ACES https://www.aces-org.co.uk/ Mangrove conservation Wed, 31 May 2023 11:28:16 +0000 en-GB hourly 1 https://www.aces-org.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/cropped-ACES-Twitter-Logo-GREEN-32x32.png ACES https://www.aces-org.co.uk/ 32 32 Ocean Bottle: Supporting blue carbon beyond offsetting https://www.aces-org.co.uk/ocean-bottle-supporting-blue-carbon-beyond-offsetting/ Wed, 31 May 2023 11:02:54 +0000 https://www.aces-org.co.uk/?p=9276 This blog was written in collaboration with Ocean Bottle, who have supported ACES’ projects for several years as part of their commitment to improving the health of the ocean and our planet. This blog was written as part of our ‘financing blue carbon ethically, responsibly and effectively’ series and explores different approaches to compensating for […]

The post Ocean Bottle: Supporting blue carbon beyond offsetting appeared first on ACES.

]]>

This blog was written in collaboration with Ocean Bottle, who have supported ACES’ projects for several years as part of their commitment to improving the health of the ocean and our planet. This blog was written as part of our ‘financing blue carbon ethically, responsibly and effectively’ series and explores different approaches to compensating for corporate carbon footprints and supporting marine conservation.

Ocean Bottle have supported ACES’ mangrove and seagrass projects for several years as part of their commitment to making the ocean, and our world, a better place. Ocean Bottle’s approach to sustainability goes beyond carbon calculations and ‘net zero’; that equating carbon emissions to offset purchases is inadequate. In line with this ethos, they are moving beyond carbon offsetting to a holistic approach to carbon reductions and developing carbon sinks by protecting natural ecosystems such as mangrove forests and seagrass meadows. This blog, written in collaboration with Ocean Bottle, explains the reasoning behind their strategy for emissions reductions and compensating for their unavoidable emissions. Ocean Bottle’s reasons for moving away from offsets include ethical, political and technical challenges to offsetting as a concept and the current offsetting landscape; this reasoning is described well in this document. Here, we focus on the political ethics of carbon offsetting, which raises important questions regarding how the offsetting landscape can be improved in order to incentivise systemic change.

The perspectives presented here are Ocean Bottle’s; however, as ACES, we welcome debate around carbon offsetting and support Ocean Bottle in their emissions reduction strategy. We are pleased to be able to continue working with Ocean Bottle on the development of blue carbon conservation and restoration activities in a way that goes beyond carbon credits.

Emissions reduction strategy

Ocean Bottle’s Emissions Reductions strategy follows three pillars: first by implementing emission reductions through their supply chain, then avoiding emissions in their value chain, and when necessary, developing carbon sinks by protecting natural ecosystems outside of their value chain. This follows the Carbone 4 emissions reductions framework.

While this framework is broadly similar to the ideal scenario for offsetting – reducing your scope 1 & 2 emissions, then scope 3 emissions, followed by offsetting or insetting unavoidable emissions – the biggest differences lie in pillar C.

Firstly, under Carbone 4’s framework, unavoidable (or residual) emissions should be compensated for through the development of carbon sinks such as blue carbon ecosystems. This is similar to ‘removal credits’ – carbon credits that result from the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere – but does not allow an equivalent to ‘reduction credits’ – credits which result from the reduction of CO2 entering the atmosphere. (It is important to note here that removal credits are also sometimes valued and preferred over reduction credits – such as in the Oxford Offsetting Principles).

Secondly, Carbone 4’s framework does not specify that offsets should be used to compensate for unavoidable emissions; it allows for a broader approach to funding activities that enhance natural carbon sinks. This is where Ocean Bottle’s perspective has changed from buying carbon offsets to a more holistic approach to enhancing blue carbon sinks.

Choosing carbon sinks over offsets

If Ocean Bottle are committed to funding the development of carbon sinks like mangroves and seagrass, why are they moving away from offsetting?

Offsetting as a concept has been heavily scrutinised, and the debate around the politics and ethics of offsetting has divided opinion. Critics of offsetting question whether offsetting allows society to delay making systemic changes – i.e., actual carbon reductions – by simply paying for offsets to compensate for carbon emissions. Whilst the morally responsible approach should be to first reduce your direct and indirect emissions as far as possible – as outlined in Carbone 4’s framework – there is nothing to mandate companies to do so (or indeed, to reduce or offset their emissions at all). Likewise, there is no regulation of how companies present or communicate their carbon reductions – a company that offsets all of their emissions without making reductions can report the same emissions reduction targets as a company that has made genuine carbon reductions in their own activities and supply chains (and has therefore contributed to systemic change). Actors in the offsetting market, including ACES, can and do take voluntary steps to guard against this injustice; however, Ocean Bottle’s perspective is that they do not want to play a part in a system that permits less ethical companies to take advantage of unregulated emissions reductions and reporting.

The reporting and carbon reduction strategy enforcements vary from country to country, but are, for the most part, only voluntary. This means that sub-par efforts and greenwashing by the world’s largest emitters will largely go unpunished.

Ocean Bottle

This raises an important question: what can be done to hold companies to account on their emissions reductions and offsetting (or other mitigation actions)? How can companies with genuine commitments to actually reducing their emissions, offsetting only their unavoidable emissions and if they do need to offset, researching their options and choosing high-quality credits with evidenced co-benefits – from companies that simply ‘pay to pollute’ by offsetting without reducing? There needs to be a clear, internationally-aligned reporting system under which consumers can scrutinise the steps that companies are taking to lower their carbon footprints, and thereby hold these companies to account. This would be a significant step towards facilitating systemic change – publicly rewarding companies like Ocean Bottle that go above and beyond to not only compensate for their emissions but have a positive impact through supporting projects that deliver biodiversity and community benefits.

Net zero: a global concept

By definition, a company cannot be carbon neutral… A better terminology which companies and individuals should follow, is to contribute to global neutrality with the purchase of offsets and other mechanisms.”

– Ocean Bottle

When the concept of ‘net zero’ was popularised in the conception of the Paris Agreement, it referred to global emissions – achieving an overall balance of sources and sinks of global greenhouse gases. It is only more recently that the term ‘net zero’ has been used by companies as a label of their emissions reductions or offsetting. Ocean Bottle, among others, believe that the concepts of net zero or carbon neutrality cannot be claimed by individual companies unless they are actively sinking carbon from the atmosphere – if they are still producing emissions then they are still a carbon ‘source’, regardless of offsets. Ocean Bottle suggest that rather than making ‘net zero’ or ‘carbon neutral’ claims, companies should use terminology such as “contributing to global neutrality with the purchase of offsets and other mechanisms”. They believe that not being able to trumpet about self-proclaimed neutrality will deter most companies from relying on offsets.

ACES perspective

Ocean Bottle’s approach to their emissions reductions is a gold-standard example of how companies can meaningfully engage with the climate crisis and their role in fighting it. They have critically questioned their own activities, including their emissions reduction activities so far, and shaped their way forwards based on extensive research and evidence-based perspectives.

Whilst their full reasoning for minimising their use of offsets is not always fully aligned with ACES’ views, we welcome debate regarding the ethics, politics, effectiveness and social justice of offsetting and our partnership with Ocean Bottle allows us to present this diversity of views on an open platform. Ultimately, we and Ocean Bottle share the same end goal: to contribute to a landscape in which climate action by companies is transparent, genuine, effective and socially and environmentally just.

The post Ocean Bottle: Supporting blue carbon beyond offsetting appeared first on ACES.

]]>
Philanthropy and climate change: A conversation with Impatience Earth https://www.aces-org.co.uk/philanthropy-and-climate-change/ Fri, 05 May 2023 11:28:42 +0000 https://www.aces-org.co.uk/?p=9246 Impatience Earth is a pro-bono climate philanthropy consultancy that educates, challenges and inspires wealth holders to take bolder funding decisions to address the climate emergency.

We interviewed Yasmin Ahammad, the Co-Managing Director of Impatience Earth to gather her insights on climate philanthropy and understand what influences donors when they are considering which projects to fund.

The post Philanthropy and climate change: A conversation with Impatience Earth appeared first on ACES.

]]>
A profile photo of Yasmin Ahammed of Impatience Earth

Impatience Earth is a pro-bono climate philanthropy consultancy that educates, challenges and inspires wealth holders to take bolder funding decisions to address the climate emergency.

We interviewed Yasmin Ahammad, the Co-Managing Director of Impatience Earth to gather her insights on climate philanthropy and understand what influences donors when they are considering which projects to fund. 

Here’s what Yasmin had to say… 

1. What motivates philanthropists and foundations to fund projects that tackle climate change? 

The public’s awareness of the climate crisis has skyrocketed in recent years, thanks to the tireless efforts of climate activists and the growing coverage of alarming IPCC research findings. As heat waves scorch entire cities and floods devastate communities, the reality of climate change hits closer to home more than ever before. Urgency has become the driving force for philanthropic donors to invest in the fight against climate change, and their support is crucial to creating the change and momentum we need.

At Impatience Earth, donors typically approach us with a keen understanding that the climate crisis is the most pressing issue of our time. They recognize that the impact of climate change will undo many of the gains made in other areas such as health, education, conservation, social justice, and human rights. These individuals, foundations, and companies feel a collective responsibility to act while there is still time to avoid the worst climate scenarios. They may support climate change as a new strand of their grant-making or incorporate it as a lens through which they view their existing projects.

“We have seen a particular interest in mangrove and other blue carbon projects like seagrass and saltmarshes, because it is easy to understand the numerous co-benefits of investing in such nature-based solutions.”

Why philanthropy and what inspires philanthropists right now?

Philanthropy is uniquely positioned to act because it can provide the seed capital for bold and innovative movements, ideas, and initiatives to experiment, scale, and thrive. Unlike government or corporate institutions, philanthropy can afford to take risks and fund projects flexibly and nimbly, filling critical gaps in support.

We have seen a particular interest in mangrove and other blue carbon projects like seagrass and saltmarshes, because it is easy to understand the numerous co-benefits of investing in such nature-based solutions. Donors focused on reducing carbon emissions are attracted by the carbon sequestration potential of mangroves and seagrasses, while those who are passionate about biodiversity are motivated to protect and restore coastal ecosystems for the benefit of marine species. Donors with a focus on building community resilience find mangroves appealing as a natural barrier to disastrous storm surges and coastal erosion, and as a source of livelihood opportunities through eco-tourism, healthy fisheries and potential access to carbon markets. 

“We have seen a particular interest in mangrove and other blue carbon projects like seagrass and saltmarshes, because it is easy to understand the numerous co-benefits of investing in such nature-based solutions. Climate justice, land rights, youth, and women’s rights are popular cross cutting concerns, while policy, capacity building and conservation are key approaches.” 

