Key Trends in the 2026 Voluntary Carbon Market

Key Takeaways

• Emissions cuts alone are not happening fast enough to meet global climate goals. Direct air capture (DAC) removes carbon dioxide (CO₂) that is already in the atmosphere. It has become one of the fastest-growing carbon removal approaches even as it stays capital-intensive.
• DAC's core advantage is flexibility. Because the atmosphere fully mixes within about two weeks, a DAC facility can be sited almost anywhere with clean power and CO₂ storage and still deliver the same climate benefit.
• DAC investment has grown to roughly US$2.2 billion across 37 specialized companies since 2021. Per-tonne costs (currently US$500–1,000 or more) remain the technology's central barrier to scale.
• US federal support for DAC is still unsettled. The US Department of Energy cut its regional DAC hub program from a planned US$3.5 billion to roughly US$1.2 billion between October 2025 and April 2026. This is a signal that deployment funding, not the underlying science, is DAC's biggest near-term risk.

What Is Direct Air Capture?

Direct air capture (DAC) works by sucking in air, filtering it to remove CO₂ that has built up over time and still sits in the atmosphere. To be effective, DAC must draw a lot of air into separating equipment like filter banks or cooling towers. This is similar to the small-scale systems that have scrubbed CO₂ from air in spacecraft and submarines for decades. From there, CO₂ filtering typically involves a chemical process that binds the CO₂ for release later. While the most commonly used chemical compounds in this process are liquid solvents or solid sorbents, other chemical, electrical, and physical processes could also work.

After the filtering process, the captured CO₂ is usually stored in one of two ways. The most important is geological storage, which keeps CO₂ out of the air and oceans indefinitely in deep geological formations (typically a mile down or more) and offers the clearest climate benefits. The second is storing the CO₂ in products like concrete, which offers clearer commercial benefits. A new generation of mineralization projects is expanding this second pathway, turning captured CO₂ into building materials rather than only storing it underground. In addition, CO₂ can be recycled into fuels and chemicals, which prevents net-new CO₂ from being released but does not count as a carbon removal solution since these materials are eventually used, releasing the captured CO₂ back to the atmosphere.

The Advantages of Direct Air Capture

DAC has many advantages as a CO₂ removal approach. First and foremost, it's scalable. In effect, there are no practical limits to our ability to scrub CO₂ from the sky or store it in deep geological formations around the world. This means scaling can be fast and removals profound.

It's straightforward. The devices remove CO₂ from the air, a meter measures it, and operators store and monitor that CO₂. It's clearly additional (meaning it only happens with financial and human intervention), easily verified, and durable (stored for many hundreds of years or more), meeting the bar set by our own Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal.

It has a small physical footprint. Typical DACe systems do the carbon removal work of trees with 1,000–2,000 times less space. This leaves more room for conservation, agriculture, rewilding, and other important work.

It can be done anywhere with low-carbon energy and CO₂ storage options. Globally, our atmosphere mixes fully every two weeks, meaning that CO₂ released in China or Australia arrives over the US (and vice versa) in this amount of time. Because of this, DAC facilities can be sited anywhere and still have a climate benefit—as long as there is sufficient clean energy available and options for CO₂ storage or use are nearby. This reduces competition for land and provides opportunities for economic development in regions with the right resources.

Finally, and most critically, DAC is a backstop technology. While reducing emissions remains the top priority, there are certain types of emissions that are either very hard or very expensive to abate. The last fraction of hard-to-abate emissions can be managed through DAC, effectively capping global costs to reach net-zero emissions. In fact, the more rapidly DAC scales and deploys, the less total energy and cost are needed to achieve key climate goals.

Challenges and Concerns of Direct Air Capture

Like all climate mitigation approaches, DAC has challenges. The primary challenge today is cost. Today's large-scale systems cost roughly US$500–1,000 or more per tonne of CO₂ removed, depending on the technology and site, though several developers are targeting US$100–150 per tonne over the next 10 years. Although the costs will come down over time through deployment and wider adoption, today's high costs are a barrier to investment and deployment.

Another challenge is around the energy requirements associated with DAC. Pulling one million tonnes per year of CO₂ out of the air requires roughly 200–300 megawatts of zero-carbon energy (a combination of heat and electricity). Given the limited supply of zero-carbon energy available today, there is a valid question about whether this is the best use of that resource today.

Finally, there is the question of environmental risks and community burdens of DAC. Experience to date suggests that the total environmental burdens and consequences of this pathway are among the lowest of any clean energy and climate technology. But since DAC systems involve heavy equipment and chemicals, questions about the full environmental risks and burdens to communities remain, especially given its limited commercial deployment. Although most DAC systems will be sited in remote locations, not near communities, and pose no serious environmental risks, reasonable concerns must be addressed before permitting and building future DAC projects.

Why the Excitement Now?

Although current climate science and added urgency from organizations like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have driven interest in DAC, other important advances have fed broad interest and excitement about its potential. Since 2017, DAC technology has matured greatly, including the deployment and operation of many projects around the world. Costs have dropped, new pathways have opened, and private investment in DAC-specific companies has reached roughly US$2.2 billion across 37 companies since 2021. 

Two large facilities illustrate where deployment stands today. Climeworks' Mammoth plant in Iceland has been operating since May 2024, although not at full capacity. Occidental's Stratos plant in Texas remains delayed past its most recent 2026 second quarter target due to a component issue, with no confirmed new startup date as of this writing. Both facilities carry substantial commercial offtake agreements from aviation, energy, insurance, and tech companies, agreements that continue to hold even as construction timelines have slipped.

In part, interest results from new policy advancements. In the US, the Inflation Reduction Act's 45Q tax credit, maintained under the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act, currently provides US$180 per tonne for DAC paired with dedicated geologic storage, with added parity for utilized CO₂. The Department of Energy's Regional Direct Air Capture Hubs program, originally planned at US$3.5 billion, was cut back sharply in an October 2025 review. It was then partially restored in April 2026 when the Department of Energy confirmed its two flagship projects, Project Cypress in Louisiana and the South Texas DAC Hub, would proceed. The program's total is now expected to be near US$1.2 billion. In addition, California has amended its Low-Carbon Fuel Standard to allow DAC as a compliance mechanism, and the US Department of Energy has explored a pilot program to purchase valid, durable carbon dioxide removal, including DAC. Recently, the Carbon Dioxide Removal Leadership Act was introduced to Congress, which would require the Secretary of Energy to remove CO₂ directly from ambient air or seawater.

Other programs around the world reflect this growing interest. In the UK and EU, governments have promised CO₂ removal purchases this decade, which will likely include DAC. Research programs have begun in Canada, the UK, Germany, Japan, and China. Developing nations increasingly see DAC as a potential new industry and hope to take advantage of their natural resources to expand energy access while being paid to remove CO₂ from the air and oceans.

The Future of Direct Air Capture

I'm pleased to have played a small role in DAC's new prominence. I've had the good fortune of being at DAC project groundbreakings and ribbon cuttings, led the first-ever government grants program for DAC, worked with scientists to develop new DAC technologies, published analysis over a decade ago on the need for DAC, and testified before the US Congress on the benefits and needs of DAC on three separate occasions. Based on my experience in DAC over the last 16 years, I believe that smart investment, policy, deployment, and community engagement will convert the promise of DAC into thousands of projects. These projects will help avoid the worst outcomes of climate change and restore some natural balance to the world. With federal support now concentrated on fewer, better-resourced flagship projects, rather than spread across two dozen early-stage hubs, the DAC field is being pushed toward fewer high-profile delays and more repeatable, bankable deployments.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does direct air capture differ from capturing carbon at an industrial site? 

Industrial, or point-source, capture removes CO₂ at a smokestack, where concentrations are high. Direct air capture removes CO₂ that is already spread throughout the open atmosphere. DAC facilities can operate almost anywhere with available clean power and storage, not only next to a specific emitter.

Is direct air capture actually operating today, or is it still experimental? 

Direct air capture is operating today; it is not just experimental. Climeworks' Mammoth plant in Iceland has been running since May 2024, and dozens of smaller facilities are active worldwide. However, the largest US projects, including Occidental's Stratos plant in Texas, are still working through startup delays. Once it begins operating, DAC will be fully commercial, although limited in deployment.

How much does it cost to remove one tonne of CO₂ with direct air capture? 

Current large-scale direct air capture systems cost roughly US$500–1,000 or more per tonne of CO₂ removed, depending on the technology and facility site. Several developers are targeting costs of US$100–150 per tonne later this decade, though that has not yet been demonstrated at commercial scale and is likely to take 10 years or more to achieve

Does using direct air capture reduce the need to cut emissions? 

No. Direct air capture is a backstop for emissions that are difficult or costly to eliminate outright, not a substitute for cutting emissions in the first place. Reducing emissions remains a priority; DAC addresses both what is left over (residual emissions) and what’s already in the air and oceans.

Key Takeaways

• What's happening: The voluntary carbon market (VCM) stalled in 2025, with carbon credit retirements falling 7% despite a 227% surge in corporate climate commitments.
• Why it matters: Over 80% of high-durability carbon removal capacity is at risk of not being realized without additional offtake.
• The implication: For corporate buyers with 2030 climate targets, early movers will define market standards and secure the supply they need, while those who wait risk volatility and constrained access to high-quality credits.

Why the Voluntary Carbon Market Needs Action Now

The voluntary carbon market stands at a crossroads. Credit retirements in 2025 fell far below the billion-tonne-scale projections from earlier in the decade. There is a widening gulf between climate ambition and market action.

The VCM transacts credits that avoid, reduce, or remove emissions. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR), the process of removing and durably storing atmospheric CO₂, remains a small but critical segment, accounting for 5% of credits retired. Limiting overshoot of 1.5°C requires a rapid scale-up of CDR.

However, most organizations with 2030 climate goals have yet to engage in CDR procurement. Without clear market signals today, CDR supply will falter. What's missing isn't capability or knowledge, but the commitment to act. Early movers will define the market in its early stages, while latecomers may face volatility and uncertain supply.

Our latest analysis reveals both troubling trends and clear pathways forward for CDR buyers ready to move from commitment to execution.

[cta]

Five Years of Stagnation: The VCM Falls Short of Projections

For five consecutive years, muted growth and persistent oversupply of poor-quality credits have defined the market. In 2025, credit retirements—a proxy for spot-market demand—reached 157 million metric tonnes (Mt), down 7% from 2024.

This incremental growth is far below what market analysts anticipated earlier in the decade, when several projections expected demand to exceed 1 billion tonnes by 2030. 

VCM Credit Trends: Concentrated in Avoidance and Reduction

The VCM has historically been concentrated in avoidance and reduction carbon projects,  largely dominated by REDD+, renewable energy,  and cookstove credits. 2025 marks the first year a new credit type has dominated, though: projects that reduce emissions of superpollutants now make up roughly 20% of all credits issued in the VCM. Superpollutant issuances increased by about 180% between 2020 and 2025, while retirements grew by roughly 150%.

CDR Remains a Small but Critical VCM Segment 

In 2025, CDR credits accounted for only 5% of 2025 retirements, but have a more active forward offtake market—where buyers commit today to purchase credits that will be delivered in the future, providing crucial early-stage financing for projects.

Within the CDR category, high-quality credits are still hard to find. Applying our Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal, we find that less than 10% of the CDR projects we review meet our high-quality threshold with minimal reservations.

Nature-Based CDR Dominates the Spot Market

Of the all CDR credits issued in the VCM in 2025, 95% originated from nature-based CDR pathways, while 5% represented high-durability CDR pathways such as biochar or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). This distribution reflects the mature role that nature-based CDR projects continue to play in the market, alongside the early stage of durable CDR deployment.

Within nature-based credits, supply and demand dynamics differed significantly between afforestation, reforestation, and revegetation (ARR) and improved forest management (IFM). 

• For ARR credits, issuances and retirements have tracked closely at a roughly 1:1 ratio, with issuances remaining flat at around 7–8 Mt annually over the past four years, leaving little inventory available for spot purchasing. 
• IFM credits, by contrast, have grown 2.5-fold since 2023, making them one of the largest sources of growth within nature-based credits, though high-quality CDR credits from IFM are in much lower supply.

For buyers, this means ARR credits are increasingly difficult to source on the spot market, while IFM credits are more readily available—though careful diligence is needed to identify high-quality projects.

Nature-based offtakes and commitments have expanded in recent years, with more than 90 Mt of future delivery now contracted or committed. The vast majority of these commitments are concentrated in ARR projects, highlighting both the supply constraints facing ARR today and buyers' foresight in securing the supply they will need in the near future.

High-Durability CDR Is Almost Entirely Forward-Looking

The spot market for high-durability CDR credits represents only 0.3% of activity in the VCM, but important dynamics are beginning to emerge as more high-durability CDR technologies reach the market.

From 2021 to 2025, roughly 80% of high-durability issuances and retirements came from biochar and geologic storage. However, the emergence of large-scale geologic CDR projects is beginning to shift the balance, with individual projects capable of delivering hundreds of thousands of tonnes annually. Early-stage methodologies such as enhanced rock weathering (ERW) and ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) issued their first credits in 2025, totaling roughly 12,000 tonnes.

While the spot market for high-durability CDR is growing and diversifying, forward offtake agreements continue to define the landscape. The ratio of high-durability spot retirements to volumes committed through forward offtake is 1:70—meaning for every tonne retired today, 70 tonnes have been committed for future delivery.

Forward Offtake Commitments Are Rising Across CDR Pathways

To date, forward offtake agreements, advanced market commitments (AMC), and large contracted deals with intermediaries cover more than 40 Mt of high-durability CDR, in addition to over 90 Mt of nature-based CDR. These cumulative volumes highlight the increasingly central role of forward purchasing in shaping future supply, particularly for capital-intensive, high-durability pathways. 

However, the success of forward offtake strategies depends critically on careful due diligence. Without a rigorous assessment of technological readiness, project viability, and delivery risks, forward commitments risk financing projects that fail to deliver, undermining both individual investments and broader market confidence.

Market Concentration of Forward Offtake Remains High

A small group of companies continues to drive the majority of forward offtake activity. In 2025, Microsoft remained the clear market leader, accounting for roughly 60% of contracted nature-based CDR offtakes and more than 80% of high-durability offtakes with a named buyer announced to date. Other active buyers—including Google, JPMorgan Chase, Equinor, and Amazon—have expanded their commitments, but overall market concentration remains high.

This concentration reveals both opportunity and risk: while anchor buyers are proving the market model works, broader participation is needed to unlock the full scale of CDR deployment required.

Growing Gap Between Climate Ambition and Market Action

Corporate climate targets anchor most current VCM activity: All of the top-10 buyers in the market today participate based on either self-declared commitments or net-zero commitments aligned with the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi).

Demand forecasts based on these future commitments project that total CDR demand could reach 46-110 Mt by 2030, a ~6-14x growth from today. Yet, how companies decide to implement their targets will ultimately affect the composition of CDR demand within the VCM.

Rather than relying solely on public commitments, we analyzed the behavior of companies that are actively purchasing CDR today. Should today's top buyers follow through on their stated CDR commitments, CDR demand could reach a minimum of 28 Mt by 2030, with 6.5 Mt of demand for high-durability CDR.

However, the discrepancy between observed demand and target-led scenarios shows a persistent gap between what companies say and what they do. SBTi reported a 227% surge in companies setting both near-term and net-zero targets in the 18 months leading up to mid-2025, while carbon credit retirements in the VCM fell 7% in 2025. 

Shifting from intention to execution will ultimately determine whether the VCM evolves into a durable, functioning marketplace or stalls short of the scale required for credible, net-zero pathways.

Rising Trends of Greenhushing and Anonymity Obscure CDR Demand

In the broader VCM, 55% of tonnes retired on the spot market over the past three years have been anonymous, and that fraction has been increasing. A similar trend is true of high-durability CDR: nearly 40% of all offtake transactions made in 2025 did not disclose the participating buyer. This buyer behaviour could reflect the often-discussed greenhushing phenomenon.

When anonymous actors dominate, it becomes harder to track demand signals, verify corporate progress, and establish clear integrity benchmarks. This opacity creates systemic risk for the entire market.

Market Growth Tipping Points on the Horizon

Several pivotal events on the horizon could mitigate risk and unlock project development, tipping buyers into action after half a decade of limited market growth:

• Voluntary demand: SBTi's  Corporate Net Zero Standard V2.0, published in June 2026, confirms credits still can’t count toward scope 1-3 targets, but introduces a voluntary recognition program starting in 2027 and mandatory removal purchasing for large companies from 2035, starting at 1% of footprint. 
• Compliance demand: The UK's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) Authority has already committed to integrating carbon removals into the UK ETS by 2028 via an auction model. This is the first confirmed large-scale compliance pathway for CDR credits, though credit-type eligibility is still being worked out.
• Regulatory support: Publication of Article 6.4 methodologies under the Paris Agreement and loosening of CORSIA credit supply bottlenecks could expand eligible supply and boost buyer confidence.

These tipping points in policies, standards, and market structures are advancing with clear timelines, creating conditions to move CDR procurement from hesitation to activation.

CDR Supply Faces Critical Challenges

While buyer inaction poses one threat to market growth, the supply side faces its own critical challenges.

30%–220% More Investment Is Needed in Nature-Based CDR Supply

Nature-based CDR would require a 30%–220% increase in finance to support current corporate targets. Relae (formerly Carbon Direct) has identified US$18 billion in publicly committed funds for nature-based CDR announced from 2018 to 2025. If deployed immediately to generate high-quality CDR, this level of funding could translate into up to 32 Mt per year by 2030 and 290 Mt cumulatively through 2040.

This is sufficient to meet the conservative 28 Mt demand floor from today's active buyers—but falls well short of what would be needed if even a fraction of companies with 2030 targets begin executing on their stated commitments.

80% of High-Durability CDR Projects Are at Risk

The situation is more acute for high-durability CDR. We estimate that over 80% of the total 2030 credit supply pipeline is at risk, due to insufficient project offtake and financing agreements.

Without increased offtake and financing support, we expect that the landscape for capital-intensive, high-durability CDR may consolidate

CDR Buyers Will Determine Which Projects Get Built

The supply-side ecosystem features a sufficient number of high-quality CDR suppliers with the potential to scale. These suppliers face purchasing behavior insufficient to meet buyers' own stated climate goals. In this environment, every CDR procurement decision matters. Companies that delay procurement risk missing their own climate targets while also ceding competitive advantage to early movers who secure the limited supply of high-quality credits. 

Five Actions to Strengthen the CDR Market

Buyers and investors can play a critical role in reducing project risk and strengthening the CDR market. Our full report details five essential actions:

1. Use purchasing power wisely
2. Prioritize project diligence
3. Construct bankable contracts
4. Support market data transparency and CDR goals
5. Undertake project assurance

Each action addresses specific market failures and, when implemented strategically, can significantly improve the likelihood that high-quality CDR projects reach operation and deliver credits as contracted.

With 2030 only four years away, the window for action is rapidly closing. Early movers will secure supply and define market standards, while those who wait risk entering a crowded market with limited access to high-quality credits and escalating prices.

[cta]

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did the voluntary carbon market stall in 2025 despite rising corporate climate commitments?

Retirements fell 7% even as SBTi reported a 227% surge in companies setting near-term and net-zero targets. The gap reflects that most companies with 2030 goals haven't yet moved from setting targets to actually procuring credits.

Is carbon dioxide removal a proven market today, or still emerging?

CDR remains a small segment—about 5% of 2025 retirements—but it has an unusually active forward market, with buyers committing today to volumes delivered years from now. High-durability pathways like biochar and geologic storage are still early-stage relative to nature-based credits.

How does the new SBTi Net-Zero Standard affect corporate carbon credit strategy?

Under the new SBTi Net-Zero Standard, credits still can't be counted toward scope 1, 2, or 3 targets. But it introduces a voluntary recognition program starting in 2027, and requires large companies to begin purchasing carbon removals from 2035, starting at 1% of their footprint.

What should CDR buyers prioritize given current market conditions?

Given how concentrated forward offtake activity is today, buyers should prioritize rigorous project diligence and bankable contract structures over simply committing volume—the 2026 State of the Voluntary Carbon Market report details five recommended actions in more depth.

Key Takeaways

• The Nasdaq Carbon Issuance Calendar, a new data platform, provides carbon removal buyers and suppliers with standardized information on future offtake availability, indicative pricing, and project maturity. The platform was developed in collaboration with Relae, formerly Carbon Direct.
• The Carbon Issuance Calendar addresses the fragmentation and transparency problems of the voluntary carbon market by centralizing standardized project data and embedding our scientific diligence framework, built over 900 project reviews, giving buyers delivery-risk insight that no registry or marketplace offers today.
• The Carbon Issuance Calendar is an important early step, not the whole journey: it shows buyers what durable tonnes exist and allows them to compare projects with apples-to-apples data. 
• Buyers can move from the Carbon Issuance Calendar into technical diligence, contracting, and project assurance with Relae’s advisory team. Suppliers can register to connect with buyers who are ready to engage.

Carbon Removal Project Data Has a Visibility Problem

If you're sourcing durable carbon removal credits, you may run into a familiar wall: project data scattered across dozens of developer websites, presented in inconsistent formats, with no easy way to compare one project against another. If you're a project developer, you face the mirror image of that problem: fielding individual requests for proposals, with no central place to showcase your available tonnes.

Get this wrong, and buyers may end up counting on carbon removal that never shows up - the delivery risk bugbear.

Between 2022 and 2024, high-durability engineered carbon removal made up just 2 percent of all carbon credit issuances. They remain in short supply, particularly the high-quality supply corporate buyers need. The gap is set to widen: our 2026 State of the Voluntary Carbon Market report found that more than 80% of the 2030 high-durability carbon removal projects are at risk of stalling and failing without additional offtake and financing commitments.

The Nasdaq Carbon Issuance Calendar, developed by Nasdaq in collaboration with Relae, offers an important first step toward addressing this information gap.

What Is the Nasdaq Carbon Issuance Calendar?

The Carbon Issuance Calendar is a centralized, accessible dashboard where carbon removal buyers and suppliers view standardized project data: future credit availability, indicative pricing, and project delivery status, all in one place. 

The Nasdaq Carbon Issuance Calendar combines structured, developer-provided project data with project maturity assessment informed by Relae’s assessment framework and technical diligence. This helps users understand future CDR availability, indicative pricing, and potential project delivery risk through a single platform.

This expertise didn't appear overnight. It comes from sitting across the table with developers, stress-testing their science, mapping their delivery timelines against reality, and helping them show up to buyers as credible partners. The result is a track record that gives the framework embedded in the Carbon Issuance Calendar its depth. It's a starting point, built for buyers and suppliers to find each other on the basis of consistent, comparable information, using international class financial and information infrastructure.

How Buyers Should Use the Nasdaq Carbon Issuance Calendar

Today, if you're trying to procure durable carbon removal credits, you have no single place to start. You have to visit individual developer sites, request information through scattered channels, and compare projects that present data in entirely different formats before diligence has even begun. In many cases, you are comparing apples to oranges - different kinds of CDR projects with different durabilities, risks, and overall quality. 

The Carbon Issuance Calendar provides a central starting point. You can view future credit availability, compare indicative pricing across projects, and begin assessing options without contacting each supplier one by one.

More importantly, the Carbon Issuance Calendar frames the data. Our scientists developed a delivery-oriented lens, built from reviewing over 900 carbon removal projects, drawing on the same rigor behind our Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal, which we develop annually with Microsoft.

How Suppliers Reach Buyers Through the Carbon Issuance Calendar

If you're a project developer, the Nasdaq Carbon Issuance Calendar tackles visibility, one of the most persistent barriers to market access. You can list available tonnes, display indicative pricing, and reach a global audience of corporate and financial buyers at no cost.

The timing matters. Many first-of-a-kind engineered carbon removal projects are preparing to break ground and need bankable offtake agreements to secure financing before they can do so (a key aspect of CDR 2.0). Our analysis of approximately 140 high-durability carbon removal project developers found scale-up plans for 30 million tonnes of supply per year. Reaching that potential will take real demand: committed forward offtake, increased project equity investment, and access to lending. 

Register now: you'll be positioned to connect to buyers actively looking to engage.

How Does the Carbon Issuance Calendar Differ From a Carbon Credit Registry or Carbon Removal Marketplace?

The Carbon Issuance Calendar solves a distinct, early-stage problem. It gives buyers and suppliers a centralized place to find each other and compare options against standardized information, something neither a registry nor a marketplace is built to do.

For a closer look at how registries differ and what you should weigh when navigating them, read our Navigating Carbon Credit Registries report.

Scientific Diligence Turns Visibility Into Confidence

Standardized data tells you what exists. Scientific diligence tells you what's worth pursuing. 

Relae’s scientists do that work every day. Our experts apply rigorous pathway-specific criteria to live projects, evaluating delivery risk and status, and identifying where questions remain is the core of what we bring to the carbon removal market.

The Carbon Issuance Calendar puts an accessible version of that expertise at the top of the procurement funnel. It’s for everyone in the market - you don't need to be a carbon removal scientist to use it. This snapshot allows you to compare projects against each other, giving you a meaningful starting point before deeper diligence begins. 

Want to go deeper on a specific project? Relae’s technical diligence team picks up right where the Carbon Issuance Calendar leaves off.

What Carbon Removal Projects Are on the Carbon Issuance Calendar Today?

The Carbon Issuance Calendar currently features engineered and hybrid carbon removal projects: direct air capture, biochar, enhanced rock weathering, and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. These high-durability pathways offer permanence on the order of hundreds to thousands of years.

Many of these projects are at an inflection point: they’re ready to scale but dependent on committed offtake to unlock financing. The Calendar serves their needs, and the buyer’s needs, together.

Nature-based carbon removals have their own criteria and market dynamics. They may appear in a separate segment of the Carbon Issuance Calendar down the line.

From the Carbon Issuance Calendar to Completed Carbon Removal Procurement

If you're building or refining a carbon removal procurement strategy, the Carbon Issuance Calendar is the right place to start. 

From there, you can choose to work with the Relae advisory team to support every later stage: technical diligence on specific projects, contracting and negotiation support, ongoing project assurance, and access to curated carbon credit sourcing. The Carbon Issuance Calendar surfaces the market; we help you navigate it, connecting you with the right developers, on the right terms, with the scientific confidence to move forward.

Moving from commitment to delivery takes structural change across the market, too—our CDR 2.0 white paper lays out the five pillars we see as essential to getting engineered and hybrid carbon removal projects built and delivering.

Key Takeaways

• On January 30, 2026, the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) released its long-awaited Land Sector and Removals (LSR) Standard v1.0 following a 5-year consultation process. The LSR Standard is set to take effect on January 1, 2027. 
• The release of the LSR Standard represents a notable development for companies in the food and agriculture sector looking to report on land-based GHG emissions in their annual GHG inventory, as well as companies that plan to report on carbon dioxide removals (both land-based and technological).
• The accompanying Land Sector and Removals Guidance, which will provide further direction on operationalizing and implementing the LSR Standard, is expected in Q2 of 2026. However, companies with significant land-based activities may want to begin assessing the impacts of the LSR Standard on their emissions accounting procedures and decarbonization strategies today.

Why the Land Sector and Removals Standard Matters Now

Emissions from agriculture and land use change account for roughly a quarter of global emissions. Yet, for years, food, fiber, and fuel companies have lacked a clear framework for accounting and reporting on GHG emissions and carbon dioxide removals from land use. This has significantly limited their ability to demonstrate progress toward climate targets within their operations and value chain. The GHG Protocol’s Land Sector and Removals (LSR) Standard, which was released on January 30, 2026, changes that, and in doing so raises a new set of questions. 

The LSR Standard provides greater clarity on what is required of companies to transparently track and report against their emissions reduction and removal targets, and opens new pathways to report on supply chain decarbonization interventions. It also represents an important advancement for companies seeking to report on carbon dioxide removals within their emissions inventory, including both land management removals and technological removals with geologic storage.

While the LSR Standard contains notable new requirements compared to the draft released in 2022, companies still face a number of open questions related to implementation and the implications for their decarbonization strategies. 

The GHG Protocol’s accompanying Land Sector and Removals Guidance, scheduled for Q2 2026, is expected to offer more practical direction for implementing the LSR Standard. However, companies with significant land-based activities that require sufficient lead time to prepare should consider assessing the impacts today. 

Below, we provide an overview of the LSR Standard, key changes from the 2022 draft, and actionable next steps for food, fiber, and fuel companies considering the impacts on their target-setting and emissions reporting.

What Is the Land Sector and Removals Standard? 

The LSR Standard, taking effect on January 1, 2027, sets requirements and recommendations for corporate GHG accounting that cover emissions and carbon removals from agricultural and land use activities. It builds on existing GHG Protocol standards for corporate carbon accounting. Notably, the LSR Standard does not cover the forestry sector, a key break from the 2022 draft. Forest carbon accounting guidance remains under development and will be the subject of a stakeholder consultation/request for information process expected later in 2026.

Land Sector and Removals Standard vs Land Sector and Removals Guidance

The LSR Standard establishes the core requirements companies must follow, while the accompanying Land Sector and Removals Guidance, expected in Q2 of 2026, will provide more detailed implementation support. In short, the LSR Standard sets the "what" while the Land Sector and Removals Guidance will explain the "how," helping companies put those requirements into practice.

Who Should Be Using the Land Sector and Removals Standard?

The LSR Standard applies to two groups of companies:

1. Any company with significant¹ land-sector activities within its own operations or value chain (most notably the food, feed, fiber, biofuel, and advanced biomaterials sector).
2. Any company looking to report on carbon dioxide removals within their scope 1 and scope 3 inventories (including both land management removals or technological removals).

‍

‍

What Changed From the 2022 Draft?

Among other provisions, the LSR Standard contains notable breaks from the 2022 draft, including specific changes related to traceability, carbon dioxide removals, leakage, and land use change.  

Traceability: A New Approach

Under the LSR Standard, companies that account for scope 3 emissions, removals, and other metrics must apply a spatial boundary. This boundary is determined by the level of traceability they can establish to known lands or regions (from least to most granular): global, jurisdictional (e.g., country), sourcing region (e.g., supply shed), land management unit (LMU) (e.g., farm), or harvested area. For more granular spatial boundaries, such as sourcing region and LMU, companies are required to establish physical traceability, which can be demonstrated through various chain of custody models.

‍

‍

Alongside higher integrity chain of custody models such as identity preserved, segregated, and controlled blending, the LSR Standard opens to mass balance as a chain of custody model that can be used to demonstrate physical traceability at the sourcing region-level with appropriate safeguards. 

This is notable because mass balance is the most common chain of custody model for large volume agricultural commodities, and physical traceability is required to report removals according to the LSR standard. While challenges for reporting removals at sourcing region spatial boundaries still exist, this change unlocks new opportunities to decarbonize commodities and report removals within non-segregated supply chains through insetting programs. 

Carbon Dioxide Removals: Clarity on Spatial Boundaries

The draft LSR Standard introduces key principles for companies choosing to report land management carbon dioxide removals, including traceability, data quality, and permanence. Translating those principles into practice remains challenging given the dynamic nature of agricultural supply chains and limited farm-level traceability.

Among other requirements, the LSR Standard maintains that companies electing to report on removals must do so as a separate accounting category from emissions. They must also identify the specific lands where carbon is stored, and conduct ongoing storage monitoring to detect and report on reversals if and when they occur.

The LSR Standard does, however, resolve one of the more consequential open questions left by the 2022 draft: where companies are to draw the spatial boundary for reporting land management carbon dioxide removals. By formalizing and permitting traceability at the sourcing-region level (with appropriate safeguards), it offers a workable middle ground between farm-level precision and the broader supply chain realities that most food and agricultural companies face. 

The LSR Standard also opens to using alternative approaches to traceability, such as impact traceability, which allows companies to trace removals back to the LMU through a pathway that is separate from the physical GHG inventory. This is notable as it provides companies with optionality for recognition of farm-level supply chain investments even when physical traceability cannot be established, and inventory recognition is therefore not feasible. 

Land Use and Leakage: Stronger Requirements

Finally, the LSR Standard significantly strengthens land use and economic leakage requirements compared to the 2022 draft. While the draft gave companies flexibility to choose among land-tracking metrics, the LSR Standard mandates that all companies report land occupation for both scope 1 and scope 3 in hectares and quantify land carbon leakage whenever “high leakage risk activities”² displace food or feed production. This includes companies developing crop-based biofuels and bio-based feedstocks. 

Leakage must be quantified using the Carbon Opportunity Cost, a calculation aimed at capturing how much carbon could have been stored in the absence of land management activities.

What Should Companies Do Now?

For entities reporting in accordance with the GHG Protocol’s Corporate Standard and Scope 3 Standard, the new LSR Standard goes into effect on January 1, 2027. However, the GHG Protocol’s Land Sector and Removal Guidance is not set for publication until Q2 2026, leaving many open questions related to implementation amid a short data collection and reporting cycle 

In the interim, companies may consider a continuous improvement approach, evolving and improving their internal measurement and reporting mechanisms to enable more granular accounting over time. Companies may also consider running analyses to assess the impact of new requirements on the design and cost of decarbonization strategies, with a specific focus on data collection and monitoring approaches.

Ultimately, while implementation of the LSR Standard may evolve over time, it need not delay action on value chain intervention. Companies that continue investing in supply chain decarbonization are building the data infrastructure, supplier relationships, and operational resilience that yield greater visibility into supply chain risk and drive long-term value, independent of reporting standards. 

As the LSR Standard's requirements develop, companies that have already begun assessing their emissions footprint and strengthening supply chain traceability and data quality are likely to be better positioned to align their reporting procedures accordingly.

Key Takeaways

• Biochar is the fastest-growing durable carbon removal method in the voluntary carbon market, accounting for 93% of all durable removal volumes contracted in the first quarter of 2026 alone.
• Scientists still have an incomplete understanding of biochar durability in soils, and there is some uncertainty regarding biochar's ultimate climate impact.
• Biochar carbon removal crediting must reflect conservative, science-based estimates of durability to safeguard against overcrediting.
• Relae’s (formerly Carbon Direct) detailed analysis highlights the key scientific issues affecting biochar soil durability to better inform credible carbon removal.

Biochar Is Gaining Momentum in Carbon Removal

Biochar has entered the spotlight as a scalable climate solution. It is being adopted for its carbon storage potential and agricultural co-benefits. Commercial uptake of biochar has expanded dramatically since 2019 and continues to accelerate, due to the voluntary carbon market. In the first quarter of 2026 alone, 2.3 million tonnes of total durable carbon dioxide removal (CDR) have been contracted, with biochar accounting for 93% of that volume, driven substantially by a single Microsoft-Liferaft deal for one million tonnes. Established and emerging CDR registries have developed biochar protocols and are certifying biochar carbon credits.

In addition to CDR, biochar can bring numerous co-benefits when it is applied to soil. These benefits include improved water and nutrient retention, pH adjustment, and pollution remediation. In agricultural and forage systems, improvements in soil quality following biochar application can lead to enhanced plant growth. Biochar also promotes rural economic development and can be a part of a circular economy that stewards its resources judiciously.

As purchases of biochar credits grow, a central question has not yet been fully answered: How durable is biochar carbon storage, and what are the best methods to assess this? This blog explores the science of biochar durability, also known as permanence, and how credible science can inform the carbon removal market.

What Is Biochar and How Is It Made?

Biomass heated in an oxygen-deficient environment produces biochar, a solid, carbon-rich material. In the near or full absence of oxygen, that process is called pyrolysis. Biochar can be produced from various kinds of biomass, including agricultural or forest residues, construction debris, organic waste, seaweed, and more. Biochar is also gaining attention for its potential as an ingredient within engineered materials, such as cement.

Biochar achieves CDR by durably storing carbon dioxide (CO₂) that was removed from the atmosphere via photosynthesis and plant growth. Carbon stored in living plants will stay stored during the plant’s lifespan. Once it dies, a plant’s biomass decomposes, cycling most of the stored carbon back into the atmosphere. By introducing technological interventions into this carbon cycle, such as using pyrolysis to produce biochar, the carbon that nature captured via photosynthesis can be stored longer than it would have been otherwise. Pyrolysis converts some of the carbon from biomass into chemical compounds with a higher resistance to environmental degradation. How much carbon converts to these more recalcitrant forms depends on the type of biomass used and the heating conditions, including temperature and time. After biochar is produced, the highly recalcitrant fraction of carbon can be stored for long periods of time, as long as the biochar does not combust.

Common methods of biochar production include:

• Industrial pyrolysis systems: Modern pyrolysis systems heat biomass in a low or no-oxygen environment, creating biochar and gaseous compounds known as synthesis gas. Synthesis gas is typically combusted in a controlled system to provide heat for the system. Low air emissions can be achieved for these systems, which is important to maximizing the environmental benefits of biochar production.
• Modular pyrolysis systems: Smaller, transportable pyrolysis units serve farm-scale or decentralized production. Unlike open kilns, these systems retain temperature control and sensor-based monitoring similar to industrial pyrolysis, and some use autothermal designs that recycle non-condensable gases for heat rather than relying on an external energy source. This makes them a middle option for smaller producers seeking more process control and emissions oversight than open-kiln methods allow, without the capital cost of a large, fixed industrial plant.
• Kon-Tiki kilns: This is a less complex and, therefore, more widely deployable method of biochar production. However, air pollution from this method is likely to be higher than from industrial pyrolysis and can be significant enough to undermine the carbon benefits of biochar production. In Kon-Tiki kilns, biomass is burned in an open-top, conical kiln. Biomass is continually added to the process and finally quenched with water.
• Trench mounds: Trench production is one of the simplest forms of biochar production and is used often by smallholder farmers. Biomass is buried in a trench, covered, and combusted to produce biochar. Air pollution from tench mound production is likely to be significant and even higher than from Kon-Tiki kilns.  

How Biochar Durability Is Quantified

Durability, or permanence, is a key metric used to quantify carbon removal from biochar; it describes the amount of carbon that remains stored in biochar for 100 years or more after it is applied to soil.

Quantifying durability relies on experiments and models to project permanence. There are a number of established and emerging approaches to evaluating biochar recalcitrance to chemical decomposition and storage permanence. Most of these are based on short-term incubation experiments in laboratories, where scientists seal biochar in a container with other organic matter and measure carbon changes over a period of weeks to months. These approaches typically treat biochar as having multiple pools of carbon that differ in their ability to resist decomposition.

While these experiments offer insights into decomposition dynamics, they have two significant limitations. First, these approaches do not measure biochar decomposition and durability in the real world (e.g., after biochar is applied to agricultural soils), meaning they do not capture the effects of actual soil and other environmental factors. Research has shown that different soils can strongly influence decomposition rates. Second, the short duration of these experiments means there is significant potential for error in extrapolating the results to time periods of centuries and beyond.

Why Quantifying Durability Accurately Is Critical

Biochar CDR certification methodologies use a range of approaches to quantify permanence. Most commonly these are based on biochar’s chemical composition, namely the hydrogen-to-organic-carbon ratio (H/Corg). Models that correlate H/Corg with projected permanence, from decay models applied to biochar decomposition experiments, are used to calculate a permanence factor. Other quantification methods include measuring the random reflectance of biochar to estimate the amount of highly recalcitrant carbon in biochar.

The risks of inaccurate durability estimates for carbon removal buyers are significant. Overestimating durability can lead to ineffective CDR spending, reputational risk from overstated climate impact, and delayed progress on net-zero and compliance goals. Buyers need to understand and engage with durability estimation methods to ensure they are procuring high-quality biochar credits.

Why Underground Coal Isn't a Valid Durability Comparison

Recent research proposes a new approach to quantifying biochar durability. The authors assert that random reflectance—a parameter developed in the field of organic petrology (the study of organic matter in rocks)—can be used to characterize durability. Using a component of coal (known as "inertinite") as an analogue for biochar, they propose a benchmark random reflectance of 2% as an "inertinite benchmark" for biochar. They argue that the entire fraction of biochar that meets that benchmark will degrade over approximately 100 million years. This is a large departure from other estimates of biochar durability, and we believe this to be at odds with more conservative models.

There are several reasons to doubt this method. The coal-biochar analogy is inadequate because coal buried underground is not exposed to the same degradation conditions as biochar in soil. Underground coal has lower exposure to oxygen, water, and ultraviolet light, all of which are plentiful in surface soils. Each of these is associated with well-understood decay mechanisms. Furthermore, the process of geologic burial dramatically changes the physical structure of organic matter. Additionally, the permanence factor that the reflectance method allows (i.e., up to 100% carbon retention over extremely long time scales) contradicts experimental evidence that some carbon loss will occur over years or decades.

Subsequent research from the same authors has since recommended pairing random reflectance analysis with H/Corg rather than relying on either alone. This is a refinement of the original approach meant to support more reliable quantification of biochar durability and avoid overcrediting CDR from biochar.

Where Biochar Science Is Headed Next

Biochar stability science will keep advancing. Research into biochar degradation pathways in soil will continue to refine permanence models and inform the relevance of coal analogues. Long-term field measurement studies, with a high density of in-soil sampling to quantify persistence over time, should be a near-term priority that biochar CDR projects can contribute to. Additional studies should investigate pathways to increase durability and rigorously develop modern isotopic, spectroscopic, and chemical techniques for enabling robust assessments of biochar durability.

Crediting Biochar Means Getting Durability Right

Biochar is a promising solution for both soil health and climate impact. Nevertheless, carbon removal certification protocols will need updating as the science of biochar durability evolves. Relae cautions against excessively generous claims of biochar CDR durability, in both permanence factor and timeframe, given the important uncertainties outlined above.

Protocols should not outpace science in terms of permanence assessment, and crediting should stay rooted in an understanding of what drives biochar permanence that is backed by science, including production conditions (e.g., high temperatures) and biochar composition (i.e., low H/Corg). At a time when investment in biochar is booming and the science of biochar is evolving, the voluntary carbon market must keep pace.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is biochar carbon negative?
Biochar can provide net carbon dioxide removal when the amount of carbon durably stored exceeds the emissions associated with producing, transporting, and using the biochar. Plants capture CO₂ from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and store that carbon in biomass. Left alone, most of that carbon returns to the atmosphere within years to decades as the biomass decomposes or burns. Converting biomass to biochar stabilizes a portion of that carbon into forms that can stay stored for centuries or longer, delivering a net removal once those production emissions are accounted for..

Is biochar considered an engineered, hybrid, or nature-based carbon removal solution? Biochar is considered a hybrid carbon removal solution because it combines natural carbon uptake through photosynthesis with a technological intervention. Biomass first removes and stores atmospheric carbon as it grows, and pyrolysis then converts a portion of that biomass carbon into more stable forms that keep carbon from returning to the atmosphere for longer periods.

How do carbon removal registries currently estimate biochar's durability? Registries use decay models based on biochar's ratio of hydrogen to organic carbon (H/C_org ratio), which correlates with how resistant the biochar is to microbial breakdown, combined with environmental factors where biochar is applied, like soil temperature, moisture, and application context, to estimate what fraction of the carbon remains stable (i.e., not converted back to CO₂) over a defined timeframe. Methodologies typically also require third-party lab testing of feedstock and pyrolysis conditions to substantiate durability claims. Some registries and methodologies also incorporate random reflectance as part of durability quantification, although the scientific basis for using reflectance to estimate long-term biochar durability remains under debate.

How long does biochar actually store carbon? 

Biochar does not have a single storage lifetime. Some of its carbon decomposes relatively quickly, while more stable fractions can remain stored for centuries or longer, depending on the biochar’s properties and the conditions where it is stored. Because these estimates rely on models rather than direct observation, carbon crediting has to balance two risks: crediting more durability than actually exists, and being so conservative it undercredits real removals and threatens project viability.

Key Takeaways

1. The decision to fund a project is determined by a holistic review of project development maturity. This applies across capital-intensive projects, including low-carbon power generation, carbon capture and storage (CCS) solutions, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), and broader transition infrastructure build-out. Both technical and commercial workstreams must be developed in parallel to avoid project failure. 
2. Early scope decisions, such as site selection, core technology selection, and nameplate capacity, are cheap to make but become exponentially disruptive and costly to reverse. 
3. Independent challenge and verification is tangible evidence of a disciplined, well-managed capital development process. 

Bridging the Gap from Announcement to Delivery

Among project developers, a perception often persists: seeking external review signals a project in distress. In capital budgeting discussions, subjecting engineering scope and commercial assumptions to third-party interrogation can be misconstrued as a vote of no confidence in the primary delivery team.

In reality, the reverse is true. Across complex infrastructure, independent challenge is the disciplined stage-gate practice that protects capital by reconciling technical reality with commercial terms before designs are locked.

Independent Challenge Is a Sign of Strength, Not Doubt 

Across capital projects, and in particular within emerging low-carbon industrial infrastructure, the gap between announced projects and delivered assets remains stark. Data from the Mission Possible Partnership’s Global Project Tracker reveals that fewer than 17% of announced commercial-scale clean industrial facilities worldwide have reached Final Investment Decision (FID) or commercial operations, leaving more than 800 major decarbonization projects stalled in front-end development.

The causes of developmental paralysis are multifaceted. While macroeconomic interest rate shifts and global supply chain disruptions sit largely outside a developer's control, project definition and developmental discipline remain entirely manageable. Even amid external volatility, a project designed with resilience will have a far greater likelihood of success.

Independent review and assurance directly strengthen a project’s chance of success and overall value. Large global project delivery organizations have applied this discipline for decades by deploying independent teams to evaluate project readiness at every stage gate. For teams lacking a dedicated internal oversight organization, or those deploying first-of-a-kind facilities, third-party independent review provides the necessary rigor to facilitate project success.

Relae’s (formerly Carbon Direct) work with Stockholm Exergi is a clear example: independent assurance helped build funder and regulator confidence in a first-of-a-kind carbon removal facility with no direct precedent to benchmark against.

Why Projects Stall Between Announcement and FID 

Low-carbon infrastructure and net-zero industrial projects carry unique risks compared to the repeat delivery of established designs. Exciting new developments run a higher risk of falling victim to optimism bias or compressing development timelines to meet public announcement milestones.

It is a natural human tendency for project champions to focus on the upside during early development. However, early momentum must be balanced with processes that reintroduce industrial lessons, supply-chain realities, and operational resilience.

Front-End Loading (FEL) is a well-evidenced approach for improving capital project outcomes. Decades of benchmarking by Independent Project Analysis (IPA) show that approximately two-thirds of industrial megaprojects suffer capital cost overruns or schedule slippage of 25% or more, or encounter severe operational problems lasting more than two years post-startup. This pattern is repeating in low-carbon infrastructure: IPA’s analysis of 12 completed low-carbon projects found average cost escalation of 31% and schedule slip of almost 50%. Rigorous front-end definition remains the single strongest predictor of whether a project will achieve its cost and schedule targets. 

As highlighted in the CDR 2.0: Five Pillars of Successful Project Deployment and Delivery report published by Relae, projects falter when developers push ahead without stress-testing the full delivery framework. Stage gate reviews are the mechanisms that evaluate the total project concept and underlying business case. They are most effective when executed as independent cold-eye evaluations prior to each funding gate, identifying and mitigating vulnerabilities long before final investment decisions are reached. 

