Strengthening Biomass Carbon Removal and Storage (BiCRS) Protocols

A technical assessment of 25 BiCRS protocols reveals that only 28% are satisfactory, with 72% scoring below satisfactory. The report identifies critical flaws in greenhouse gas accounting, particularly regarding system boundaries, biomass production emissions, and the treatment of uncertainty. It recommends adopting comprehensive system boundaries, standardizing the treatment of biomass baselines, and implementing robust measurement, monitoring, reporting, and verification (MMRV) to protect market and climate integrity.

• Of the 25 BiCRS protocols assessed as of May 1, 2025, only 28% were scored as satisfactory, while 72% scored less than satisfactory.
• Every protocol reviewed contained at least one fundamentally flawed approach to crucial features, with some containing up to seven such flaws.
• Protocol performance varied by technology: subsurface storage of organic carbon (land/ocean burial or geologic injection) scored highest, while BECCS and materials-based storage protocols scored poorly.
• There is a significant discrepancy in system boundaries between purpose-built BiCRS projects, which typically use comprehensive boundaries, and retrofit projects, which often use narrow boundaries that may exclude upstream emissions.
• The report recommends that protocols account for all biomass production, collection, and transport emissions to prevent over-crediting and avoid shifting emissions elsewhere in the supply chain.
• To ensure additionality and transparency, the report argues that avoided emissions from the alternative fate of biomass should be quantified and reported separately from actual carbon removals.
• The assessment found that the most robust approach to coproduct emissions is to deduct all process emissions from the carbon dioxide removal (CDR) calculation, regardless of other products produced.
• The report identifies a need for standardized, long-term measurement, monitoring, reporting, and verification (MMRV) and suggests that third-party verifiers should not be hired directly by project developers to avoid conflicts of interest.
• Most protocols lack consistency in insurance mechanisms for carbon reversal; the report recommends requiring buffer pools with sizes tied directly to the specific storage risk.

APA

Herbstritt, S., Sanders-DeMott, R., Fallon, K., Richard, T. L., Baker, S., Gurgel, A., Hochman, G., Peng, W., Sagues, J., Moore, L. S., & Woods, J. (2026). Strengthening Biomass Carbon Removal and Storage (BiCRS) Protocols. Clean Air Task Force. https://www.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/BiCRSProtocolReport.pdf

Chicago

Herbstritt, Steph, Rebecca Sanders-DeMott, Kathy Fallon, Tom L. Richard, Sarah Baker, Angelo Gurgel, Gal Hochman, et al. Strengthening Biomass Carbon Removal and Storage (BiCRS) Protocols. Clean Air Task Force, 2026. https://www.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/BiCRSProtocolReport.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Herbstritt |first1=Steph |last2=Sanders-DeMott |first2=Rebecca |last3=Fallon |first3=Kathy |last4=Richard |first4=Tom L. |last5=Baker |first5=Sarah |last6=Gurgel |first6=Angelo |last7=Hochman |first7=Gal |last8=Peng |first8=Wei |last9=Sagues |first9=Joe |display-authors=etal |title=Strengthening Biomass Carbon Removal and Storage (BiCRS) Protocols |publisher=Clean Air Task Force |date=March 2026 |url=https://www.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/BiCRSProtocolReport.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{herbstritt2026strengthening, author = {Herbstritt, Steph and Sanders-DeMott, Rebecca and Fallon, Kathy and Richard, Tom L. and Baker, Sarah and Gurgel, Angelo and Hochman, Gal and Peng, Wei and Sagues, Joe and Moore, Lisa Schulte and Woods, Jem}, title = {{Strengthening Biomass Carbon Removal and Storage (BiCRS) Protocols}}, institution = {Clean Air Task Force}, year = {2026}, month = mar, url = {https://www.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/BiCRSProtocolReport.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }