POST-NET-ZERO OBLIGATIONS

Reaching net zero does not end the need to deal with emissions that continue in later years. Governments, organisations and climate-standard setters can establish continuing duties to keep emissions and removals in balance after the target date. They can also require a net-negative outcome, meaning that removals exceed emissions by a specified amount. The rule identifies who is responsible, how often performance is checked and what action follows a shortfall. For example, a company that still emits after reaching its target must continue to arrange qualifying removals for those emissions. A government seeking a net-negative balance must plan for an additional surplus of removals. Making those responsibilities explicit gives future emissions cuts, removal supply and public or company budgets a continuing purpose beyond the initial deadline.

Drafters should first check what the existing net-zero law, commitment or standard already requires after its target date. Where continued balance is already explicit, the useful addition is to clarify reporting periods, responsibility and correction of failures, or to require a net-negative trajectory. The rule should specify whether compliance is assessed annually or over a defined multi-year period. A shortfall may arise because emissions rise, forests absorb less CO₂, a supplier fails to deliver or previously stored carbon is released. The accounts and corrective action should reflect the cause. Existing project-level replacement duties must be recognised so that the same lost removal is not charged twice. A net-negative requirement also needs a quantity or trajectory, credible removal supply and a clear basis for deciding who pays.

Continuing duties make long-term investments account for emissions after the first target year. If emissions remain, organisations need an ongoing route to removals and governments need policies that maintain the balance across the economy. This can support longer supplier relationships and discourage reliance on a one-off purchase or an unusually strong year for forest growth. A specified net-negative trajectory creates a need for removals beyond those used to balance current emissions, contributing to a reduction in the accumulated atmospheric burden. Clear responsibilities and correction deadlines allow those needs to enter plans and budgets before the target year arrives.

A broad promise may leave it unclear who must act when emissions exceed removals after the target year. Governments may then pass the cost of correcting a shortfall to future taxpayers, while companies may claim continuing net zero without arranging further removals. Unrealistic net-negative requirements can assume more affordable removal supply than can be delivered. Duties can also overlap with existing project obligations, charging twice for the same loss, or assign responsibility for emissions an actor cannot control. A legislated ambition may guide planning without creating an enforceable correction duty. Political amendment, organisational closure or inadequate funding can undermine either approach.

Evaluation should compare each reporting period's gross emissions and net removals with the required balance or net-negative trajectory. Reports should explain any shortfall, who is responsible for correcting it and whether the correction occurred by the deadline. They should distinguish reduced annual forest uptake from release of carbon already stored. Independent review should test whether budgets and delivery plans can meet the continuing duty, as well as whether the initial target remains achievable.

Legislators or the organisation's governing body should agree the continuing duty and who is accountable for it. Finance authorities and budget owners should assess how future emissions cuts and removals will be paid for. Inventory specialists, removal suppliers and land managers should explain the reliability of expected supply and how changes in land carbon affect the accounts. Independent advisers, auditors and affected communities should scrutinise feasibility, correction deadlines and burdens passed to future generations.

Supranational, national, regional and municipal authorities can establish post-target duties for matters within their powers. International bodies can include continuing requirements in programmes or commitments they govern. Companies and philanthropic organisations can adopt them for their own activities; industry schemes can make them conditions of continued recognition. Legislation, organisational decisions and voluntary standards have different consequences for non-compliance, which the implementing rule must specify.