Aside from blue carbon approaches, we see a lot of appetite amongst our clients to learn about other carbon sinks such as peatlands and forests, followed by agriculture and food systems as a whole. Climate justice, land rights, youth, and women’s rights are popular cross cutting concerns, while policy, capacity building and conservation are key approaches.      

2. What influences philanthropists’ / foundations’ decision making when assessing quality of projects in terms of how they gauge climate impact, but also co-benefits?

Each donor is different in how they assess which organisations or projects to fund, and how stringently they set the criteria. But generally speaking, they share a few common questions that help them assess the quality of a project:

How well does it align with our philanthropic mission and values? 

If climate justice is a core value of the donor, for instance, they will assess the project based on whether it advances climate justice by putting more power and resources into the hands of those most affected by the climate crisis. Similarly, if they care deeply about biodiversity, they will want to make sure that the project is led by experts who can advise on planting the right trees in the right way to benefit the local ecosystem.

What is the impact of the intervention?

Donors will consider the project’s potential to create positive environmental and social outcomes, depending on their core concerns, whether that be reduction in carbon emissions, or the extent to which communities have ownership and gain benefit from the project. Some donors like hard metrics to demonstrate the impact of the project, such as total carbon sequestered over time, number of trees planted, number of jobs created, or the percentage change in community attitudes towards mangrove restoration. While these example metrics are useful, we try to educate donors that impact measures are best defined by the project leads and communities themselves, so that they are monitoring and reporting what is most useful and important to them. 

What is the sustainability of the project?

Philanthropists will consider whether all the conditions are in place to ensure that the mangroves will be thriving and delivering their benefits long after they have stopped funding the project. This includes having the right tree species and planting methods, community buy-in through education and alternative livelihood opportunities, and a clear plan for ongoing funding, whether through donations or income.

What is the track record of the organisation?

Donors will look closely at the organisation or individuals leading the project to assess their expertise and capacity to successfully implement the project. They might do this by reviewing impact reports, holding short interviews with the project leads, or reaching out to other funders for references. 

3. Following on from the above: what information can practitioners make available, and in what format, to better showcase their projects and help this decision-making? 

In the process of making a decision, clear communication materials are essential. Donors usually start by checking out a website before they even consider asking for a proposal. That is why it’s a good idea to include compelling materials that showcase the impact of your work. 

Telling captivating stories and providing clear impact metrics are crucial to demonstrating the project’s effectiveness and track record. It’s also important to include financial information, such as the organisation’s annual budget, so that donors can determine whether their usual grant size is too much for the organisation to handle or whether they are better set to make a small contribution to a larger pool of resources. It’s also important to highlight the individuals who are behind the project, their skills and backgrounds, and to make their contact information publicly available so that donors know who they can reach out to with any questions. 

If and when invited for a proposal, then pay close attention to the guidelines, especially on the maximum pages they would like. I’ve learned that philanthropists and small foundations typically have very little time to make a number of complex decisions, so the easier you can make this process by being succinct and clear, the better. 

.

4. Moving away from philanthropists and to Impatience Earth – who are you, and what services do you provide?

“We see ourselves as climate knowledge and relationship brokers – helping donors access the incredible array of climate expertise of practitioners, activists, and academics to help make sense of the climate emergency in a way that resonates with them.”

We are a small team of advisors with backgrounds in climate change, biodiversity, international development, social justice, philanthropy and entrepreneurship. We are incredibly passionate about what we do, and how we see our work contributing towards a much more equitable world for everybody. We set out in 2020 to increase the amount of philanthropic capital being directed to climate change, but we also want to see funding going to actors who have been traditionally overlooked and underfunded, and to help shift philanthropy towards a more trust-based approach and in support of climate justice. 

We see ourselves as climate knowledge and relationship brokers – helping donors access the incredible array of climate expertise of practitioners, activists, and academics to help make sense of the climate emergency in a way that resonates with them, and then move forward on acting on climate with confidence by helping them develop strategies, and connecting them to co-funders and potential grantees. 

The learning journey is a central component of our work, which is a bespoke series of intimate sessions with experts where they can dive deep into a subject area and ask lots of questions. We’ve found that learning is critical; clients who want to skip the learning and go straight to recommendations on who to fund don’t seem to end up committing to climate in the long-term. 

5. What are the most common questions that you are asked? Have any common themes emerged that you think need to be better answered/communicated by practitioners?

The most common question we hear is “where can we best make an impact?”

In the climate emergency, there is no straightforward answer to this question, because it is a complex global systemic crisis. Unfortunately this is where a lot of potential donors to climate change get stuck, because it seems so overwhelming, when in fact there are so many ideas, initiatives and approaches in need of funding that will collectively deliver the change we need. 

We help each client craft an answer to this question that makes most sense to them through learning and reflection. There are a number of factors that will influence the answer, such as what values are core to the foundation, where they are drawn to funding geographically, where they think change comes from (e.g. top-town, bottom-up, or both), and which sectors and approaches resonate most with what they have supported so far and want to focus on in future. 

For practitioners seeking funding, it is important, unsurprisingly, to help funders clearly understand how their grants will make a difference. This stems from you understanding the broader change you are working towards in the climate context and beyond, whether it’s building long term community resilience, strengthening local biodiversity or building the movement for climate justice. While it’s important to outline the how (activities) and the why (the problem statement) to demonstrate your capabilities in planning a project, it is the outcomes that will inspire donors to invest in you and help them realise their own impact. 

You can find out more about Impatience Earth and their work on their website.

The post Philanthropy and climate change: A conversation with Impatience Earth appeared first on ACES.

]]>
Carbon offsetting: Is it greenwashing? https://www.aces-org.co.uk/carbon-offsetting-is-it-greenwashing/ Wed, 01 Mar 2023 11:57:30 +0000 https://www.aces-org.co.uk/?p=9011 Part of 2023 blog series: Financing Blue Carbon Ethically, Responsibly, and Effectively Pressure is growing on businesses to show their environmental credentials, and as part of that, tackle their carbon emissions. Claims of ‘carbon neutral’, ‘net zero’ and even ‘climate positive’ are being used more and more by businesses keen to play their role in […]

The post Carbon offsetting: Is it greenwashing? appeared first on ACES.

]]>
Part of 2023 blog series: Financing Blue Carbon Ethically, Responsibly, and Effectively

Pressure is growing on businesses to show their environmental credentials, and as part of that, tackle their carbon emissions. Claims of ‘carbon neutral’, ‘net zero’ and even ‘climate positive’ are being used more and more by businesses keen to play their role in tackling the climate crisis – or at least look like they are. How can we tell which have make genuine and meaningful commitments and progress, and which are simply hiding behind confusing and obscure terminology?

When a business makes claims such as ‘carbon neutral’, ‘net zero’ or similar, it’s important to know exactly what that means.

Reducing a carbon footprint can be achieved in two ways: by reducing the emissions that your activities cause (such as driving or flying less, switching to renewable energy sources, or eating less meat) or offsetting emissions by paying for activities elsewhere that either reduce emissions or sequester (absorb and trap) greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere.

These two strategies are not equal. Reducing our emissions is vital – the average carbon footprint of a Western lifestyle is unsustainably high, and systemic change is needed in order to avoid catastrophic climate breakdown. However, the transition to a low-carbon society is incomplete and reducing emissions is not always possible. Offsetting should only be used to compensate for these remaining emissions – or ‘unavoidable carbon’ – that cannot yet be reduced.

Whether a company reduces or offsets its emissions makes no difference to how their claims to carbon neutrality can be presented. Take two businesses: one of whom has transitioned to renewable heating sources on-site, swapped their fleet of petrol gars for electric vehicles and eliminated all business travel by plane or car; the other has made no changes to their business but has paid to offset their emissions. Both can make the same claims to have reduced their carbon footprint, despite the first business having invested more time and resources into achieving that reduction. This does not incentivise systemic change and can potentially mislead consumers into believing that a business is taking meaningful climate action. Offsetting has been criticised as a cheap and easy alternative to make systematic change; we strongly believe that they should not be used in this way and organisations should be transparent about how they have reached ‘net zero’ and commit to ongoing carbon reductions to reduce the need to offset.

However, the scenario above is binary – the ‘gold standard’ of doing everything possible to reduce, versus doing nothing at all and just buying offsets. The latter scenario is often used by critics of offsetting, claiming that offsets are cheap, quick and easy way to claim carbon neutrality. Unfortunately, there is nothing stopping companies from doing this – and there are certainly companies using offsets to make environmental claims whilst still contributing to climate change. However, our research has found that among our buyers, the reality is much more nuanced and that offsets are seen as one step in the path to ‘actual zero’ emissions: a necessary step for now but not a long-term strategy.  

Rather than thinking of companies as ‘perfect’ or ‘evil’ when it comes to carbon reductions, it is helpful to consider more realistic scenarios. Where is the line drawn between avoidable and unavoidable emissions? For example, the upfront costs of electric cars, heat pumps, insulation and other carbon-saving strategies are expensive, and government incentives are not always available. If a company or individual chooses not to opt for these on the basis of cost – even if they are a small, low-budget business – can the emissions really be counted as avoidable? Purists may say yes – that if you can’t afford to avoid the emissions, you should stop contributing to them altogether. In reality, this is unlikely to happen. Businesses need to stay afloat, people need their livelihoods, and in many cases businesses will (have to) opt for the most cost-effective option for them. There are instances when the burden of carbon reductions is too much to expect of individuals and even businesses – it is where strong, effective policies for carbon reductions are needed.

ACES believe in the ‘3 Ps’ as the principles for tacking the climate change, in order of importance: firstly, political change is needed; secondly, personal (and corporate) carbon reductions should be made, and lastly, paying to offset should be a last solution for emissions that cannot be reduced.

It is also important to consider the value of a carbon offset. Carbon credits are generated by activities undertaken to reduce the amount of carbon entering the atmosphere or remove emissions that are already there. They can be achieved by generating renewable energy, by changing land management practices such as farming methods that result in the release of carbon dioxide, by protecting and restoring forests, and other interventions that result in a ‘carbon benefit’. The diversity of these projects means that the offsets that they generate can mean anything from the financing of a large-scale wind farm with little community benefit, to funding grassroots forest conservation with community development at its core. This diversity brings with it a range of prices – from as little as $0.20 to $50 (and more) a tonne – and the price paid by the buyer may indicate their commitment to supporting projects that go above and beyond carbon, benefitting the wider environment and local people. Read more about how not all offsets are created equal here.

