At the CCSA EU Conference 2026 in Brussels, discussions reflected a sector increasingly focused on delivery rather than ambition alone. Across a series of panels, conversations were quite direct and practical and highlighted both progress and differences of opinion.
Speakers highlighted the tangible progress of projects but also returned to the same challenge: Europe’s biggest CCS risks are now commercial and regulatory rather than technological. The focus now it seems is agreeing on how to build transport and storage infrastructure, quickly enough, to make European climate targets achievable.
Synchronizing and risk
During the opening panel on scaling up CCUS in Europe, speakers including MEP Jeannette Baljeu and Niels Fleming Hansen, stressed that policy predictability is becoming as important as engineering capability. Roze Wesby from Holcim argued that “predictability of policy is vital,” warning that low-carbon products require coordinated action across the value chain if projects are to reach final investment decisions.
Several speakers also highlighted the difficulty of coordinating large industrial clusters. Marc van der Linden, COO of Gasunie, noted that when multiple emitters attempt to reach FID simultaneously, “the coordination issue has been bigger and bigger,” reflecting a recurring concern that project development timelines are increasingly constrained by commercial alignment rather than technology.
A central theme throughout the day was the need for governments to assume a more active role in de-risking investment. Multiple panellists argued that the market alone cannot yet provide sufficient certainty for large-scale CCS deployment.
In the session on building CO2 transport networks, Tom Mikunda of Bellona Europa cautioned that policymakers must think beyond capture technology and consider the entire value chain. He warned that “we can’t have a stream of subsidies” indefinitely, suggesting future support mechanisms will need to balance public backing with commercial discipline.
That concern reappeared in discussions around carbon contracts for difference (CCfDs), a mechanism increasingly viewed as essential for unlocking investment. The demand for CCfDs was confirmed on throughout the day, though some questioned whether there would ultimately be enough ETS revenue available to support every decarbonisation pathway.
Hubs without borders
The North Sea session, moderated by Caterina De Matteis of IOGP Europe, underscored another recurring tension: developers say they are building storage capacity, but emitters are often reluctant to commit.
“The North Sea already offers some of Europe’s, if not the world’s, leading CCS projects. But scaling this technology across Europe will require more than just ambition and targets,” De Matteis noted, arguing that Europe still lacks the enabling conditions needed to replicate these successes elsewhere.
Lars Erik Aamot from Norway’s Ministry of Energy argued that Europe needs to avoid over-regulating a nascent industry. Other speakers stressed that the polluter needs to pay approach is the best path forward but acknowledged that emitters remain cautious because carbon prices and long-term business cases are still uncertain.
Lucas Maurer from the Flemish Energy Agency showcased how a regional, cluster-focused approach recently led to a $2 billion investment by the region in carbon capture and industrial decarbonization.
The conference had multiple angles on the growing importance of cross-border infrastructure. During the Mediterranean panel, featuring business and policy speakers from Italy and Greece, the region was described as firmly beyond the presentation stage and showing real-world progress.
Italian steel corporation Marcegaglia’s AdriatiCO2 project has received a €31.2 million grant from the EU Innovation Fund and Prinos storage project in Greece has been awarded €270 million in EU-related grant funding, in addition to financing from the EBRD.
It was also highlighted that Eni and Snam’s Ravenna CCS already has 30 Mtpa of confirmed demand, while discussions touched on potential future CO2 exports from Greece to Italy. The panel suggested that the Mediterranean could become Europe’s next major CCS growth region.
A panel dedicated to Eastern Europe had CCUS-focused representatives from ministries in Romania and Poland, as well as Konstantin Bojinov, Project Head of the Anrav CCUS project in Bulgaria. The conversation there highlighted the challenges in reaching targets, both in terms of administrative capacity and policy continuity but also the broader point of uncertainty across the value chain.
As De Matteis observed during the conference, “Targets don’t build projects, only robust business cases do.” The comment echoed one of the event’s central themes: without clearer incentives and commercially viable frameworks, Europe’s CCS ambitions risk outpacing the industry’s ability to deliver them.
CDR is already here
CDR has been presented as the next frontier for Europe’s carbon management industry but the dedicated panel at the conference showed that removals have already established their presence and have a role to play here and now.
Several speakers suggested that integrating permanent removals into the EU ETS (or another compliance framework) would be the single biggest step towards creating a bankable business case for BECCS and direct air capture projects.
As Chris Sherwood from the Negative Emissions Platform succinctly put it, “ETS integration is the most important. If it doesn’t create demand, it’s a massive problem.”
Erik Rylander, Head of Carbon Removal at Stockholm Exergi, described the company’s progress in commercialising bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), noting that buyers are already expressing interest in high-quality permanent removals. According to the discussion, Stockholm Exergi has secured several offtake agreements expected to begin in 2026, but Rylander emphasised that market development still depends on clearer policy signals
Rylander also stressed that while voluntary carbon markets are valuable for developing the sector, “a compliance market is needed” if Europe is to create sustained demand for permanent removals, particularly in hard-to-abate sectors such as aviation, where removals are expected to complement sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) rather than replace emissions reductions.
Money waiting on the sidelines
The overarching issue of funding was also discussed. Pavan Chilukuri, Operating Partner at Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, said that significant pools of long-term, patient capital are available to finance CO2 infrastructure.
CCfD’s were the mechanism he focused on but he also included predictable revenue and clear risk allocation along the chain, as key factors for faster resource deployment.
By the conference’s conclusion, a broad consensus had emerged. Europe no longer lacks CCS projects, storage prospects or investor interest. Where opinions diverged was on whether it has a sufficiently coordinated framework to connect emitters, transport operators, storage developers and governments into functioning markets.
The message from the CCSA EU Conference in Brussels was clear: the next phase of Europe’s CCS journey will be determined less by technology and more by execution. The challenge now is turning political ambition into investable projects before the window for meeting 2030 and 2050 climate targets begins to close.
Read more: Wood Mackenzie: EU Will Miss 2030 Carbon Storage Target By 35%
