Carbon capture and storage in Central and Eastern Europe: Three priorities to accelerate deployment

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a vital tool for European industries to decarbonise, specifically for tackling process emissions from hard-to-abate sectors such as cement, lime, steel, and chemicals. In Central and Eastern European (CEE) these industries, which together emit some 90.5 million tonnes of CO₂ a year, play a vital role in national economies, providing higher than average GVA (gross value add) in the European Union.

The EU’s Industrial Carbon Management Strategy laid out the roadmap for achieving annual CO₂ injection capacity of at least 250 million tonnes per year in the European Economic Area (EEA) by 2040. And the Net Zero Industry Act (NZIA) set an obligation on European oil and gas producers to develop 50 million tons of annual CO₂ storage capacity by 2030.  The message from Brussels and climate science (including the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is clear: carbon management must rapidly be deployed across Europe, including the CEE region if climate targets are to be achieved. The CEE industry views CCS as a critical tool for decarbonisation. The Polish Cement Association asserts that CCS is essential, as it provides a viable pathway to maintain the competitiveness of the cement sector amid evolving climate policies. Without CCS, cement production in Poland would likely face rising cost pressures, increasing the risk of displacement by cheaper imports from regions with less rigorous climate regulations.

We are seeing ripples of action at the national level too as Poland is expected to publish its carbon management strategy next year, Czechia has designed its own roadmap, and Latvia has recently lifted its ban on CO₂ storage. However, despite some promising policy developments, a regional disparity remains.

The reality is that neither policy nor deployment is progressing quickly enough. Currently, planned CO₂ storage projects in the CEE region constitute just 1.5% of Europe’s total capacity and none have secured storage licenses or taken final investment decision (FID). If this is to change, supportive policies, regulatory clarity for CO₂ storage and transport, and national funding schemes must be quickly put in place. Regional deployment of CCS stands in stark contrast to the region’s needs, as CEE accounts for almost 19% of Europe’s industrial emissions.

As CATF analysis has shown, governments in the region will need to take an active role to ensure that CCS is available as a decarbonisation solution for their industries, making sure that the critical components for success are present: funding, social acceptance, and policy coordination. This blog explores these three components and recommends how governments can put them into action.

1. National and EU funding will be key to de-risk early carbon capture and storage deployment

As with any pollution control technology, CCS imposes an extra cost on the emitter. Currently, emitters in the CEE region face a projected cost gap of between €10 and €47 per tonne of CO₂ in 2030 compared to paying an assumed high carbon price of around 145/€t. Because the total cost of early-stage CCS often exceeds the EU ETS price, and the uncertainty of the EU ETS price trajectory, projects remain unbankable on market terms alone.

This is why state support is essential to move forward CCS projects. As seen in successful examples across Europe, national funding can be a bridge that makes projects viable and secures the business case. This requires a mix of CAPEX support to cover initial investments and OPEX support to cover the extra costs of deploying CCS. Carbon Contracts for Difference (CCfDs) are likely to be a vital here, as they provide a stable strike price that protects emitters from carbon price fluctuation and de-risks the investments.

With increasingly constrained government budgets, keeping costs low and designing effective funding instruments will be crucial. Subsidies are unlikely to be available at the scale and duration required to decarbonise EU heavy industry. CATF’s CCS cost tool shows that developing widespread domestic CO₂ storage in CEE can reduce deployment costs by 23% to 48%, significantly lowering the amount of government funding needed to bridge the gap, by lowering the total costs of the project. Additionally, it will be necessary to combine these incentives with measures to grow demand for decarbonised products. The Industrial Accelerator Act is an opportunity to create this demand with procurement policies, but the region’s industry will only be able to access these markets if decarbonisation projects are bankable and built.   

While EU funding mechanisms exist, they are highly competitive, for example the 2023 Innovation Fund (IF) call was six times oversubscribed and cannot be the sole solution. National co-funding and state-backed de-risking mechanisms are required to unlock these investments. Nonetheless, EU funding can be a critical piece of the puzzle to complete business cases for CCS projects in the region, leveraging available funding from schemes such as the IF or the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) as well as future funding opportunities that may arise through the forthcoming Industrial Decarbonisation Bank (IDB).

2. Building and maintaining social acceptance is essential for carbon capture and storage success

Technical feasibility and funding matter, but they will not determine CCS deployment on their own. Social acceptance, the degree to which citizens understand, trust, and ultimately support CCS, is emerging as the defining factor in the deployment of this technology.

Without it, even permitted projects can face opposition that delays or cancels development, making public consent as essential as engineering safety.

A recent CATF and CCUS Association Poland report  finds that resistance rarely stems from inherent aversion to CCS but from limited engagement and unfamiliarity with the technology, which remains a new topic in Poland’s energy and climate policy discourse. Lasting acceptance requires early dialogue, transparency, and a clear explanation of local benefits. Without a community-centered approach, projects risk setbacks similar to the cancellation of the Barendrecht CCS project in the Netherlands or the credibility challenges experienced by Australia’s Gorgon project.

• Start the conversation before the permits
  
  Early, proactive engagement builds trust and avoids misunderstandings that can undermine CCS projects. Communities should hear directly from developers, with clear explanations of the science, local impacts, and project purpose. Dialogue should begin before any administrative procedures  to allow concerns to be addressed and plans adapted to local expectations. Effective communication requires choosing channels that resonate with residents, local and cultural conditions and ensuring coordination across authorities and developers.
• Share transparent data
  
  Transparency and safety assurance are central to winning trust for overcoming fear of the new technologies in industrial decarbonisation. International experience, like Japan’s Tomakomai project, shows that trust grows when communities  can see the numbers for themselves. Publishing clear, real-time information on injection volumes and other safety indicators helps residents verify that the project is meeting commitments and operating responsibly. Open data reduces uncertainty, counters misinformation, and demonstrates that operators and authorities are confident in the integrity of the project and willing to be held accountable.
• Develop a clear co-benefits narrative
  
  Community support is stronger when CCS deployment is linked to visible local benefits. Clear communication should show how projects can protect industrial jobs, attract new investment, and strengthen municipal revenues. Education is critical, particularly in regions unfamiliar with CCS. Authorities and developers should explain the technology in simple terms, using case studies and trusted local partners such as universities, NGOs, and community organisations. This helps demystify CCS and shifts the conversation from fear of the unknown toward recognition of the role CCS can play in regional development and climate progress.
• Enable communities to participate in shaping the process
  
  Social license requires continuous engagement throughout the lifecycle of a CCS project. Communities should have meaningful opportunities to contribute through public consultations, citizen panels, and regular updates during planning and operations. Developers and authorities must respond quickly and transparently to concerns, showing how local input influences decisions. When residents see their feedback reflected in the project design and long-term plans, trust grows and support becomes more durable. This collaborative approach strengthens the legitimacy of CCS projects and aligns them with regional priorities for economic development and climate security. These four actions form the basis of a strong social acceptance strategy that shifts CCS from a top-down process to a collaborative effort with communities as active partners. With clear communication, early education, and sustained dialogue, CCS can become a shared solution for industrial decarbonisation, regional revitalisation, and long-term climate security. 

3. CEE countries need strong governmental coordination to unlock carbon capture and storage at scale

To bring these pieces together, CEE governments need to evolve their role in this space. As a first step, governments must help lay the groundwork for successful deployment by integrating CCS into national policies and establishing clear regulatory frameworks for CO₂ transport and storage. Beyond setting the rules, however, a more active role is required. Governments must also act as coordinators, aligning stakeholders, enabling shared infrastructure, and ensuring that early projects can move forward with confidence.

We can look to successful examples like Northern Lights in Norway or Porthos in the Netherlands for best-practices. These projects did not emerge solely from market forces alone. They succeeded because the state played an active role in planning and de-risking the infrastructure and providing direct funding support. For instance, State-Owned Entities (SOEs) involved the Porthos project were able to accept lower returns to achieve national climate goals and accept early-stage risk, effectively de-risking the project for private partners.

Complex country-wide CCS value chains require synchronisation that individual companies are likely to be unable to manage alone. Governments are well positioned to:

• Facilitate clusters and align timelines: Coordinating shared infrastructure so that multiple industrial sites can share transport and storage networks, lowering costs for all actors involved. Governments should play a role in ensuring that transport and storage infrastructure is ready and aligned for when the capture plants turn on.
• Establish a “one-stop-shop”: Creating a dedicated national unit to streamline knowledge on deployment and regulation, and help industries navigate complex EU funding applications.
• Unlock funds: Ensuring that available EU pots are actually directed toward industrial decarbonisation projects. With the exception of Croatia, CEE countries largely missed the opportunity to include CCS in their Recovery and Resilience Plans (RRPs); proactive coordination is needed to ensure the region capitalizes on future instruments like the proposed Industrial Decarbonisation Bank.

Without this active coordination, the region risks missing the wave of industrial decarbonisation, leaving its industries exposed to high carbon costs and reliance on export to foreign CO₂ storage. The opportunity for CEE to become a leader in CCS technology and skills is there, but governments need to act now to seize it.