Scholarlink

<p>This systematic umbrella review, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, analyzed 49 studies on carbon removal policy alignment with the European Carbon Removal Certification Framework (EU CRCF). Its objective was to explore the interplay between EU CRCF guidelines and regional regulatory approaches globally. The review developed a 10-criterion scoring rubric, evaluating alignment based on principles like quantification, additionality, and long-term storage. The average total alignment score was 8.9 out of a possible 20 points, indicating partial adherence. Significant gaps were identified in lifecycle GHG accounting (average score 0.6) as well as non-duplication and EU ownership (average score 0.5). Results also highlighted substantial double counting risk, with 59.2% of policies sharing geographic regions. While Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) systems showed global maturation, publication bias was noted, with a predominance of qualitative studies and limited data transparency. The study concluded that strengthening lifecycle accounting, comprehensive monitoring and liability, and robust double-counting prevention systems are crucial for effective global carbon removal aligned with the EU CRCF.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Harmonizing policy pathways: a systematic review of policy and regulation alignment with the carbon removal certification framework in regional context

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月28日

查看全文
  • Timothy Yu Yee Ong,
  • Lai Ti Gew,
  • Hwai Chyuan Ong,
  • Long Chiau Ming

摘要

This systematic umbrella review, following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, analyzed 49 studies on carbon removal policy alignment with the European Carbon Removal Certification Framework (EU CRCF). Its objective was to explore the interplay between EU CRCF guidelines and regional regulatory approaches globally. The review developed a 10-criterion scoring rubric, evaluating alignment based on principles like quantification, additionality, and long-term storage. The average total alignment score was 8.9 out of a possible 20 points, indicating partial adherence. Significant gaps were identified in lifecycle GHG accounting (average score 0.6) as well as non-duplication and EU ownership (average score 0.5). Results also highlighted substantial double counting risk, with 59.2% of policies sharing geographic regions. While Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) systems showed global maturation, publication bias was noted, with a predominance of qualitative studies and limited data transparency. The study concluded that strengthening lifecycle accounting, comprehensive monitoring and liability, and robust double-counting prevention systems are crucial for effective global carbon removal aligned with the EU CRCF.