Insights lost at points of vulnerability in UK policy evidence gathering on carbon dioxide removal

The methods, quantity, and timing of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is impacted by, and has implications for, decarbonising energy, land use change, agriculture, the earth system response, and global society. Uncertainties in each plus the rapid development of CDR methods and policy, make decision-making challenging. Insights from the social sciences and humanities are underrepresented in CDR decision-making. Qualitative evidence and theoretical insights are challenging to synthesise with quantitative policy outputs and decision tools. Real-world complexities may therefore be missed from feasibility assessments and decision-making around CDR, with consequent risks to delivery. We focus on expert consultation procedures to identify points where real-world insights may be lost. The focus is non-statutory consultations with significant two-way dialogue and multiple stakeholders. Non-statutory processes are less scrutinised and more fluid, with greater scope for the quality of evidence to be impacted by institutional and human biases. Twenty-six semi-structured online interviews were conducted with individuals from NGOs, policy, industry, and academia who work on CDR and related areas. Interviews capture both inside (i.e., policymaker) and outside (i.e., stakeholder) perspectives on evidence gathering procedures. Interviews provide insights into the contexts in which evidence is gathered, which procedures are working well and where changes may promote more robust evidence gathering. We identify points at which insights are lost: (1) expert selection (as this determines the types of evidence heard), (2) during panel sessions (e.g., if some voices are silent or marginalised), and (3) evidence synthesis (e.g., if insights do not fit easily into the intended output).