Skip to main content

Which?

There is no one-size-fits-all solution when selecting CDR methods. Different buyers may favor different CDR methods depending on their objectives, priorities, and constraints. However, a few common considerations can help guide decisions from general principles to more specific choices:

Opt for durable removal methods​

Durable methods—those storing carbon for hundreds to thousands of years—are ultimately required to neutralize residual emissions and limit climate overshoot. As a result, methods such as direct air capture with storage (DACCS), bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), biochar, or carbon mineralization should be prioritized over shorter-duration approaches such as afforestation and reforestation, particularly for long-term net-zero strategies.

Within durable methods, prioritize robust MRV and integrity​

Among durable methods, buyers should favor those with clearer carbon accounting, established methodologies, and lower uncertainty.

Consider a portfolio approach to balance costs​

Buyers may choose to combine higher-cost, highly durable removal methods with more readily available and lower-cost options as a way to manage overall procurement costs. A portfolio approach can also help diversify delivery risk across different CDR methods.

Buyers can conduct due diligence internally or rely on support from external organizations—such as consultancies, marketplaces, or specialized intermediaries—to assess which projects to engage with. Regardless of who performs the assessment, due diligence should help ensure that a project is credible, financially resilient, and capable of delivering carbon removals over time. The following five categories offer a practical, streamlined checklist to guide this process.

Supplier

Delivery track record & operational performance​

A developer's ability to deliver what they sell is one of the strongest indicators of integrity. Buyers should assess:

  • Delivery vs. sales performance (actual vs. promised volumes)
  • Consistency of issuance and verification
  • Operational milestones achieved over time

Useful data can be found in public project documentation and market data sources such as cdr.fyi, which track issuance, delivery, and buyer activity across CDR suppliers.

Transparency & reporting quality​

High-integrity developers are transparent and provide accessible, high-quality information. Look for:

  • Clear project documentation (methodology used, monitoring plans, MRV data)

  • Registry records and issuance notes: Project developers are generally required to publish their documentation on the registry they use, enabling buyers to clearly reference the project, its unique ID, and a single public source for all disclosed project information.

  • Publicly available performance updates

  • News coverage and media review to identify any potential controversies or integrity concerns associated with the supplier(s)

cdr.fyi can support this assessment by highlighting which developers publicly disclose volumes, buyers, and delivery status.

Financial stability & long-term viability​

Because many CDR projects require multi-year delivery and ongoing monitoring, buyers should evaluate the developer's financial health:

  • Funding sources and financial runway
  • Backing by reputable investors (VCs, corporates, public funding)
  • Financial statements or disclosures (when available)
  • Ability to scale operations over time

Financially resilient developers are more likely to meet long-term monitoring and verification commitments.

Independent validation & market recognition​

External perspectives can strengthen confidence in a developer's credibility. These signals include:

Methodological robustness & MRV quality​

Methodologies and MRV frameworks are central to CDR integrity, but they are also evolving in practice. Standards continue to develop, interpretations can differ across verifiers, and projects applying the same protocol may still vary meaningfully in quality. Buyers should therefore view MRV not as a static checklist, but as an area requiring informed judgment and ongoing scrutiny. When assessing methodological robustness and MRV quality, buyers should consider:

  • Use of credible standards and registries: Whether the project applies a methodology approved by a recognized standard or registry that meets a minimum bar for integrity (check cdr.fyi diagram)

  • The strength and transparency of the MRV (measurement, reporting, verification) approach: The clarity of measurement approaches, data availability, monitoring frequency, and the independence and rigor of verification

  • Treatment of key risks: How permanence, leakage, and reversal risks are identified, quantified, and managed, including the use of buffers or insurance mechanisms where applicable

  • Capacity to improve over time: Whether the developer demonstrates openness and capability to strengthen MRV practices as standards evolve. In practice, improvements or revisions to MRV approaches—when they increase rigor and transparency—should generally be viewed positively

  • Readiness for policy recognition: The extent to which methodologies and MRV practices are likely to align with emerging policy frameworks (e.g., CRCF, Article 6, CORSIA), recognizing that requirements may tighten over time

Market sources like cdr.fyi can help compare methodology adoption, issuance history, and durability profiles across suppliers