The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has released a new explainer, “Nature and CDR: How SBTi’s Ongoing Emissions Responsibility framework incentivizes both”, alongside its second consultation draft of the Corporate Net-Zero Standard (CNZS V2.0). The document clarifies how the new Ongoing Emissions Responsibility (OER) framework is meant to mobilise corporate finance for both nature-based climate action and carbon dioxide removals (CDR) – especially long-lived, durable CDR.

At Orejen Carbon, we welcome this evolution. As a company focused on high-integrity, durable CDR (including biochar and other long-lived removal pathways), we see the OER framework as an important step towards turning net-zero commitments into actual demand for real-world removal capacity.

Below, we unpack what’s in the explainer and what it means for companies that want to lead on CDR – not in 2040 or 2050, but this decade.

1. From “CDR vs Nature” to “CDR and Nature”

The explainer starts by challenging a familiar narrative: that nature-based solutions and engineered removals are somehow in competition. In practice, net zero needs both:

• Near-term, scalable mitigation and storage in nature – protecting and restoring forests, wetlands, soils and other ecosystems that can absorb and store carbon today, while generating adaptation and community co-benefits.
• Durable, long-lived CDR – building the infrastructure and technologies that can store carbon for centuries or longer in the second half of the century, when residual emissions must be neutralised and natural sinks may saturate.

The new Ongoing Emissions Responsibility framework explicitly treats these as complementary levers, embedded in one integrity system. Companies can:

• Support nature-based reductions, avoidance and removals (e.g. forest conservation, peatland protection, soil carbon projects); and
• Invest in engineered CDR (e.g. biochar, DACCS, mineralisation) and the systems needed to scale them.

For Orejen Carbon, this is crucial: it recognises that durable CDR is not a “last resort” after nature, but part of a continuum of responsibility over time.

2. A Science-Based Responsibility: ~40% of Emissions Balanced by Removals

A central concept in the explainer is the Ongoing Emissions Responsibility Ratio (OERR) – the ratio of the global carbon removal budget to cumulative gross emissions in IPCC scenarios.

Across IPCC AR6 pathways that limit warming to 1.5°C with low or no overshoot – filtered for feasibility and sustainability – the explainer shows that around 44% (≈40%) of cumulative emissions must be balanced by removals.

In other words, in a 1.5°C-consistent world:

Roughly two-fifths of what we emit must be matched by removals over the century.

Within the OER framework:

• Companies seeking “Ongoing Emissions Responsibility Leadership” are expected to take responsibility for 100% of their ongoing Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions over each near-term target period.
• From that, at least 40% of ongoing emissions must be covered by verified ex-post mitigation outcomes – which can include nature-based actions, emission reductions/avoidance and both conventional and novel CDR.

For corporate climate leaders, this is a strong signal:

Removals are not optional add-ons – they are structurally built into what “science-based” responsibility looks like.

3. The Durability Shift: Growing Share of Long-Lived CDR

The OER framework also recognises that not all removals are created equal in terms of storage duration:

• Short-lived removals: typically nature-based, storing carbon in biomass and soils for years to decades, but vulnerable to disturbance, decay, or land-use change.
• Long-lived removals: store carbon for centuries or longer in geological or very stable material reservoirs – for example, biochar incorporated into soils or materials, mineralisation, BECCS, or DACCS with geological storage.

The explainer references IPCC-modelled 1.5°C pathways and shows how the mix of removals evolves:

• Around 17% of total removals come from long-lived reservoirs by 2035;
• That share rises to roughly 41% by 2050 as natural sinks approach saturation and the world relies more on durable storage to maintain net-zero balance.

Crucially, the framework does not prescribe a rigid technology mix, acknowledging that integrated assessment models still represent CDR options unevenly (with a strong bias towards afforestation and BECCS, and partial coverage of DACCS, biochar and enhanced weathering).

Instead, SBTi sets directional expectations: over time, corporate CDR portfolios should shift toward higher shares of long-lived, durable removals – while still valuing nature-based storage for near-term peaking and co-benefits.

For Orejen Carbon, this durability trajectory aligns closely with what we already see in the market:

• Buyers increasingly differentiate between short-lived and durable tonnes;
• Portfolios are moving from “any credits” to high-durability, high-MRV CDR as a distinct asset class.

4. How the OER Framework Creates Demand for Novel CDR

The explainer outlines two main pathways through which OER can channel finance into CDR:

a) Ex-post mitigation outcomes (recognised today)

From 2026, under the voluntary recognition phase, companies can earn recognition for verified mitigation outcomes linked to their ongoing emissions:

• This includes ex-post CDR – removal tonnes that have already been delivered, measured and independently verified.
• Today, the explainer notes that such supply mainly comes from early-stage facilities delivering long-lived CDR, including direct air capture, biochar and mineralisation.

Because supply is limited and quality requirements are high, prices are higher – but so is the integrity. The recognition route effectively allows companies to start:

• Building experience with CDR procurement,
• Demonstrating high-integrity climate contributions beyond their own value-chain abatement, and
• Signalling how they intend to meet future responsibility requirements.

b) Carbon pricing route (funding future CDR capacity)

The second route encourages companies to put a science-based internal carbon price on their ongoing emissions and deploy the resulting budget into eligible climate actions.

Here, finance can support ex-ante and enabling activities, such as:

• Long-term offtake agreements for emerging CDR technologies;
• Investment in verification, monitoring and storage infrastructure;
• Blended finance mechanisms to de-risk first-of-a-kind projects;
• Landscape and systems interventions that make both nature-based and engineered CDR viable at scale.

This is precisely where forward-thinking companies can:

Use OER to justify today’s investments in tomorrow’s CDR pipeline.

For Orejen Carbon, these mechanisms translate into bankable demand signals for projects – from biochar facilities serving smallholder landscapes to integrated digital MRV systems that allow CDR providers and buyers to transact with confidence.

Orejen Carbon’s role

Orejen Carbon exists to make this transition practical, verifiable and scalable. As a CDR specialist, we focus on:

• High-durability removal pathways – including biochar that locks carbon into stable forms for centuries when produced and used under robust standards.
• Digital MRV and traceability – giving buyers, auditors and regulators clear evidence of origin, storage, and co-benefits for every tonne.
• Project enablement in emerging markets – where mitigation and resilience upside is often highest, but where finance and verification infrastructure are hardest.
• Distribution infrastructure – we're building the digital bridges that will allow verified, durable CDR to reach new buyer segments beyond traditional corporate compliance markets.

We see SBTi's OER framework not as a constraint, but as validation of where the market is heading: toward high-integrity, durable removals that can be transparently tracked, verified, and scaled. Companies that move early to secure long-lived CDR capacity – and build the systems to deploy it efficiently – will be best positioned when responsibility requirements become mandatory from 2035 onward.

Final Thought

Net zero is no longer just about how fast companies can cut emissions. It is also about how deliberately they build and support the removal systems that will be needed for decades afterwards.

By signalling an increasing role for long-lived removals, SBTi’s OER framework will offer a roadmap for corporate climate responsibility that is both science-based and future-proof.

At Orejen Carbon, we’re ready to work with companies that want to move early to secure durable CDR, to support nature and communities, and to turn “ongoing emissions responsibility” into real, measurable tonnes removed from the atmosphere.

Source: Nature and CDR: How SBTi’s Ongoing Emissions Responsibility framework incentivizes both

Disclaimer by SBTi

This article is an independent summary and interpretation of public materials from the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). It has not been reviewed, approved or endorsed by SBTi or any of its partner organisations. For the latest and authoritative information, readers should always refer directly to SBTi’s official publications and website.

‍