Participants in the expert workshops leading to the production of this road map broadly agreed that there exists a “vicious cycle” whereby the lack of investments into mCDR pathways has prevented proof-of-concept field trials from taking place. These field trials are in turn critical to answer key questions on environmental benefits and risks, as well as technical feasibility, which in turn could enhance public confidence in further exploration of mCDR pathways. While a handful of field trials and demonstration projects are getting off the ground (mCDR Field Trial Database) it will be critical to continue and increase efforts towards investment and awareness. 

Without this essential information, and/or without increasing public support, there is likely to be continued underinvestment into pilot projects. 

The lack of awareness of and support for ocean-based CDR amongst key audiences was clearly identified as one of the (if not the) primary obstacles to unlocking greater resources that could accelerate the development and testing of ocean-based CDR pathways. Readers may consult the road map “Growing & Maintaining Public Support” which details the specific obstacles, needs, and opportunities to advance public awareness and support. 

Participants in the expert workshops leading to the production of this road map broadly agreed that there exists a “vicious cycle” whereby the lack of investments into ocean-based CDR pathways has prevented proof-of-concept field trials from taking place. These field trials are in turn critical to answer key questions on environmental benefits and risks, as well as technical feasibility, which in turn could increase enhance public confidence in further exploration of ocean-based CDR pathways. 

Without this essential information, and/or without increasing public support, there is likely to be continued underinvestment into pilot projects. 

The lack of awareness of and support for ocean-based CDR amongst key audiences was clearly identified as one of the (if not the) primary obstacles to unlocking greater resources that could accelerate the development and testing of ocean-based CDR pathways. Readers may consult the road map “Growing & Maintaining Public Support” which details the specific obstacles, needs, and opportunities to advance public awareness and support. 

Participants in the expert workshops leading to the production of this road map broadly agreed that there exists a “vicious cycle” whereby the lack of investments into ocean-based CDR pathways has prevented proof-of-concept field trials from taking place. These field trials are in turn critical to answer key questions on environmental benefits and risks, as well as technical feasibility, which in turn could increase enhance public confidence in further exploration of ocean-based CDR pathways. 

Without this essential information, and/or without increasing public support, there is likely to be continued underinvestment into pilot projects. 

Public investment from governments must play a critical role in providing early-stage funding to the development and field testing of mCDR technologies, which in turn helps to “de-risk” private investment and finance of mCDR efforts. This public investment de-risking function is critical to creating the enabling conditions for building an industry and a market and has been done successfully in several fields, from healthcare to renewable energy.  So far, public investment in mCDR is lacking. 

In the US, the US Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) is the primary source of US public support through the $50 million MARINER program designed “to develop the tools to enable the United States to become a global leader in the production of marine biomass” (but for energy, not CDR) and through $2 million in recently announced awards to support research and development on direct ocean capture (electrochemical) technologies. The ARPA-E SEA-CO₂ (Systems for the Enhanced Acquisition of Carbon Dioxide from the Ocean) initiative focuses on funding research and development projects that explore novel approaches to remove carbon dioxide from seawater, aiming to address climate change by harnessing the potential of the ocean as a carbon sink through innovative technologies and processes.

In the EU, the OceanNETs (NETs: Negative Emission Technologies) project is evaluating a wide range of mCDR pathways for their theoretical, technological, economic, social, and political viability. OceanNETs is funded at € 7.19 million (~$8.75 million). 

While these government funding programs are steps in the right direction, they fall well short of the recently released call for a 10-year, $1.75 billion US federal investment in mCDR research, development, and demonstration (EFI, 2020).

Philanthropic investment is also important to build an enabling environment for increasing public awareness and support of mCDR pathways (Gagern, 2021). The ClimateWorks Foundation and the Grantham Environmental Trust are two of a small number of philanthropic organizations that include mCDR in their portfolios. 

Public investment from governments must play a critical role in providing early-stage funding to the development and field testing of mCDR technologies, which in turn helps to “de-risk” private investment and finance of mCDR efforts. This public investment de-risking function is critical to creating the enabling conditions for building an industry and a market and has been done successfully in several fields, from healthcare to renewable energy.  So far, public investment in mCDR is lacking. 

