CDR RD&I ROADMAPS

A CDR research, development and innovation roadmap sets out which knowledge gaps and technical uncertainties a government or intergovernmental coalition intends to address, in what sequence and by when. It can define priority pathways, performance targets, demonstration stages, decision points, responsible institutions and future funding needs. The roadmap coordinates choices across research programmes but does not itself award grants, build facilities or create demand. A dedicated CDR strategy covers the wider deployment, regulation and market architecture. This lever is limited to the RD&I pathway.

Scope needs to cover relevant CDR methods and enabling work without treating unlike storage durations, development stages or risks as interchangeable. Baselines and milestones are most useful when cost, energy, net removal, durability, environmental performance and scale are defined consistently. A transparent method is needed for prioritising research and revising choices as evidence changes. Responsibilities and decision gates need to connect milestones to later grants or demonstrations without turning prospective funding into a commitment. Public and private contributors also need rules for conflicts, intellectual property, open data and failed approaches.

A common sequence can expose neglected research questions, reduce duplication and show researchers and funders where progress in one field depends on another. Comparable milestones make it easier to stop weak lines of work, expand promising ones and coordinate laboratories, demonstrations and measurement research. A published roadmap can also signal a durable area of interest to researchers, suppliers and private funders. Cross-border roadmaps can divide work among countries with different capabilities, while regional or industry versions can build on local scientific and industrial strengths.

A roadmap can become a wish list disconnected from budgets and authority. Narrow priorities may lock out useful methods, while vague milestones let programmes claim progress without solving a technical problem. Optimistic cost or scale assumptions can distort later policy, and industry influence may favour incumbent approaches. Frequent revision can weaken coordination, but a static roadmap can preserve obsolete choices as evidence changes.

Evaluation should compare funded work, completed experiments, demonstration decisions and published evidence with the roadmap’s milestones and dependencies. Cost or performance claims need the same system boundaries used in the roadmap. Patents, papers and projects are intermediate outputs rather than proof of lower-cost removal. Missed milestones, new evidence and duplicated work should inform scheduled revisions and future funding priorities.

Engagement should test the evidence base, dependencies and feasibility of proposed milestones. Researchers, CDR developers, measurement specialists, funders and infrastructure providers should contribute technical and delivery evidence. Communities, workers and environmental experts should examine safeguards and local research needs, while officials responsible for budgets and later deployment can identify where the roadmap lacks an implementable route.

International coalitions can agree shared research missions and a division of work. Supranational institutions and national governments can align roadmaps with research programmes and future calls under their authority. Participating research funders remain responsible for making and financing the subsequent awards.