There is therefore a role for offsets in broader carbon reduction strategies and claiming ‘net zero’ in itself is not greenwashing. However, consumers should be aware of what this means and what a company can disguise with that claim, and businesses should make genuine and meaningful progress to reduce their carbon emissions before offsetting. It should be recognised that their ability to do so is, however, dependent to some degree on policies and government support to incentivise and enable them to reduce their emissions – while personal and corporate reductions are important, they come secondary to policy in their role in global carbon reductions. Businesses should be transparent about their commitment to ongoing carbon reductions and wider sustainability, and how their use of offsets contributes to their carbon reduction strategy; in doing so, allowing consumers to make informed judgements on their environmental credentials.

The post Carbon offsetting: Is it greenwashing? appeared first on ACES.

]]>
Not all offsets are created equal https://www.aces-org.co.uk/not-all-offsets-are-created-equal/ Wed, 01 Mar 2023 11:06:20 +0000 https://www.aces-org.co.uk/?p=9008 Not all offsets are created equal: what are “high quality carbon offsets”? Our clients sometimes ask us what the difference is between carbon credits that they can buy for $5 a tonne, and those that cost $10, $50 or even more per tonne. Why pay more for the same outcome – a tonne of carbon […]

The post Not all offsets are created equal appeared first on ACES.

]]>
Not all offsets are created equal: what are “high quality carbon offsets”?

Our clients sometimes ask us what the difference is between carbon credits that they can buy for $5 a tonne, and those that cost $10, $50 or even more per tonne. Why pay more for the same outcome – a tonne of carbon sequestered?

Like all other products and services, carbon credits can vary widely in their quality. But what does this mean, and how can you tell a “high quality” offset from the rest?

Whether you pay $5 or $25 for a carbon offset, the outcome (for you) is the same: you can claim that you have offset that amount of your carbon footprint. However, there is much more to the process than this “behind the scenes” – including who benefits from the project interventions, what safeguards are put in place to ensure that local people are not disadvantaged, and how longevity of the carbon storage is ensured.

Any certified project – and we encourage buyers to look for certification when offsetting – must meet the requirements of carbon standards that set out how projects should operate, including calculating the carbon captured, how the community should be engaged, and how socio-economic factors should be considered. This means, on paper at least, that high standards are maintained. The principles and values vary between standards; for example, the Plan Vivo Standard places particular emphasis on the socio-economic development of less-developed nations and allows for flexibility in project design that enhances accessibility for small projects.

Certification is not failsafe, however: certified projects have been criticised on the grounds of human rights breaches, failing to ensure long-term carbon storage, and providing no carbon benefit beyond what would have occurred anyway. These criticisms are more common in the compliance carbon market than the voluntary market that we are part of (see here for an explanation of the two and their differences), however as project developers and carbon buyers, we need to ensure that these failures are not perpetuated in the projects that we run and choose to support.

So, what should buyers look for in a project?

Projects should be able to demonstrate how they engage with, involve and benefit the local community, and be able to provide evidence of this. Community consultations are a start, but are local people given opportunities to work for and govern projects? Does the project deliver financial, infrastructure or other tangible benefits for local people? How does the project monitor and act on adverse impacts on the community such as reduced access to timber? What power does the community have in decision-making? Community involvement is vital to project sustainability – carbon projects are often sited in developing nations where natural resource reliance is high, and if the needs of the community are not met the project risks alienating, disadvantaging or even displacing people, or failing altogether.

Carbon offsets are generally expected to be “permanent” to at least 100 years – that is, carbon that is stored should be locked away for at least a century. Of course, we cannot guarantee this; no one can truly say what will happen in 100 years’ time. ‘Permanence’, as it is known, is assessed on a number of factors including how the project addresses drivers of degradation and potential “exit strategies” for if and when the project comes to an end. Buyers should look for meaningful action by project developers to ensure that the stored carbon won’t be at risk as soon as the project ends. Does the project enhance environmental education? Are local people empowered to manage their local resources? Does the project address the core reasons for the loss of carbon, such as poverty that drives people to cut timber for firewood? While we cannot guarantee the future, actions such as these improve the chance that damaging activities won’t just return to normal at the end of the project.

Carbon is of course the core feature of an offset, but it doesn’t have to be the only one. Projects can deliver community development benefits such as funding education or providing water, enhancing biodiversity, or helping local people to develop more diverse livelihoods to ease the pressure on natural resources and provide jobs to local people.

We encourage buyers to explore projects Project Design Documents (or PDDs) – these should be available through the standard to which a project is certified and contain detailed information on how a project is structured and operates. Ask to speak to those in charge of the projects (at ACES, we are always happy to have a conversation with buyers and prospective buyers, whether you’re looking to buy 1 tonne or 1,000 tonnes). Developers should be transparent about their projects, including on how money is spent – some projects are worth paying a higher price for, but you should be confident that if you choose this option, your money is being spent well.

Critics of offsetting point to examples of bad practice in carbon trading projects as reason to avoid offsetting altogether. The carbon trading world is not immune to misguided or even malevolent practices that have resulted in miscarriages of justice for people or for the climate, and project developers and carbon standards should and do learn from these to prevent them from pervading in the industry. Carbon buyers should be aware of the diverse perspectives on offsetting, but also should be able to make informed decisions at a project level when considering offsetting so that they can support valuable projects that deliver not only carbon reductions, but broader benefits for people, wildlife and the environment.


The post Not all offsets are created equal appeared first on ACES.

]]>
Carbon terminology https://www.aces-org.co.uk/carbon-terminology/ Wed, 01 Mar 2023 10:49:00 +0000 https://www.aces-org.co.uk/?p=9005 The carbon world is full of jargon, acronyms, terms used interchangeably or even differently depending on who is using them! Here are some terms with their definitions as we use them. Adaptation: Actions that contribution to the adaptation to climate change and its impacts. These an be social, environmental or economic in nature. Additionality: Additionality […]

The post Carbon terminology appeared first on ACES.

]]>

The carbon world is full of jargon, acronyms, terms used interchangeably or even differently depending on who is using them! Here are some terms with their definitions as we use them.

Adaptation: Actions that contribution to the adaptation to climate change and its impacts. These an be social, environmental or economic in nature.

Additionality: Additionality is the principle that the carbon benefit that the project claims to deliver is additional to what would have occurred without the project interventions. For example, a project that claims to protect an already well-protected forest that is not subject to deforestation or degradation cannot claim to be additional. However, if it can be demonstrated that a forest is being degraded, and a project’s interventions will slow or halt this degradation, it is additional. This can be irrespective of legal protection or existing protected areas: often, protected areas are simply ‘paper parks’ with no real protection. A project that includes an existing area that is protected legally but not in reality can claim to be additional.  

Blue carbon: The carbon that is stored in the world’s oceans, coasts and wetlands. Three ecosystems are considered to be the core ‘blue carbon’ habitats: mangrove forests, seagrass meadows and saltmarshes. These ecosystems trap large volumes of carbon-rich organic matter not only in the plants themselves, but the soils beneath them. Because the soils are waterlogged, this carbon is locked away over much longer timescales than on land, where microorganisms can live in the soil and break down the organic matter for food, releasing the carbon. Soils that are waterlogged do not contain as many of these microorganisms, and so the carbon is stored for centuries to millennia in blue carbon ecosystems.

Carbon benefit: The carbon that a project claims to have sequestered (absorbed) or prevented in emissions. For example, a project that plants trees can claim the carbon that is sequestered by those trees as its ‘carbon benefit’.

Carbon credit: The unit in which carbon offsets are traded. One carbon credit is equivalent to one tonne of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e). These are generated by projects accredited to one of several carbon standards that approve the project’s methodology for calculating its carbon benefit (this can be achieved through planting trees, for example). They are bought by individuals and organisations to compensate for carbon that they have emitted.

Carbon footprint: The carbon emissions released as a result of the actions or an individual, organisation or any entity.

Carbon neutral: Carbon neutral is a claim made by company, event, product, or any other entity whose emissions can be claimed to have been eliminated or offset entirely, so that no net carbon is emitted as a result of its existence. There are many strategies by which ‘carbon neutrality’ can be claimed: all emissions could have been eliminated (ideal, but rarely feasible), all could have been offset (an environmentally and ethically weak strategy if there is any scope for emissions reductions), or a combination of the two (most frequently adopted, and often the most feasible pathway).

Carbon offset: A reduction in emissions, or sequestration (absorption) or atmospheric emissions, that is made to compensate for emissions made elsewhere. This is most frequently achieved by buying offsets from accredited projects, but it can also be achieved by implementing your own interventions such as planting a forest on your own land (this is sometimes referred to as ‘insetting’).

Carbon standard: A certification scheme involving rues, requirements and recommendations that a project must follow and abide by in order to achieve and maintain certification. A number of carbon standards exist, including the Plan Vivo Standard, VCS and The Gold Standard. Carbon standards vary in their requirements; for example, some are best suited to large-scale projects while others facilitate small-scale, community-based projects. However, all exist in order to maintain accountability, transparency and best practice among carbon trading projects.

Carbon storage: The storing of carbon – in biological terms, this is stored as organic matter such as the woody biomass of trees or in peat formed over thousands of years as plants die).

Climate crisis (also climate change, climate breakdown, climate emergency, climate chaos): Anthropogenic (human-caused) emissions have led to rapidly increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere that are having a catastrophic effect on the warming of the climate. This was earlier known as “global warming”, although it is recognised that (a) temperatures are not rising uniformly across the world and (b) in some areas, the most noticeable and damaging effects of the climate crisis are not just in temperature but in changing seasons, rainfall and storms. The climate crisis (also breakdown, emergency, chaos) terminology came into use around 2018 in recognition that “climate change” did not adequately convey the severe threat that is posed to the world by a warming climate.

CO2 : Carbon dioxide is the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. While some is needed for plants to photosynthesise, human activities have been emitting so much CO2 into the atmosphere that it is driving a change in the climate and with it, the climate crisis.

Greenhouse Gas: Gases including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that, when present in the atmosphere, contribute to a warming of the earth’s surface and atmosphere. Without them, the average temperature on Earth would be -20; however, the high concentrations caused by anthropogenic (human) emissions, Earth is warming alarmingly and devastatingly fast.

Leakage: Leakage is the unintended displacement of harmful activities from the project area to another area, resulting in no net benefit from the project. For example, in forestry, excluding the cutting of timber without measures to compensate for lost firewood may mean that people simply go elsewhere to cut wood. Projects must take action to ensure that this does not take place – for example, our projects maintain sustainable woodlots to provide timber for local people.

Legacy carbon: Historic carbon emissions, emitted before current carbon accounting periods such as the current year. See Microsoft’s commitment to compensate for all of the carbon that the company has ever emitted!

Mangroves: Forests that grow in waterlogged, saline environments such as coasts and estuaries. They consist of 80 species worldwide that have adapted towithstand high levels of salinity. Mangroves grow in tropical to sub-tropical regions worldwide, and are globally threatened by coastal development, pollution, aquaculture and cutting for timber.

Mitigation: Actions that reduce the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, either by reducing them at their source (such as transitioning from oil and gas to renewable energy) or creating or enhancing sinks of carbon, such as through reforestation or protecting threatened wetlands.

Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs): Commitments made by nations that will demonstrate how they will met their mitigation and adaptation goals under the Paris Agreement. NDCs are revised and submitted every 5 years (the latest round were submitted in 2020).

Net Zero: Very similar to (and often used interchangeably with) carbon neutrality, but includes all greenhouse gases (GHGs) including methane, nitrous oxide and hydroflourocarbons.

Paris Agreement: The landmark agreement, signed by 190 nations, that legally binds nations into plans for climate change mitigation and adaptation, and the financing of these activities.

Permanence: Permanence is the principle that a project can be assumed to maintain its carbon benefit over ‘permanent’ (generally accepted as 100+ years) timescales.While this is impossible to guarantee in the present day, a number of means can be used to assess permanence including how well the ecosystem naturally stores carbon, and what work will be undertaken by the project to address drivers of degradation as well as actively excluding them during the project lifespan.

Project Design Document (PDD): A comprehensive document detailing how a project will operate. In carbon trading, these documents are approved and held by the relevant carbon standard.

Risk buffer: A proportion of credits that are deducted from a project’s calculated total carbon benefit to precautionarily account for ‘non-permanence’, or the risk that that carbon might be lost earlier than is expected. This could occur because of reasons outside of a project’s control such as storm damage, drought or wildfires. A risk buffer is therefore a conservative and precautionary means of minimising the risk of selling carbon that will then be re-released into the atmosphere.

Seagrass: Seagrasses are the only flowering plants (orangiosperms) that live in saline (salty) environments. They grow in intertidal to sub-tidal regions in temperate, sub-tropical and tropical regions worldwide. Seagrasses grow in meadows that are vulnerable to destruction by physical impacts from boats, anchors and fishing gear, pollution and coastal development.

Sequestration: The absorption of carbon from the atmosphere. This can be achieved through biological processes (i.e., natural carbon sinks such as forests) or geologic (i.e., Carbon Capture and Storage).

Soil carbon: The carbon that is stored in soil, most notably below forests and other vegetation that traps organic matter among their roots. Although soils are much less charismatic than the forests themselves, the carbon that is stored within the soils of blue carbon ecosystems can be many times higher, and be locked away for much longer, than is stored in the plants themselves.

tCO2e (tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent): Carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of several greenhouse gases. It is the most prevalent greenhouse gas, but it not the most potent. Methane, for example, has a warming impact on the atmosphere that is 84 times as strong as CO2 in a 20-year timeframe; however, it breaks down much quicker than CO2, so over a 100-year timeframe it has an impact of around 28 times that of CO2. To account for these differences between the greenhouse gases, carbon credit units are standardised into tCO2e, or ‘tonnes of CO2 equivalent’. For example, over 100 years, a tonne of methane would be converted to 28 tCO2e.

Unavoidable carbon: Carbon emissions should be reduced before they are offset. Carbon offsets should not be used as an alternative to offsetting; reducing your emissions by 100t is better than having to compensate for 100t of emissions that could have been avoided. ‘Unavoidable’ emissions are the emissions of a person or organisation after they have made all feasible reductions. What this means will vary from case to case, and financial, social, work and other factors may need to be considered. For example, a flight to visit close family living overseas provides considerable social and psychological benefit. Domestic emissions may be unfeasible to reduce or eliminate because of the high cost of switching to renewable sources, or the environmental impact of replacing existing, working systems.  

Voluntary and compliance carbon markets: The carbon market – that is, all of the carbon trading that exists in the world – is broadly split into the voluntary and compliance markets. The compliance carbon market (dominated by the Clean development Mechanism, or CDM) is used by large, high-emitting industries who are required by law to reduce their carbon emissions, while the voluntary carbon market is used by individuals and businesses who choose to buy offsets. The two markets differ in the projects that they host: the compliance market is dominated by energy projects such as financing renewable energy solutions, whilst the voluntary market is a combination of energy and nature-based solutions such as forestry. Projects on the voluntary carbon market are typically smaller, involve communities in management and governance to a greater extent, and typically command a higher price per tonne of carbon; this reflects higher implementation costs of running small-scale and community-based projects.

Wetlands: Areas of land that are covered by water either seasonally or permanently. This could include vegetated coastal habitats such as mangrove forests, or areas inland such as peat bogs. Wetlands are important stores of carbon and support rich biodiversity.

Zero emissions, or actual zero: The state of a company, event, product, or any other entity whose emissions can be claimed to have been eliminated entirely. This cannot include emissions that have been offset. This is ideal but rare, particularly in public businesses in which a number of factors such as external investments and utilities contracts are involved.

The post Carbon terminology appeared first on ACES.

]]>
Financing Blue Carbon Ethically, Responsibly and Effectively: Blog Series https://www.aces-org.co.uk/financing-blue-carbon-ethically-responsibly-and-effectively-blog-series/ Tue, 31 Jan 2023 13:44:14 +0000 https://www.aces-org.co.uk/?p=8862 Financing Blue Carbon Ethically, Responsibly, and Effectively:ACES Blog Series In the last 10 years or so, mangrove forests have undergone a reputational shift that any PR agency would be proud of. Once dismissed as malaria-ridden swamps, mangroves are now recognised as the coastal superheroes that they really are. Seagrass meadows are also increasingly recognised for […]

The post Financing Blue Carbon Ethically, Responsibly and Effectively: Blog Series appeared first on ACES.

]]>
Financing Blue Carbon Ethically, Responsibly, and Effectively:
ACES Blog Series

In the last 10 years or so, mangrove forests have undergone a reputational shift that any PR agency would be proud of. Once dismissed as malaria-ridden swamps, mangroves are now recognised as the coastal superheroes that they really are. Seagrass meadows are also increasingly recognised for their environmental importance, and even saltmarshes – perhaps, unfortunately, less charismatic than their coastal cousins – are receiving attention for their carbon storage abilities. These three ecosystems together are the three main ‘blue carbon’ ecosystems[1], and their collective ability to contribute to the mitigation of and adaptation to climate change is huge in relation to their area.

This newfound fame is cause for celebration – we protect what we love, and blue carbon ecosystems deserve all of the love they can get. Mangrove, seagrass and saltmarsh scientists and conservationists who have been singing their praises for decades are now joined by a tidal wave of interest from people wanting to contribute to their protection and restoration. On the face of it, this is good news for blue carbon conservation, yet this excitement brings a risk that the quantity of support may come at the expense of quality of work that it funds.

Take, for example, planting mangrove trees. People love to see mangrove saplings being stuck in the ground, muddy hands and feet working hard to plant seedling after seedling, filling bare gaps along the coast with a future forest. Yet mangrove planting is notoriously fickle – one 2015 study suggests that only around 50% of mangrove planting efforts succeed to become established forests. Wave erosion, suffocation by sediment and grazing by goats are among the biggest threat to these newly planted trees, which often lack the protection of a surrounding forest which new seedings need to thrive. This challenge is not well-known outside of conservation and science, however, and funders keen to finance the planting of mangroves may end up throwing their money at efforts that may well fail.

Expectations of what blue carbon can deliver, in what timescale and with what budget must also be managed. Projects that are certified to sell carbon credits generated from mangrove planting and protection take time, energy, patience and resources to develop. For this reason, they are few and far between – fewer than 10 projects worldwide at the end of 2022 – creating a huge mismatch between supply and demand for ‘blue carbon credits’. Funders must recognise the need for upfront financing to get these projects off the ground, and allow for flexible, iterative approaches to project development that mean that the communities involved can be meaningfully consulted and involved, which may ultimately mean a deviation from the original proposal to the funders. This community engagement and involvement is crucial, however, both in the project development phase and throughout the lifespan of the work. Project developments must meaningfully engage with community aspirations, needs and perspectives to ensure social justice in the project interventions and benefits. Our first blog will present findings from research into perspectives of justice among the community of Vanga, home to our Vanga Blue Forest project. Through quotes from research participants, we will present the findings through the eyes of the community, highlighting the nuances of what social justice means to those most impacted by the projects.

Carbon credits may be a solution for some communities wanting to protect and restore mangrove forests, but it is not a solution that is suitable for all. The resources, skills and equipment needed to develop these projects is beyond the capacity of an average community group, meaning that there is almost certainly going to be a reliance on scientific and technical partners, which may well come at a cost. Nearby scientific facilities may ne needed for processing of samples and for scientific and technical support for project staff – something that is not always available in remote areas. For these and other reasons, significant stumbling blocks can lie between community groups and carbon certification. This challenge should be recognised and funders should consider the possibility of grant funding to unaccredited projects, rather than or in addition to buying carbon credits. This approach has been taken by Ocean Bottle, who have diverged from offsetting their carbon footprint to funding high-quality projects that fund the conservation and restoration of carbon sinks, including blue carbon ecosystems. Later in the year, Ocean Bottle’s blog will expand on their approach to financing blue carbon as part of their environmental and social responsibility as a marine-focused business. 

Whether funding comes from carbon credits, grant funding, philanthropy or other sources, the ethics of where the money comes from and what role it plays in the funder/buyer’s carbon reduction, CSR or philanthropic strategy is important. Funding blue carbon conservation shouldn’t be a distraction from taking steps to make systemic change or reducing carbon emissions or to cover up harmful or unethical practices elsewhere. It should be well-informed and researched, although donors do not always necessarily have the time, knowledge and capacity to carry out this research. For businesses, many sustainability consultants are available to provide this support, particularly regarding carbon reductions and offsets. In the philanthropic landscape, Impatience Earth provide pro-bono advice to philanthropic trusts who are interested in making donations to organisations to tackle the climate crisis. In April, we will publish a blog from Impatience Earth discussing their work, including what motivates philanthropists to find climate change work and what influences their decisions when directing this funding.

This recent ‘blue carbon boom’ provide great opportunities for the conservation of mangroves, seagrass, saltmarsh and other marine ecosystems, if directed appropriately and informed by the lessons learned from the protection and restoration of blue carbon habitats so far. Our upcoming blog series, with contributions from Ocean Bottle, