Team, Carbon Gap, Open Air Collective, Rethinking Removals, Carbon Business Council and DAC Coalition. 

Events on the side were complemented by new initiatives, for example, the 

, which includes a commitment to build at least one 1000+ tonne a year CDR project by 2025 by each member country — currently listing Canada, the European Commission, Japan, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

COP27 will go into history as the “Loss & Damage COP”, finalising a decades-long conversation and establishing a dedicated fund to assist especially vulnerable developing countries in responding to loss and damage from climate change. While not entirely obvious on first reading, the threat of loss and damage assistance can provide 

a valuable spur for large emitters to deepen their mitigation ambition

COP27 offered some surprises for carbon removal. For example, a 

 of a Cover Decision called for “developed countries to attain net-negative carbon emissions by 2030”. Such calls for developed countries to achieve net zero earlier to provide more time to developing countries have become louder in 

, as expected, did not include such a 2030 target but left anyone working “to keep 1.5C alive” disappointed — it took all efforts to keep what had been agreed a year before in Glasgow.

Although an inherent part of climate change mitigation, carbon removal is, in practice, still something of a separate topic operating within a bubble. Further work is needed before the subject becomes entirely mainstreamed into the broader mitigation discussions. Perhaps such separation is a good thing though, considering the particularly unique features of carbon removal. The complicating aspects, such as leakage, monitoring and reversals risk, have led to complex discussions in fora such as the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body.

Demystifying carbon removal should be high on the agenda in 2023, including under:

The technical dialogues ongoing under the 

work programme on urgently scaling up mitigation action

 that will take place alongside the global stocktake. This may provide an opportunity to open up a dialogue on the role of carbon removal in pre-2030 mitigation. Parties and observers have until the 1st of February 2023 to submit views on suggested topics for the dialogue.

The work of the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body (SB), where 

a request has been made for more input, by 15 March 2023

, regarding activities involving removal in the UNFCCC’s project-based crediting mechanism. This also creates another space for a structured conversation dedicated to the unique features of removal.

As an “implementation COP” would have it, the negotiations on Article 6 were increasingly technical. Lengthy discussions spanned accounting, reporting, and authorisation of units (and whether that could be revoked) under Article 6.2. The latter, together with other contentious issues like whether emission avoidance could be credited, were deferred to COP28.

Under Article 6.4, the question of non-authorised emission reductions (ERs) was one of the major causes of disagreement. In the 

, the chapter on the registry distinguishes between “authorised ERs” used towards the achievement of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) or other international mitigation purposes, and “mitigation contribution ERs” used to reduce the emission levels in the Host country.

Among other documents, the Article 6.4 SB had prepared (3 pages of) 

 for approval at CMA. These arose from SB discussions that went on into the night right before the start of the COP, and drew on 

 submitted by stakeholders. Thanks to all those who responded to 

During the negotiations, countries highlighted a range of shortcomings: the language on human rights and indigenous people’s rights was lacking; civil society had not been thoroughly consulted during the preparation of the recommendations. And there were strong warnings not to adopt removal recommendations whilst the recommendations on methodologies are not yet ready. Many cross-cutting issues between the two need to move forward in lockstep. Such feedback was not surprising given the immense time pressure Article 6.4 SB had to work under to deliver recommendations on such a complex topic.

Our discussions in the corridors around the middle of week 2 of COP suggested that views were coalescing around the need for a structured process that took in more views and concerns from Parties and Observers, as well as ideas by which to address these concerns. So while various versions of the draft decision text appeared during the CMA negotiations, the 

 reflects the consensus that was emerging in the room. The decision provides useful and practical guidance that gives Article 6.4 SB the mandate to “elaborate and further develop” their work on removal over the next year, building on stakeholder input due in March 2023.

The main focus for the Article 6.4 SB through 2023 covers the following:

. Open questions remain as to the extent to which this should be different to other types of ER activities eligible for crediting under the mechanism.

Accounting for removals and crediting periods

. How credited removals, and in particular the timeframes for crediting and addressing reversals, can effectively dovetail with the accounting around NDCs?

. Who will be liable, and over what timeframe, for any intentional or unintentional depletion of enhanced carbon sinks and reservoirs arising from activities under the mechanism?

. Whether enhancing carbon sinks and reservoirs in one place could cause the depletion of carbon stocks (i.e. emissions) elsewhere, and how could this be measured and accounted for?

Avoidance of other negative environmental and social impacts

. Taking into account the need to first enhance and then subsequently maintain terrestrial carbon sinks and reservoirs in ways that may significantly alter the management methods applied to these resources.

When it comes to removals, the COP27 outcome was constructive. There is now time and space to develop robust recommendations for the whole suite of carbon removal methods. This is the time Article 6.4 SB lacked in 2022 due to its late start.

Article 6.4 SB will prepare a dual set of recommendations on removals and methodologies that will be up for consideration by Parties at COP28. Their agenda for 2023 foresees 

, each lasting four days, starting in March. There will be plenty of opportunities for removals stakeholders to engage, be it via submissions and/or by attending the meetings as observers or just following the live stream.

The COP28 will be the “Global Stocktake COP”. This process, running from 2021 to 2023 and every 5 years thereafter, takes stock of the implementation of the Paris Agreement and has already 

. There’s an expectation for another round of updated NDCs, and as the focus of NDCs and the stocktake itself is moving beyond 2030, the focus on removals is bound to increase.

The United Arab Emirates, as the incoming COP28 presidency, is bound to have a deep interest in carbon capture and storage (CCS) and is likely to offer these technologies a stronger platform. Since geological CO2 storage is also a key ingredient of several removal methods, broad support for both CCS and carbon removal can be expected throughout the year up to COP28.

This article is also published on the blogs of 

Illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

COP27: Paving the way for the “removals COP”

The spotlight on carbon removal is getting brighter. UN standard-setters have begun a crucial process to lay the groundwork for removals under the Paris Agreement. This has gone largely unnoticed by the carbon removal community, which has been mainly focusing on the voluntary carbon market. Why is this development so important? What has taken place so far? And how to get engaged?

The spotlight on carbon removal is getting brighter. UN standard-setters have begun a crucial process to lay the groundwork for removals under the Paris Agreement. This has gone largely unnoticed by the carbon removal community, which has been mainly focusing on the voluntary carbon market. Why is this development so important? What has taken place so far? And how to get engaged? Learn more by reading on.

Article 6 is the markets clause of the Paris Agreement. It sets the basis for countries to cooperate to meet their climate targets by allowing emission reductions and removals in one country to be traded and counted towards the target of another.

Architects of Article 6 envisaged two ways for this cooperation to happen: one through decentralised forms of cooperation such as linkages between various national trading systems (Article 6.2), and another through a centralised UN-run pathway for countries lacking the capacity to implement trading approaches domestically (Article 6.4).

A 24-person Supervisory Body of national representatives was nominated to run Article 6.4 and tasked by the Glasgow COP26 to review various methodological issues, including those specific to carbon removals, and make recommendations to the COP27 in Sharm El Sheikh.

Why should the carbon removal community pay attention?

The Supervisory Body will prepare the foundation for how the UN’s carbon crediting mechanism will apply to removals. They have only begun this work and are 

. How removals are included in this mechanism can have a wide-ranging impact, similar to how the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) helped shape the voluntary market we know today.

Experiences with removals under the CDM were limited, whereas the voluntary carbon market has recently been more progressive in these respects. As such, the matter offers an interesting test bed to see how far voluntary standards could be accepted by policymakers at the UN level.

, with the voluntary markets attempting to align themselves more closely with the compliance markets and the latter trying to take advantage of the infrastructure of the former. Those voluntary market standards that are aligned with the future Article 6.4 rules could get their methodologies approved and tap into the additional demand from governments.

The second Supervisory Body meeting in September had 

 was published shortly before. The feedback was surprisingly sparse; only 

Why such limited input on removals? One of the reasons might be that many stakeholders are relatively new, focus solely on the voluntary market, and lack the understanding and expertise to feed into the UN process.

Those that don’t have an accredited observer status under the UNFCCC won’t be invited to participate in the Supervisory Body meetings (read 

). In the case of for-profit entities, many don’t know whom to work with to provide input.

Another reason is the complexity and lack of best practices in resolving the issues at hand. The 

Gaps and confusion in removals discussion

The second Supervisory Body meeting demonstrated the need for the SB members and the UNFCCC Secretariat to draw upon a wider range of experts, including those in the voluntary market, as well as similar expertise that the UN brought together under the auspices of the CDM (e.g. working groups on forestry; 

An informal sub-group of 10 members of the Supervisory Body (listed 

) is spearheading the work on removals. They provided input for the two draft documents 

The interventions during the meeting included confusion over the content of the documents. Questions were raised over why tonne-year crediting has been built into the drafts when Supervisory Body members have not requested it. There are good reasons why this concept has not been featured in UN carbon crediting mechanisms to date (here is an example of a more 

). Another frequent comment was the lack of inclusion of good practices built on decades of work in carbon markets, such as jurisdictional crediting for natural carbon stocks. Conversely, the recommendations drew heavily from prior experience in other areas, such as 

The participants agreed that the documents went into too much detail, while at the same time lacked clarity around the options to deal with the complex methodological issues at hand (esp. boundaries, leakage, non-permanence, liability and accounting).

A third document was drafted during the meeting. There was no agreement on whether the work should be about carbon or greenhouse gas removal, despite looking at three different definitions.

One member asked for clarification on whether reversals from carbon storage should be tackled under removal work, or under emission reductions, given that geological storage technology features in both.

Throughout the meeting, several Supervisory Body members repeatedly requested further input from stakeholders on carbon removal. All in all, three separate working documents were discussed, but there remained quite a bit of confusion around the basics. No final decisions were taken, and the informal carbon removal working group will return to the drawing board to prepare for the upcoming meeting.

The goal now will be to prepare a broader set of recommendations that apply to the full spectrum of carbon removal methods. It is essential to get it right, given that, as one member put it, “what we adopt here will be the foundation of every single future decision we adopt on removals”.

There are many ways to advocate for a robust carbon removal framework and methodologies in the UN’s carbon crediting mechanism, such as following and taking part in the Supervisory Body meetings, responding to official calls for input, and conducting capacity building with those involved.

A new call for input with a deadline of 11 October

 was just launched and will feed into the third meeting of the Supervisory Body that will take place 2-5 November in Sharm El-Sheikh. Accredited observers to the UNFCCC can register to attend the meeting until October 13th.

It’s time to read up, get engaged, establish expertise and/or collaborate with those who have it, and help shape the global rules for carbon removal.

This article is also published on the blogs 

 Illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

UN standard-setters turn their attention to carbon removal

Paul Zakkour is a founding Director of Cabon Counts, a consultancy that specialises in international climate change policy with a focus on low carbon technology incentives, finance and regulation. He has worked with the World Bank, the IEA, the IEA GHG, the UNFCCC Secretariat, the European Commission and many national governments and private sector clients.

You can’t miss it!

Paul Zakkour

Paul Zakkour

UN standard-setters turn their attention to carbon removal

Recent publications

Readers also like

Want to know more about illuminem Voices?