European Commission experts diverged sharply on 23 April 2026 over the pace and stringency of certifying carbon removals and carbon farming, with NGOs demanding robust safeguards and farmer groups pushing for looser eligibility. The Carbon Removal and Carbon Farming (CRCF) expert group meeting exposed tensions between fast market uptake and legal robustness, as well as between harmonised EU rules and member-state flexibility.
Speed vs. legal robustness
Giullio Volpi (DG CLIMA) defended harmonised rules for scheme recognition, while Marlene (Carbon Market Watch) called for public applications to ensure transparency. Christian Holzleitner (DG CLIMA) framed 2026 as decisive for ETS review and certification completion, but the group remained split on sequencing.
Carbon farming access vs. integrity
NGOs (EEB, Carbon Market Watch) criticised weakened biodiversity and pesticide safeguards in the carbon farming delegated act, while Copa-Cogeca pushed for broader eligibility. Belgium and Finland sought national accreditation guidance, and Volpi promised FAQs.
Monitoring duration
Valeria Forlin (DG CLIMA) proposed cutting post-activity monitoring to five years, but Ireland and I4CE warned of asymmetry between short monitoring and long-term carbon storage.
Member-state flexibility vs. harmonisation
Ireland, Finland, and Sweden questioned afforestation and peatland rules, favouring national discretion over uniform EU standards.
Buildings scope
Sacha Brons (Climate Cleanup) and Clément Georget (Rainbow) supported broader coverage for carbon storage in buildings, while Fabien Ramos (DG CLIMA) cited data limitations.
Ex-post traceability vs. upfront issuance
Brons favoured delivery notes and flexible operators, while Georget warned against separating financial benefit from liability.
Consensus and next steps
The group agreed on the need for transparency, addressing accreditation bottlenecks, and issuing guidance. The Commission plans to adopt the carbon farming delegated act before summer, launch an EU survey on buildings, and draft a delegated regulation on carbon storage.
Impact on stakeholders
- Certification schemes: face uncertainty over recognition speed and harmonisation, affecting investment decisions.
- Farmers and forest owners: benefit from broader access under Copa-Cogeca's push but face integrity checks and monitoring costs.
- NGOs: gain stronger safeguards if integrity provisions are maintained, but risk diluted rules if farmer lobby prevails.
- Construction sector: could see new market opportunities if buildings scope is broadened, but data limits may delay inclusion.