Climate neutrality by 2050 will require not only avoiding greenhouse gas emissions, but increasingly also actively removing them from the atmosphere. These so-called negative emissions complement mitigation strategies and are becoming strategically important, especially in areas where emissions are technically difficult to avoid. Carbon removals are defined as human activities that remove CO₂ from the atmosphere and store it for the long term in geological, terrestrial, or product-based reservoirs, which distinguishes them both from natural, non-anthropogenic sinks and from emissions avoidance measures. In this context, the BioNET project is dedicated to exploring and implementing effective carbon removal strategies.

Bio-based negative emissions technologies (NETs) such as bioenergy with carbon capture, biochar, or carbon storage in durable products can make an important contribution to climate strategies. However, it is a prerequisite, that their actual effect remains measurable and traceable. This is where monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems come in: they make it possible to quantify CO₂ removals, include them in national greenhouse gas inventories, and use them in voluntary carbon markets. These two application areas pursue different goals: national inventories require consistency and completeness at system level, while voluntary markets focus on robust, cost-effective methods and trust.

This dual function creates tensions between accuracy, practicality, and marketability. Against this background, a recommendation paper by DBFZ and UFZ (Götz et al. 2026) identifies seven key areas for action in designing robust MRV systems for bio-based negative emissions.

1. Inventory reporting and interfaces

MRV systems are relevant both for national greenhouse gas inventories and for voluntary carbon markets. Closer alignment between these two levels can create synergies, for example through better data foundations or reduced uncertainty. Project-level data from voluntary markets could support national inventories, provided accounting rules are harmonized and double counting is avoided. This creates a double benefit: higher market integrity and better climate reporting.

2. Financing

The broad potential of bio-based NETs cannot be financed through voluntary carbon markets alone. Additional policy instruments such as support programmes, investment grants, or offtake guarantees are therefore recommended. These instruments can reduce risks for first-mover projects and enable scaling.

3. Certification as a steering instrument
Voluntary carbon markets can stimulate investment in negative emissions technologies, but they require clear quality standards. Certification systems are not only technical tools, but also instruments of climate policy. Policy frameworks such as the EU Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) can define minimum requirements for quantification, additionality, and durability, thereby influencing investment decisions.

4. Practicality and robustness
For many bio-based NETs, scientifically established methods for quantifying CO₂ removals already exist. The challenge is often less about the methodology itself than about its transparent application and the associated costs. MRV systems must be manipulation-resistant, traceable, and at the same time practical. A central trade-off exists between accuracy and implementability, especially when real-world projects are scaled up.

5. Competitive conditions
Even with established minimum standards, a level playing field between different negative emissions technologies does not arise automatically. Differences in cost, monitoring effort, and the time needed to generate certificates create structural advantages for certain technologies. Lower-cost and faster-scaling approaches may dominate the market, while more complex options require additional support mechanisms. A distinction between nature-based and technical certificates can improve transparency here.

6. Removal versus avoidance
A major ambiguity in voluntary carbon markets is the mixing of emissions avoidance or reduction with actual CO₂ removal. While these measures slow down the further increase of emissions, only removals reduce the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere. A clear separation of these certificate types is therefore necessary to emphasize the difference and ensure genuine compensation.

7. Trust
Scandals and faulty certificates have weakened trust in voluntary carbon markets. Inadequate MRV requirements can encourage fraud, greenwashing, and misleading carbon neutrality claims. The success of new certification frameworks therefore depends heavily on strict requirements, independent verification, and transparent communication. Trust is a central precondition for the marketability of negative emissions.

Overall picture

These seven recommendations show that MRV systems are far more than technical accounting tools. They connect climate policy, market mechanisms, and scientific methodology. At the same time, they must serve two different policy worlds: national climate reporting and project-based carbon markets. This duality requires flexible but robust systems that account for both accuracy and practicality.

It also becomes clear that market mechanisms alone are not sufficient to unlock the potential of bio-based negative emissions. Policy frameworks, differentiated support approaches, and clear certification rules are needed to enable technological diversity and avoid perverse incentives. Equally important is a clear separation between emissions avoidance and carbon removal, since only the latter represents genuine negative emissions.

Conclusion

Robust MRV systems are the foundation for the credible use of bio-based negative emissions technologies. They must meet both the requirements of national greenhouse gas inventories and the expectations of voluntary carbon markets. Better alignment between these two levels can create synergies and improve data quality.

Uniform quality frameworks can set minimum standards, but they do not automatically remove competitive differences between technologies. Additional support mechanisms therefore remain necessary. At the same time, the credibility of MRV processes determines market acceptance. Transparency, a clear separation between removal and avoidance, and manipulation-resistant methods are essential prerequisites.

MRV is therefore not an end in itself, but an instrument of climate policy. Only robust, practical, and trustworthy systems can unlock the potential of bio-based negative emissions and make a measurable contribution to climate neutrality.