What Funders Need to See at Each Gate 

Different stages of project development rely on distinct capital sources, each requiring specific proof points before deploying funds.

Before FEED Funding: Justifying the Engineering Spend

Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) is a major financial commitment, typically costing between 2% and 4% of total project capital cost. The funders backing this stage are usually the developer’s own balance sheet equity, strategic partners, or public grant programs. Before allocating millions of dollars to detailed engineering, these funders need confidence on the fundamentals:

• A technically sound process concept, confirmed utility balances, and an energy integration scheme that fits the site.
• Secured site control, clear zoning pathways, and no environmental fatal flaws that could derail permitting.
• Documented availability of required feedstocks, water and power, paired with demonstrable interest from target off-takers.

Before FID: Proving Bankability and Commercial Closure

As a project approaches FID, the funding audience shifts to conservative commercial lenders, infrastructure funds, and binding offtake counterparties. These capital providers are not underwriting strategic vision; they are underwriting long-term operational cash flows and debt service. Depending on the project and financing structure, capital providers may require:

• A high-confidence capital cost estimate (AACE Class 2 or Class 3) backed by frozen Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs), firm equipment quotes, and a realistic execution schedule with clear critical paths.
• Bankable engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) structures that clearly allocate risk, include performance guarantees and enforceable liquidated damages.
• Fully executed, binding offtake and feedstock agreements, along with non-appealable permits and completed utility interconnection agreements, with remaining conditions clearly understood.
• An objective, third-party challenge review that assesses operational viability and distinguishes an executable engineering plan from an aspirational concept.

Commercial and Technical Co-Development: The Stage-Gate Method in Practice

A project rarely fails because of an isolated mechanical issue or a purely commercial misstep; failure happens when technical decisions and commercial terms are negotiated in silos and decisions are made without understanding of the wider implications. 

We see this disconnect play out in several ways, including: 

• Sizing capacity before testing market demand: An engineering team may size a facility to maximize thermodynamic efficiency and economies of scale, only for the commercial team to discover buyers will only commit to half that volume. The developer is left with an oversized, unbankable design requiring fundamental rework. 
• Setting product specifications before negotiating offtake: Process engineers frequently design systems around standard vendor packages. However, when downstream transport, processing, or storage networks enforce strict purity standards, the facility faces costly equipment redesigns. This issue has materialized directly within European CCS networks. Open-access offshore storage operators, such as Norway's Northern Lights project, established strict cross-border CO₂ specifications requiring tighter moisture and impurity thresholds than originally designed for. 
• Locking Electrical Loads Prior to Interconnection Verification: As detailed in Relae’s analysis of physical infrastructure bottlenecks, scale is rarely constrained by capital availability; it is dictated by electrical transmission queues, substation headroom, and 24/7 firm power availability. Freezing electrical demand before verifying utility interconnection timelines risks stranding engineering work on an asset that cannot connect to the grid. 

How Relae Stress Tests Projects at Each Gate 

Independent reviews at each stage-gate improve success rates by stress-testing assumptions before presenting to lenders, infrastructure investors, or corporate buyers. Relae reviews projects across five categories using the TECOP framework:

• Technical: Verifying technology readiness levels (TRL), mass and energy balances, plot plan constructability, and operational availability under real-world conditions.
• Economic: Capex benchmarking, operating contingency adequacy, utility tariff sensitivities, and financial model cash-flow resilience.
• Commercial: Offtake agreement structures, feedstock contracts, contracting boundaries, EPC contract structures, and counterparty creditworthiness.
• Organizational: Owner's team capabilities, internal stage-gate governance, contractor oversight mechanisms, and execution capabilities. 
• Political: Statutory permitting status, regulatory durability, carbon market policy exposure, and local community social license.

The TECOP framework is relevant for evaluating delivery risk across all project types, see more in Relae’s Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal, Delivery Risk Appendix.

What makes this approach effective is sitting on both sides of the table. Having completed over 250 deep-dive technology reviews, 900+ project evaluations, and advised on more than $6 billion in industrial project finance, Relae has extensive experience evaluating the considerations important to institutional funders and buyers.

The Value of Early Independent Project AssuranceIncorporating independent review should be standard practice for modern infrastructure delivery. Because funders will perform their own rigorous diligence regardless, conducting an independent evaluation early enables developers to address vulnerabilities proactively and present a more resilient business case.

Commissioning an independent team for a cold-eye review during early project formation can be a  cost-effective way to identify potential risks before they become expensive to address. Catching an unworkable process assumption, an oversized capacity plan, or a misaligned commercial interface during pre-FEED costs a tiny fraction of what it takes to fix those issues during construction

Ultimately, independent challenge is not an admission of doubt, but the disciplined stage-gate practice that protects capital by reconciling technical reality with commercial terms before designs are locked, signaling to partners, and your future funders that your project is built to deliver. 

To dive deeper into the frameworks that support successful projects, read Relae's white paper: CDR 2.0: Five Pillars of Successful Project Deployment and Delivery and take a look at project assurance in action through our Stockholm Exergi Case Study.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is independent project assurance?

Independent project assurance is a structured review of a capital project by a team that sits outside the project’s delivery organization. Reviewers test the engineering scope, cost estimate, schedule, commercial agreements and permitting position against what funders will require at the next stage gate. The developer receives a clear list of gaps, risks and proposed mitigations prior to presenting the project to lenders, investors or buyers.

When should a developer commission an independent project review?

Periodically throughout the project development process - at a minimum before each major funding gate, but smaller reviews are also beneficial at earlier stages when key concept and technology decisions are being made. A review before Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) tests whether the process concept, site and supply of feedstock, water and power justify the engineering spend. A review before Final Investment Decision (FID) tests whether the cost estimate, EPC structure and binding agreements will satisfy lenders. Site, technology and capacity decisions are cheap to change in pre-FEED and expensive to reverse once detailed engineering starts.

What does an independent project review assess?

Relae structures its reviews around the TECOP framework, which covers five risk areas: technical (technology readiness, mass and energy balances, constructability), economic (capex benchmarking, contingency, financial model resilience), commercial (offtake, feedstock and EPC contracts), organizational (owner’s team capability and stage-gate governance) and political (permitting, regulatory durability and social license). Reviewers also check that technical and commercial decisions are aligned, because projects often fail where the two are developed in silos.

How does an independent project review differ from lender due diligence?

An independent project review applies a holistic approach identifying not only gaps, but also opportunities to add value and strengthen the business case. Lender and investor due diligence is often purely looking at risks and gaps, prior to committing capital. Lender diligence protects the funder and reports its findings at a point when changes are costly and can delay financial close. A developer-commissioned review takes place earlier, so the project team can fix weaknesses in scope, cost or contracts before funders see them.