What are the stakes of the CRCF, the new European carbon certification tool?

In a few months, Europe will have a new tool in the fight against carbon emissions. The CRCF or Carbon Absorption Certification Framework is nearing completion. For its creators, it should allow for better remuneration of farmers through a rigorous framework of the carbon credit system. For its detractors, it rewards results rather than good practices. Here’s an overview of the main arguments from both sides.

A "European compass" for carbon storage projects

Storing CO₂ in agricultural soils to valorize them in carbon markets is a well-known principle for Vanessa Pezet, director of the French Gaïago carbon program, which develops this type of project. In three years, the Gaïago carbon program has enabled the remuneration of 136 farmers, who, by taking care of their soils, have managed to save 304 euros per hectare, or about a hundred euros per year. She sees the CRCF as a future "European compass" that will harmonize all the offers present in the market. "We are many, it’s very confusing,” she points out.

Gaïago carbon has chosen to adhere to the Gold standard, known for its rigor, but according to her, some competitors do not show the same level of diligence. Verra, Gold standard, Low carbon label, ISO certification… are among the good students.

But these multiple names and acronyms "that are not necessarily understood" create confusion and "make buyers, today, rather hesitant.” The framework of the CRCF "will come to reassure them, she believes. The Buyers’ club (a buyers' club planned to coordinate investments under the CRCF) will help structure demand, it will give an impetus to value high integrity actors, it will instill confidence in investors and all this will raise the price of carbon credits and thus better remunerate the farmer".

A temporary CO₂ storage

A pious wish according to Carbon market watch, an NGO specializing in monitoring climate policies and carbon markets. Marlène Ramón Hernández, public policy officer for the NGO, highlights the uncertainties surrounding the CRCF: "they have introduced a lot of flexibility, we do not know how good the information coming from the projects will be, if it is based on a methodology that is not good."

According to her, the certification methodology envisaged by the CRCF includes "exemptions from certain important standards. The whole part of biodiversity is not really taken into account" for measuring CO₂, in a simplification objective. She also criticizes the buyback system which she deems illogical: "the credits (carbon) will surely be bought by companies to offset their emissions" while "the storage of CO₂ is temporary, we are talking about nature. If there is a disaster due to climate change, it is very likely that the CO₂ stored will escape into the atmosphere, but the company will continue to use this credit that no longer exists to offset".

This issue of the "permanence" of CO₂ storage is one of the "biggest issues" that Gaïago carbon has had to address with Gold Standard. There is the probability of fire, drought, but also sometimes farms "bought by a large agri-food group,” specifies Vanessa Pezet. To try to mitigate these unforeseen events, Gold standard has chosen to only remunerate 80% of the tons of CO₂ saved. "We will have 20% of the tons actually generated that will serve as insurance for Gold Standard, to ensure that during the project and 20 years after the project, the tons it has certified will be truly sustainable over time.” For her, it is essential that the CRCF has this type of "insurance".

A T0 measurement that sparks debate

A safeguard, which, combined with a calculation system based on measurements of the initial state of the soil, without modeling, should ensure a certain rigor in the mechanism. The measurement at "T0, initial state of the farmer will be in the text, it’s fixed," details Vanessa Pezet. What is currently being negotiated is whether the CRCF will require a return to the plot after three or five years."

A point on which Marlène Ramón Hernández is critical. Carbon market watch believes that starting from T0 is not enough. "It would be necessary to take a sample and send it to the lab, which could say, for example, that there are already five tons of CO₂ that have been stored. And if after five years, it’s ten tons, then the farmer receives five credits,” she elaborates. She also criticizes the intention to include projects initiated by farmers in 2023, which goes against the additionality rule meant to prove that a project generates emission reductions that would not have occurred without external intervention or funding. "The rule is that the money we will receive from these credits must be the reason we started this project. (….) There must be a direct causality. If we allow projects from 2023 to receive credits, we lose this additionality".

She insists that some projects have already been initiated and funded by the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy). "This is where there is a lot of money, she explains. It needs to be used because there is really this capacity to give all this money to positive actions for the environment.” These "good practices" that she deems essential and which she directly opposes to the CRCF, which, according to her, diverts attention by placing more emphasis on results.

What is the CRCF, Carbon Absorption Certification Framework?

A new European mechanism designed to reliably certify the quantities of CO₂ actually removed from the atmosphere, notably through agriculture, but also through forest management. Once in place, the CRCF will validate permanent carbon absorptions and emission reductions in soils generated by carbon agro-storage, industrial technologies that capture CO₂, and sustainable carbon storage in products (construction wood, bio-based materials…). Voluntary farmers will be able to generate certified carbon credits that are tradable on carbon markets if they can demonstrate real, additional (beyond what would be absorbed without the project) and verified absorption. The basic text of the CRCF was adopted in 2025. Certification methodologies by sector are being developed. Those concerning agriculture are to be discussed in the summer of 2026 and the first projects should be submitted by the end of 2026.