Environmental NGOs Challenge EU Carbon Removal Rules Over Bio-CCS, Biochar Integrity

Environmental NGOs have asked the European Commission to review carbon removal rules under the EU’s Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming Regulation.
The challenge targets Bio-CCS and biochar methodologies, warning they may fail to remove CO₂ permanently from the atmosphere.
The outcome could affect EU carbon market integrity, investor confidence, and any future use of removals in the EU ETS.

NGOs Escalate Challenge to EU Carbon Removal Rules

Brussels faces a formal challenge over the scientific integrity of its carbon removal framework. A coalition of environmental NGOs has asked the European Commission to review methodologies for Bio-CCS and biochar under the Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming Regulation.

The request for internal review argues that the methodologies will not deliver permanent carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere. The NGOs say this fails to meet the core requirement of the CRCF Regulation.

The challenge targets two pathways. One is biogenic emissions capture with carbon storage, known as Bio-CCS. The other is biochar carbon removal.

Carbon Market Watch, WWF EU, Fern, Robin Wood, Protect the Forest, Association Workshop for All Beings, Save Estonia’s Forests, The Clean Air Committee, and 2Celsius brought the request.

Ben Mitchell of 11KBW and Clémentine Baldon of Baldon Avocats represent the NGOs. The Lifescape Project and the Partnership for Policy Integrity also provided legal and scientific support. They operate jointly as the Forest Litigation Collaborative.

The case goes beyond technical carbon accounting. It could shape how Europe certifies removals, directs climate finance, and protects trust in its net-zero rules.

Concerns Over Permanence, Forests and Land Use

The NGOs argue that the Commission ignored current science and international norms. Their request cites concerns over quantification, monitoring, and sustainability.

They also warn that the rules overlook impacts on forests and agricultural land. In their view, the methodologies could certify activities that place more pressure on ecosystems. Some activities may even raise net CO₂ emissions.

The coalition says the Commission’s approach weakens the EU carbon removal framework. It also warns that weak rules could undermine EU climate targets.

That risk matters for investors. Brussels is assessing whether removals should offset fossil emissions in the EU Emissions Trading System. If weak credits enter that system, companies could face greenwashing claims and reputational damage.

Marlène Ramón Hernández, Policy expert in carbon removals at Carbon Market Watch said: “Both within and outside of the expert group, environmental organisations have consistently put forward recommendations to improve the design of these methodologies. Yet the Commission took a different approach, leaving us with flawed methodologies that do not even comply with the original CRCF mandate. We hope that this request for internal review will help bring the integrity these methodologies so desperately need.”

Legal Review Could Move to EU General Court

The Commission has up to 22 weeks to respond under article 10(3) of the Aarhus Regulation. It must explain whether it accepts or rejects the grounds for review.

If the Commission refuses the request, the NGOs can challenge that decision before the EU General Court. That would shift the dispute from policy design to litigation.

Elsie Blackshaw-Crosby, Director of Legal at The Lifescape Project said: “The Request for Internal Review procedure is an important tool for NGOs to raise concerns over Commission legislation which affects the environment, such as the Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming Delegated Regulation. By filing this Request, the claimants are holding the Commission to account by challenging an approach that risks enabling the very greenwashing the Regulation was intended to prevent.”

For policymakers, the case raises a governance test. The EU has positioned the CRCF as a foundation for high-integrity carbon removals. Weak methodology design could damage trust among buyers, investors, and civil society.

ETS Link Raises Investor and Climate Risk

The challenge comes as Europe weighs the role of removals in hard-to-abate sectors. Demand will likely grow as companies pursue net-zero claims and governments plan beyond emissions cuts.

Sofia Ghezzi, Climate and Land Use Policy Officer at WWF EU said: “These methodologies are not grounded in science, and it is possible they might end up doing the opposite of what they should do: taking CO₂ out of the air. By ignoring their broader impact on forests and ecosystems, these rules might effectively certify activities which undermine climate, biodiversity, clean air, and water. Even worse is that they might end up offsetting fossil emissions in the EU ETS. Our ecosystems are the strongest buffer against the impacts of climate change, we should not be putting them at risk.”

Martin Pigeon, Forest and Climate Campaigner at Fern said: “Repeating its bioenergy policy mistakes, the European Commission’s Delegated Act incentivises the burning of unlimited amounts of wood in the name of climate action without looking at what this is doing to forests. By trying too much to make things as easy as possible for Bio-CCS and biochar project developers, the Commission has sacrificed climate integrity and trustworthiness. Rewarding the burying of some CO₂ emissions from wood burning, or charcoal, without looking at what the additional wood demand is doing to forests or rewarding the application of charcoal to soils without subsequent monitoring, is likely to worsen, not improve, the climate crisis. Let’s hope investors do not fall for this hot air.”

Martin Pigeon, Forest and Climate Campaigner at Fern

Mary Booth, PhD, Director at the Partnership for Policy Integrity said: “The Commission’s own studies recognise that burning trees and storing the carbon belowground removes carbon from forests, not the atmosphere. The public and the planet deserve climate policies based on science and reality, not wishful thinking.”

What Executives and Investors Should Watch

For companies building carbon removal portfolios, the case raises a clear warning. Certification alone may not protect buyers from climate or reputational risk.

Boards should assess permanence, additionality, land-use impacts, monitoring standards, and ecosystem pressure. They should also test whether credits can withstand scrutiny from regulators, NGOs, and investors.

For investors, the challenge exposes policy risk in biomass-linked carbon removal markets. If the EU revises its rules, projects may face stricter eligibility tests. They may also face higher compliance costs.

The Commission’s response will shape Europe’s carbon removal market. It will also influence how global markets price integrity, risk, and climate credibility.

The stakes extend beyond Brussels. As governments search for scalable removal tools, the EU’s choices will affect climate finance worldwide.