In the US, the US Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) is the primary source of US public support through the $50 million MARINER program designed “to develop the tools to enable the United States to become a global leader in the production of marine biomass” (but for energy, not CDR) and through $2 million in recently announced awards to support research and development on direct ocean capture (electrochemical) technologies. The ARPA-E SEA-CO₂ (Systems for the Enhanced Acquisition of Carbon Dioxide from the Ocean) initiative focuses on funding research and development projects that explore novel approaches to remove carbon dioxide from seawater, aiming to address climate change by harnessing the potential of the ocean as a carbon sink through innovative technologies and processes.

In the EU, the OceanNETs (NETs: Negative Emission Technologies) project is evaluating a wide range of mCDR pathways for their theoretical, technological, economic, social, and political viability. OceanNETs is funded at € 7.19 million (~$8.75 million). 

While these government funding programs are steps in the right direction, they fall well short of the recently released call for a 10-year, $1.75 billion US federal investment in mCDR research, development, and demonstration (EFI, 2020).

Philanthropic investment is also important to build an enabling environment for increasing public awareness and support of mCDR pathways (Gagern, 2021). The ClimateWorks Foundation, and the Grantham Environmental Trust are two of a small number of philanthropic organizations that include mCDR in their portfolios. 

Public investment from governments must play a critical role in providing early-stage funding to the development and field testing of mCDR technologies, which in turn helps to “de-risk” private investment and finance of mCDR efforts. This public investment de-risking function is critical to creating the enabling conditions for building an industry and a market and has been done successfully in several fields, from healthcare to renewable energy.  So far, public investment in mCDR is lacking. 

In the US, the US Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) is the primary source of US public support through the $50 million MARINER program designed “to develop the tools to enable the United States to become a global leader in the production of marine biomass” (but for energy, not CDR) and through $2 million in recently announced awards to support research and development on direct ocean capture (electrochemical) technologies. The ARPA-E SEA-CO₂ (Systems for the Enhanced Acquisition of Carbon Dioxide from the Ocean) initiative focuses on funding research and development projects that explore novel approaches to remove carbon dioxide from seawater, aiming to address climate change by harnessing the potential of the ocean as a carbon sink through innovative technologies and processes.

In the EU, the OceanNETs (NETs: Negative Emission Technologies) project is evaluating a wide range of mCDR pathways for their theoretical, technological, economic, social, and political viability. OceanNETs is funded at € 7.19 million (~$8.75 million). 

While these government funding programs are steps in the right direction, they fall well short of the recently released call for a 10-year, $1.75 billion US federal investment in mCDR research, development, and demonstration^[2]Energy Futures Initiative. “Uncharted Waters: Expanding the Options for Carbon Dioxide Removal in Coastal and Ocean Environments.” December 2020. . 

Philanthropic investment is also important to build an enabling environment for increasing public awareness and support of mCDR pathways^[3]Gagern, Antonius. “Demystifying Ocean-Based Carbon Dioxide Removal: An Explainer - Insights from Our Shared Seas.” Our Shared Seas, 19 Jan. 2021. https://oursharedseas.com/demystifying-ocean-based-carbon-dioxide-removal-an-explainer/ . The ClimateWorks Foundation^[4]“Climate Works: Ocean Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)”. https://www.climateworks.org/programs/carbon-dioxide-removal/oceans/ and the Grantham Environmental Trust^[5]Lorenzo, Emanuele Di. “New Partnership to Deploy Ocean-Based Solutions to Climate.” Ocean Visions, 21 Oct. 2020, www.oceanvisions.org/post/new-partnership-with-grantham-environmental-thrust-to-deploy-ocean-based-solutions-to-climate. are two of a small number of philanthropic organizations that include mCDR in their portfolios. 

Public investment from governments must play a critical role in providing early-stage funding to the development and field testing of mCDR technologies, which in turn helps to “de-risk” private investment and finance of mCDR efforts. This public investment de-risking function is critical to creating the enabling conditions for building an industry and a market and has been done successfully in several fields, from healthcare to renewable energy.  So far, public investment in mCDR is lacking. 

In the US, the US Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) is the primary source of US public support through the $50 million MARINER program designed “to develop the tools to enable the United States to become a global leader in the production of marine biomass” (but for energy, not CDR) and through $2 million in recently announced awards to support research and development on direct ocean capture (electrochemical) technologies. 

In the EU, the OceanNETs (NETs: Negative Emission Technologies) project is evaluating a wide range of mCDR pathways for their theoretical, technological, economic, social, and political viability. OceanNETs is funded at € 7.19 million (~$8.75 million). 

While these government funding programs are steps in the right direction, they fall well short of the recently released call for a 10-year, $1.75 billion US federal investment in mCDR research, development, and demonstration^[2]Energy Futures Initiative. “Uncharted Waters: Expanding the Options for Carbon Dioxide Removal in Coastal and Ocean Environments.” December 2020. . 

Philanthropic investment is also important to build an enabling environment for increasing public awareness and support of mCDR pathways^[3]Gagern, Antonius. “Demystifying Ocean-Based Carbon Dioxide Removal: An Explainer - Insights from Our Shared Seas.” Our Shared Seas, 19 Jan. 2021. https://oursharedseas.com/demystifying-ocean-based-carbon-dioxide-removal-an-explainer/ . The ClimateWorks Foundation^[4]“Climate Works: Ocean Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)”. https://www.climateworks.org/programs/carbon-dioxide-removal/oceans/ and the Grantham Environmental Trust^[5]Lorenzo, Emanuele Di. “New Partnership to Deploy Ocean-Based Solutions to Climate.” Ocean Visions, 21 Oct. 2020, www.oceanvisions.org/post/new-partnership-with-grantham-environmental-thrust-to-deploy-ocean-based-solutions-to-climate. are two of a small number of philanthropic organizations that include mCDR in their portfolios. 

Public investment from governments must play a critical role in providing early-stage funding to development and field testing of ocean CDR technologies, which in turn helps to “de-risk” private investment and finance of ocean-based CDR efforts. This public investment de-risking function is critical to create the enabling conditions for building an industry and a market and has been done successfully in a number of fields, from healthcare to renewable energy.  So far, public investment in ocean- based CDR is lacking. 

In the US, the US Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) is the primary source of US public support through the $50 million MARINER program designed “to develop the tools to enable the United States to become a global leader in the production of marine biomass” (but for energy, not CDR) and through $2 million in recently announced awards to support research and development on direct ocean capture (electrochemical) technologies. 

In the EU, the OceanNETs (NETs: Negative Emission Technologies) project is evaluating a wide range of ocean-based CDR pathways for their theoretical, technological, economic, social, and political viability. OceanNETs is funded at € 7.19 million (~$8.75 million). 

While these government funding programs are steps in the right direction, they fall well short of the recently released call for a 10-year, $1.75 billion US federal investment in ocean-based CDR research, development, and demonstration^[2]Energy Futures Initiative. “Uncharted Waters: Expanding the Options for Carbon Dioxide Removal in Coastal and Ocean Environments.” December 2020. . 

Philanthropic investment is also important to build an enabling environment for increasing public awareness and support of ocean-based CDR pathways^[3]Gagern, Antonius. “Demystifying Ocean-Based Carbon Dioxide Removal: An Explainer - Insights from Our Shared Seas.” Our Shared Seas, 19 Jan. 2021. https://oursharedseas.com/demystifying-ocean-based-carbon-dioxide-removal-an-explainer/ . The ClimateWorks Foundation^[4]“Climate Works: Ocean Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)”. https://www.climateworks.org/programs/carbon-dioxide-removal/oceans/ and the Grantham Environmental Trust^[5]Lorenzo, Emanuele Di. “New Partnership to Deploy Ocean-Based Solutions to Climate.” Ocean Visions, 21 Oct. 2020, www.oceanvisions.org/post/new-partnership-with-grantham-environmental-thrust-to-deploy-ocean-based-solutions-to-climate. are two of a small number of philanthropic organizations which include ocean-based CDR in their portfolios. 

Public investment from governments must play a critical role in providing early-stage funding to development and field testing of ocean CDR technologies, which in turn helps to “de-risk” private investment and finance of ocean-based CDR efforts. This public investment de-risking function is critical to create the enabling conditions for building an industry and a market and has been done successfully in a number of fields, from healthcare to renewable energy.  So far, public investment in ocean- based CDR is lacking. 

A previous analysis by the Energy Futures Initiative and the Bipartisan Policy Center of US federal investments in ocean-based CDR RD&D found a total expenditure of only $44.3 million on marine pathways across 115 projects from 2005 to 2018^[1]Hezir, Joseph S., Bushman, Tim, Stark, Dr. Addison K., Smith, Erin. “Carbon Removal: Comparing Historical Federal Research Investments with the National Academies’ Recommended Future” Funding Levels” April 2019. . 

In the US, the US Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) is the primary source of US public support through the $50 million MARINER program designed “to develop the tools to enable the United States to become a global leader in the production of marine biomass” (but for energy, not CDR) and through $2 million in recently announced awards to support research and development on direct ocean capture (electrochemical) technologies. 

In the EU, the OceanNETs (NETs: Negative Emission Technologies) project is evaluating a wide range of ocean-based CDR pathways for their theoretical, technological, economic, social, and political viability. OceanNETs is funded at € 7.19 million (~$8.75 million). 

While these government funding programs are steps in the right direction, they fall well short of the recently released call for a 10-year, $1.75 billion US federal investment in ocean-based CDR research, development, and demonstration^[2]Energy Futures Initiative. “Uncharted Waters: Expanding the Options for Carbon Dioxide Removal in Coastal and Ocean Environments.” December 2020. . 

Philanthropic investment is also important to build an enabling environment for increasing public awareness and support of ocean-based CDR pathways^[3]Gagern, Antonius. “Demystifying Ocean-Based Carbon Dioxide Removal: An Explainer - Insights from Our Shared Seas.” Our Shared Seas, 19 Jan. 2021. https://oursharedseas.com/demystifying-ocean-based-carbon-dioxide-removal-an-explainer/ . The ClimateWorks Foundation^[4]“Climate Works: Ocean Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)”. https://www.climateworks.org/programs/carbon-dioxide-removal/oceans/ and the Grantham Environmental Trust^[5]Lorenzo, Emanuele Di. “New Partnership to Deploy Ocean-Based Solutions to Climate.” Ocean Visions, 21 Oct. 2020, www.oceanvisions.org/post/new-partnership-with-grantham-environmental-thrust-to-deploy-ocean-based-solutions-to-climate. are two of a small number of philanthropic organizations which include ocean-based CDR in their portfolios. 

Public investment from governments must play a critical role in providing early-stage funding to development and field testing of ocean CDR technologies, which in turn helps to “de-risk” private investment and finance of ocean-based CDR efforts. This public investment de-risking function is critical to create the enabling conditions for building an industry and a market and has been done successfully in a number of fields, from healthcare to renewable energy.  So far, public investment in ocean- based CDR is lacking. 

A previous analysis by the Energy Futures Initiative and the Bipartisan Policy Center of US federal investments in ocean-based CDR RD&D found a total expenditure of only $44.3 million on marine pathways across 115 projects from 2005 to 2018. 

In the US, the US Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) is the primary source of US public support through the $50 million MARINER program designed “to develop the tools to enable the United States to become a global leader in the production of marine biomass” (but for energy, not CDR) and through $2 million in recently announced awards to support research and development on direct ocean capture (electrochemical) technologies. 

In the EU, the OceanNETs (NETs: Negative Emission Technologies) project is evaluating a wide range of ocean-based CDR pathways for their theoretical, technological, economic, social, and political viability. OceanNETs is funded at € 7.19 million (~$8.75 million). 

While these government funding programs are steps in the right direction, they fall well short of the recently released call for a 10-year, $1.75 billion US federal investment in ocean-based CDR research, development, and demonstration. 

Philanthropic investment is also important to build an enabling environment for increasing public awareness and support of ocean-based CDR pathways. The ClimateWorks Foundation and the Grantham Environmental Trust are two of a small number of philanthropic organizations which include ocean-based CDR in their portfolios. 

The lack of well-developed markets for carbon removal and permanent storage also affects the flow of early-stage investment into mCDR pathways specifically. While terrestrial CDR has spurred the creation of numerous certifications and over two dozen standards-developing organizations, this proliferation has not consistently resulted in high-quality CDR implementations. There is much to learn from the successes and failures of the terrestrial carbon markets and apply them to the nascent mCDR markets (Arcusa & Sprenkle-Hyppolite, 2023).

There has recently been some progress to develop carbon removal markets (e.g. Nori, Puro Earth), and there are a growing number of corporate commitments to carbon removal, alongside several high-profile CDR ‘futures’ purchases from Stripe, Shopify, and Microsoft.

However, more work is needed to keep growing the markets for CDR and to better connect the growing demand for carbon removal to the potential suppliers of carbon removal. More clarity and certainty on the demand side (scale, specifications, pricing, etc.) will give clarity to potential early-stage investors and may increase capital flow into the development of the technologies and enterprises that can ultimately deliver carbon removal at a competitive price.

As outlined in the technology-specific road maps (Electrochemical CDR, Macroalgae Cultivation & Carbon Sequestration, Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement, Microalgae Cultivation and Carbon Sequestration, and Blue Carbon Restoration and Carbon Sequestration), many of the mCDR pathways also generate co-products that can serve as important sources of revenue for carbon removal ventures. These include, but are not limited to: high-value bioproducts, bioplastics, and bioenergy from macroalgae; hydrogen, chlorine, and oxygen gases, as well as hydrochloric acid from electrochemical processes; and valuable metals refined from ocean alkalinity enhancement pathways.  Unknowns about the current and projected sizes of the markets for these co-products hinder the development of more accurate business models for investors into mCDR pathways. 

The lack of well-developed markets for carbon removal and permanent storage also affects the flow of early-stage investment into ocean-based CDR pathways specifically. 

There has recently been some progress to develop carbon removal markets (e.g. Nori, Puro Earth), and there are a growing number of corporate commitments to carbon removal, alongside several high-profile CDR ‘futures’ purchases from Stripe, Shopify, and Microsoft.

However, more work is needed to keep growing the markets for CDR and to better connect the growing demand for carbon removal to the potential suppliers of carbon removal. More clarity and certainty on the demand side (scale, specifications, pricing, etc.) will give clarity to potential early-stage investors and may increase capital flow into development of the technologies and enterprises that can ultimately deliver carbon removal at a competitive price.

As outlined in the technology-specific road maps (Electrochemical CDR, Macroalgae Cultivation & Carbon Sequestration, Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement), many of the ocean-based CDR pathways also generate co-products that can serve as important sources of revenue for carbon removal ventures. These include, but are not limited to: high value bioproducts, bioplastics, and bioenergy from macroalgae; hydrogen, chlorine, and oxygen gases, as well as hydrochloric acid from electrochemical processes; and valuable metals refined from ocean alkalinity enhancement pathways.  Unknowns about the current and projected sizes of the markets for these co-products hinders development of more accurate business models for investors into ocean-based CDR pathways. 

The lack of well-developed markets for carbon removal and permanent storage also affects the flow of early-stage investment into ocean-based CDR pathways specifically. 

There has recently been some progress to develop carbon removal markets (e.g. Nori, Puro Earth), and there are a growing number of corporate commitments to carbon removal, alongside several high-profile CDR ‘futures’ purchases from Stripe, Shopify, and Microsoft.

However, more work is needed to keep growing the markets for CDR and to better connect the growing demand for carbon removal to the potential suppliers of carbon removal. More clarity and certainty on the demand side (scale, specifications, pricing, etc.) will give clarity to potential early-stage investors and may increase capital flow into development of the technologies and enterprises that can ultimately deliver carbon removal at a competitive price.

