NEGLECTED CDR METHOD DESIGNATION

Government can give a promising but underfunded CDR method official 'neglected method' status, making work on that method eligible for extra support. For example, a research agency could reserve some grants for these methods or pay specialists to help researchers design field trials. Participating programmes would use the same list of designated methods, so each agency would not need to reassess whether a method is being overlooked. Individual projects would still have to meet the programme's requirements. The aim is to help promising approaches receive attention and support before they can attract sufficient private investment. The idea draws on incentives for medicines treating rare diseases, known as orphan medicines. It is a proposed CDR policy, rather than an established CDR scheme.

Government must distinguish a promising method that struggles to attract funding from one that receives little investment because the evidence suggests it is unlikely to work. Assessment should consider the method's stage of development, existing support and potential benefits, such as using less land or energy. Before granting status, agencies must agree what support follows, who will provide it and how it will be funded. Rules should explain selection, appeals and periodic review. Preference should end when the method no longer needs it or evidence no longer justifies support. Any qualified developer working on the method should be able to apply. Designation would not give one company the sole right to use that method, replace project permits or prove that carbon has been removed.

A common designation can help several agencies support the same overlooked method as it develops. A research fund might support laboratory work, followed by technical assistance for a field trial and, if the method proves suitable, access to a public purchasing programme. Researchers would know which opportunities are available and would not have to make the case for special treatment separately to every agency. The status could also explain to private funders why government considers the method worth investigating. These benefits depend on programmes actually offering useful support; recognition alone does not pay for research or create orders.

Developers of well-funded methods may try to qualify by presenting their work as a neglected subcategory. Assessors may also support a method despite weak technical evidence, diverting resources from more promising alternatives. Where several agencies offer benefits, government can lose sight of how much support one method receives. Reserving funds or opportunities also leaves less for other applicants. Automatic renewal can prolong support after it is no longer justified, while the word 'neglected' may suggest failure to investors. Independent assessment and published reasons for continuing or ending support can reduce these risks.

Evaluation should examine whether designated methods receive support they would otherwise have struggled to obtain, and whether that support helps them reach specific research or demonstration milestones. Comparing their progress with similar methods outside the scheme can help test this. Agencies should report which benefits were used, what they cost and which developers received them. Government can then decide whether to continue a designation, change the available support or end preferential treatment. Later investment should not automatically be attributed to the designation.

Researchers and developers should explain the evidence behind the method, what remains unproven and why existing funding is insufficient. Independent scientific and economic experts should assess those claims and disclose financial ties to applicants. Research agencies, technical-assistance providers and public buyers must agree what they can offer. Other developers, civil-society organisations and affected communities should be able to challenge unfair preferences or identify environmental and social requirements that supported projects must still meet.

National governments and supranational bodies such as the EU can establish a designation recognised by several public programmes. The EU orphan-medicine system provides an example of this type of official status. Regional, state or municipal authorities could create a smaller scheme for research, advice or purchasing programmes they control. They would need agreement from other authorities before the status could qualify applicants for those authorities' support. A local designation could not, for example, make a project eligible for a national tax relief without national approval.