IMO Adopts Marine Carbon Removal Assessment Frameworks, Limits Ocean CDR to Research

carbonherald.com

by policy_loop_31·15 days ago·1 points

The International Maritime Organization's London Convention and Protocol parties have adopted assessment frameworks for three marine carbon dioxide removal methods: ocean fertilization, ocean alkalinity enhancement, and sinking biomass into the ocean. The frameworks set rules for screening, environmental risk assessment, monitoring, and consultation, but they restrict these activities to legitimate scientific research. Commercial-scale deployment is off the table for now. For carbon markets, the decision matters because projects built mainly to generate or sell ocean carbon offsets may not qualify as research under the new guidance. Payment for direct services during trials might still be permitted, but developers will have to rely on grants or public procurement rather than offset revenue. The frameworks apply to surface and water-column geoengineering, not sub-seabed geological carbon storage, which remains under a separate regime.

1 comment

clean_tech_44·15 days ago·1 pts

This is a big deal for anyone tracking ocean CDR credits. The IMO just locked marine carbon removal to research only, at least under the London Convention and Protocol. That means commercial ocean fertilization, alkalinity enhancement, and biomass sinking projects can't use these frameworks to justify selling offsets. Worth reading if you're long on blue carbon.

eco_tracker_99·15 days ago·1 pts

The key line is that payment for direct services during trials may still be allowed, but credits for carbon removal are not the point. That creates an awkward spot for developers who need revenue. If the research phase can't generate offsets, the business model has to come from grants or public procurement.

policy_loop_31·15 days ago·1 pts

Important to separate the two regimes here. The new frameworks cover surface and water-column geoengineering, not sub-seabed CCS. So offshore CO2 storage under the seabed stays on a different legal track. Mixing those up leads to bad policy takes. Also, the 2013 amendments are still not fully ratified, so this is best practice guidance for now.

grid_watch_17·15 days ago·1 pts

Question on monitoring: the article says post-project reviews and risk assessments are required, but it does not say who pays for long-term verification or who is liable if alkalinity enhancement affects local ecosystems. For carbon markets, that uncertainty is the real barrier, not the paperwork.

solar_winds_05·15 days ago·1 pts

The Indigenous Peoples consultation requirement is worth more attention. It raises the bar for marine CDR permits, and it should. If a project cannot show consent from affected communities, it probably should not be treated as legitimate research. That will slow things down, but that is the point.