The Trump Administration’s increasing commitment to scientific nonsense regarding climate change creates an opportunity for other countries to lead. The Canadian Senate is recommending that Canada do just that with respect to marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR). Canada is in a unique position to lead on mCDR development. Dalhousie University has been at the forefront of advancing mCDR research, and mCDR companies, like Planetary and CarbonRun, were founded in the country. Earlier this month, the Canadian Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans released a report on the Canadian government’s role in advancing mCDR. The report recommends that Canada quickly develop a framework to advance responsible research and development of mCDR. Key recommendations include that Canada should develop a national strategy for mCDR, a dedicated public consultation process, and a streamlined permit application process.

At the Sabin Center, we’ve written extensively about mCDR as part of our Carbon Management and Greenhouse Gas Removal Initiative. Some form of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is necessary for the world to meet its climate temperature targets, but many CDR technologies are still in early stages of development. This is certainly true for many mCDR techniques, where open scientific questions around effectiveness and environmental impacts require further research, including field research. The applicable regulatory framework in many countries, including Canada, needs clarification and updating in order to facilitate this field research.

In 2023, after consultations with experts in the field, we wrote model federal legislation that would, if enacted by the U.S. Congress, create a new regulatory framework for mCDR research in U.S. ocean waters. While the model law was developed for the U.S. context, the framework it lays out could be adapted for use in other countries, including Canada.

This blog presents some of the key findings and recommendations of the Canadian Senate report. It also draws parallels between those recommendations and our model legislation, which could prove useful in implementing the Senate’s recommendations.

The Canadian Senate Committee Report

The Canadian Senate commissioned a report on ocean carbon sequestration in September 2024. Over the next year and a half, the Canadian Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans conducted interviews with more than 30 experts, including the Sabin Center’s Romany Webb, and received additional briefing materials. After these consultations, the committee decided to focus many of its recommendations on one mCDR technique, land-based ocean alkalinity enhancement. This refers to adding alkaline materials to rivers and harbors, with the intent to draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide and sequester it in the ocean. The committee decided to focus on this technique because it is already being tested in Canada and, in the committee’s view, is “relatively easier to monitor.” Though this may be a missed opportunity for the committee to guide policy on the wider mCDR field, several of its recommendations are broadly applicable to mCDR.

The report includes nine recommendations aimed at effectively balancing the opportunities and risks associated with mCDR. This blog highlights three of those recommendations relevant to governance of mCDR.

1. Streamline the application process for land-based ocean alkalinity enhancement projects through the use of a sector-specific regulatory sandbox.

A key challenge to advancing scientifically sound mCDR research is the time, cost, and complexity of navigating multiple governmental approvals. Simplifying this process, while still providing robust review, can help ensure that projects move forward based on their scientific merit and potential impact, rather than their ability to navigate a complex legal system. The Canadian Senate report is vague on how this should be achieved, but argues that the permitting process should “incorporate the approvals required by all the relevant federal and provincial entities into one streamlined process.” This is a good start in avoiding duplicative review and ensuring that applicants are reaching every necessary agency.

The report also recommends a sector-specific regulatory sandbox. Though the report does not define the term, it links to the Canadian government’s policy on regulatory sandboxes. That policy promotes the use of temporary authorization for innovative projects “for the purpose of evaluating the real-life impacts of innovation, in order to provide information to the regulator to support the development, management and/or review and assessment of the results of regulations.” In other words, for certain sectors, the government allows innovative projects to go forward to inform the best way to regulate future projects. With appropriate safeguards, this is a smart approach to ensuring that regulations are responsive to fast-moving scientific development.

Our model law includes several suggested changes to streamline permitting of mCDR research projects, in line with the Canadian Senate’s recommendation. First, the model law establishes a single federal agency as the lead agency responsible for final permitting decisions. Second, it calls for the establishment of preferred zones for mCDR research, with input from key stakeholders on where to establish the zones, expedited permitting review within the zones, and restrictions on activities that could interfere with mCDR activities within the zones. Preferred research zones would be one form of regulatory sandbox that the Canadian Senate called for, in that projects in those zones could inform future regulatory development. Third, the model law establishes guidelines for when the lead agency should approve a permit for a project. Each of these suggestions would streamline the application process and give applicants a clearer sense for when mCDR research projects would be approved.

2. Champion a multi-departmental and multi-organizational task force to work towards the development of an mCDR regulatory framework for Canada.

In addition to streamlining application processes, regulatory agencies should also communicate to ensure that their policies are not duplicative and together provide the right balance between climate mitigation ambition and local environmental protection. One way to do this is to formally create a task force that requires collaboration across agencies. The Senate report recommends that Canada do so to “provide advice and direction to the Government of Canada regarding the development of a marine carbon dioxide removal regulatory framework” and to develop the above-mentioned streamlined application process. The report recommends the government model this on the now-disbanded mCDR Fast Track Action Committee established in the U.S.

Our model law also calls for the U.S. federal government to establish an interagency working group, made up of 13 federal agencies and White House offices, to develop a national mCDR research plan. In developing and updating the national plan, the working group would be required to engage with key stakeholders, including regional research councils. These councils, made up of state and tribal representatives, would consult on the drafting of the national plan and develop research programs to regionally implement the national plan. The model law thus provides one framework for how the Canadian task force could be structured, with clear roles for each level of government to provide input into decision-making on mCDR.

3. Establish a two-tiered approach to consultation that includes, first, broad public consultations and information sharing about CDR, and, second, focuses on consultations for specific project proposals.

While details on the way this two-tiered consultation would operate still need to be fleshed out, it is a good framework to start with. Engaging the public before specific projects are on the table can inform better initial regulatory policy. It can also build a base of knowledge in relevant community spaces before an individual project is proposed. This can help avoid down-the-line problems from lack of adequate community engagement (see, for example, recent issues around community acceptance of carbon capture and storage in Louisiana).

Our model law provides one example for how public engagement can be structured in permitting decisions. While the model law provides for exclusive federal oversight of mCDR research, it requires close collaboration between the lead federal agency and tribes, states, local governments, and the public. For example, in designating preferred research zones, the lead agency must be guided by the research programs developed by the regional research councils, made up of state and tribal government representatives. These councils must hold public hearings to gather input from local communities in developing their research programs. Further, the lead agency must consult with the regional research councils, other federal agencies, and hold public hearings before making decisions to establish research zones or to issue specific permits.

Conclusion

The Canadian Senate report outlines a path for Canada to lead in developing a sound mCDR research policy. Canada is uniquely suited to lead, and the report rightly identifies this opportunity and regulatory changes that could help the country realize it. The report, though, is just an outline. Further work by the Canadian federal government will be needed to fill in details in how the recommendations should be implemented. Our model law provides one pathway for doing so, with several recommendations that, though intended for a different federal system, are broadly applicable to the Canadian context.