As outlined in the technology-specific road maps, many of the ocean-based CDR pathways also generate co-products that can serve as important sources of revenue for carbon removal ventures. These include, but are not limited to: high value bioproducts, bioplastics, and bioenergy from macroalgae; hydrogen, chlorine, and oxygen gases, as well as hydrochloric acid from electrochemical processes; and valuable metals refined from ocean alkalinity enhancement pathways.  Unknowns about the current and projected sizes of the markets for these co-products hinders development of more accurate business models for investors into ocean-based CDR pathways. 

There was strong agreement in the expert workshops that a shortage of capacity, skills, and knowledge in the mCDR field amongst researchers, entrepreneurs, marine managers, and key stakeholders creates obstacles to the enhanced development and testing of mCDR pathways. More effort is needed to further identify the requisite knowledge and skills set for mCDR development and to work with relevant institutions to train and develop people with the capacity needed globally,  

There was strong agreement in the expert workshops that a shortage of capacity, skills, and knowledge in the ocean CDR field amongst researchers, entrepreneurs, marine managers, and key stakeholders creates obstacles to the enhanced development and testing of ocean-based CDR pathways. More effort is needed to further identify the requisite knowledge and skills set for ocean-based CDR development and to work with relevant institutions to train and develop people with the capacity needed globally,  

Investment is needed not only in the development of mCDR technologies but also in the associated tools needed to support the field (examples of this include [C] Worthy and entities in the private sector). This includes a new suite of hardware and software products that can:

1. Provide physical, chemical, and biological information at sufficient spatial and temporal density necessary to make informed carbon sequestration estimates.
2. Provide remote verification of carbon sequestration and permanence.
3. Provide the autonomous or remote monitoring, maintenance, and troubleshooting necessary to support large-scale offshore operations.

Investment is needed not only in development of ocean-based CDR technologies but also in the associated tools needed to support the field. This includes a new suite of hardware and software products that can:

1. Provide physical, chemical, and biological information at sufficient spatial and temporal density necessary to make informed carbon sequestration estimates.
2. Provide remote verification of carbon sequestration and permanence.
3. Provide the autonomous or remote monitoring, maintenance, and troubleshooting necessary to support large-scale offshore operations.

Advancing the investment into the development and testing of mCDR approaches will require governance structures that both enable the permitting of legitimate testing and development and ensure that the public interests are protected.  

Current governance-related gaps include:

• There are no specific regimes in the US nor internationally governing mCDR.
• Uncertainty and lack of expertise/knowledge around the jurisdiction and application of relevant international governance regimes to mCDR (e.g. London Convention/London Protocol, UN Convention on Biological Diversity).
• In many countries, there are complex regulatory mazes to navigate to gain permits for in-water experimental trials, hindering the development of trials. This is particularly challenging in countries (e.g. the US) featuring overlapping jurisdictions and authorities in the coastal zone.

These and other governance and regulatory uncertainties present real challenges and risks to those working to conduct research and development on mCDR pathways and inhibit private investment.

Regimes and protocols around monitoring, reporting, and verification for mCDR also need to be strengthened to clarify the roles and responsibilities of CDR providers (sellers), buyers, and regulators.

Advancing the investment into development and testing of ocean-based CDR approaches will require governance structures that both enable the permitting of legitimate testing and development and ensure that the public interests are protected.  

Current governance-related gaps include:

• There are no specific regimes in the US nor internationally governing ocean-based CDR.
• Uncertainty and lack of expertise/knowledge around the jurisdiction and application of relevant international governance regimes to ocean-based CDR (e.g. London Convention/London Protocol, UN Convention on Biological Diversity).
• In many countries, there are complex regulatory mazes to navigate to gain permits for in-water experimental trials, hindering development of trials. This is particularly challenging in countries (e.g. the US) featuring overlapping jurisdictions and authorities in the coastal zone.

These and other governance and regulatory uncertainties present real challenges and risks to those working to conduct research and development on ocean-based CDR pathways and inhibit private investment.

Regimes and protocols around monitoring, reporting, and verification for ocean-based CDR also needs to be strengthened to clarify roles and responsibilities of CDR providers (sellers), buyers, and regulators.