Nature-based carbon removal (CR) could play a key role in achieving climate neutrality but it does face quantification challenges. This study evaluates the effectiveness and efficiency of CR quantification under the Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming (CRCF) Regulation, using Baden-Württemberg (Germany) as a case study. We designed a hypothetical agroforestry system for valuable timber production compliant with the CRCF requirements, modelling potential GHG emission reductions and the benefit-potential ratio (share of the CRCF-compliant net CR benefit within the total GHG emission mitigation potential). The results revealed a significant shortfall between the total GHG mitigation potential (350ktCO 2 eq) and the actual net CR benefit (205ktCO 2 eq), representing only 5% of BW's agricultural emissions. The benefit-potential ratio was at most 59%, with abatement costs ranging from €59 to €153tCO 2 eq -1 . Conservative estimates to improve reliability further lowered the ratio to 24%, pushing costs to €244tCO 2 eq -1 . While agroforestry does manifest regional CR generation potential, it is unlikely to contribute significantly to large-scale CR under the current CRCF framework, as both flaws within its quantification base and the inherent properties of nature-based CR limit its effectiveness. Although transferability is restricted by focusing on valuable timber production in BW, our results highlighted the need for harmonized emission factors, system boundary definitions (particularly indirect land use change), and a clear distinction between CR (e.g., from carbon sequestration in soils) and reduced soil emissions. We advocate balancing the use of agroforestry with more durable CR strategies and imposing caps on nature-based CR contributions to ensure robust climate action.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Geier et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: