As we count down to the 4th International Conference on Carbon Dioxide Removal in Milano, we are hosting a series of discussions on the research that will be shaping our sessions this June! 
This study systematically maps the MRV landscape, exposing critical gaps in terminology and consistency across 60+ certification methodologies. 
It highlights a vital opportunity to align scientific research with market practice to ensure the integrity and comparability of carbon credits globally! 
Full Abstract: A systematic evaluation of the scientific literature and certification methodologies for monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon dioxide removal
Authors: Leon Stephan, Dianne Hondeborg, Maximilian Olmos van Velden, Stephanie Arcusa, Christiane Hamann, Sarah Lück, Leo Mercer, Benedict Probst, Ingrid Schulte
Although demand for carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is growing, uncertainty remains around the integrity and quality of CO2​ removal activities, and the associated projects and credits. Meeting the projected CDR demand over the coming decades will require the development of robust monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems. Yet, knowledge on MRV of CDR remains disaggregated and patchy in both science and practice. Here, we present a two-fold analysis of the MRV landscape in both the scientific and grey literature. First, we present a systematic map and narrative review of the scientific literature on MRV of CDR. Subsequently, we complement this with an analysis of CDR certification methodologies used to issue carbon credits for the voluntary and compliance carbon market.
Our systematic map presents the landscape of MRV literature, summarising and synthesising scientific knowledge on quantification and monitoring approaches and related MRV topics for 16 different CDR methods. Based on 184 scientific studies, we find most literature on conventional CDR methods, such as soil carbon sequestration and afforestation and reforestation, mostly covering quantification aspects of MRV, followed by monitoring and removal quality. Gaps can be found for novel and marine CDR methods, and for reporting and verification practices. Across the literature, we find inconsistent terminology and definitions within the scientific literature, underpinning the patchy nature of the current MRV landscape.
Building on this scientific synthesis, we then expand our work to analyse CDR certification methodologies used to issue CDR credits in the voluntary and compliance carbon market. These methodologies therefore form the foundation of the CDR certification system. We evaluate over 60 methodologies for 11 CDR methods along the categories governance, removal quality, quantification, external impacts, monitoring, reporting, and verification, using the state of the science as a reference. We identify best practices across criteria and find that many methodologies fail to meet them consistently. Preliminary results show discrepancies across protocols regarding terminology, definitions, and requirements for CDR certification, raising concerns about consistency and comparability of CDR certifications. However, we also identify lessons learned for MRV aspects that have not been extensively covered by the scientific literature, such as the reporting and verification of CDR credits. By comparing the MRV knowledge from the scientific literature with its application in CDR certification, our work highlights critical gaps, inconsistencies, and opportunities for beneficial knowledge transfer between research and practice. Our findings aim to inform the development of more coherent, robust, and science-aligned MRV systems, serving as a foundation for robust upscaling of CDR.
What do you think is the best way to close the gap between scientific research and commercial MRV practice? 
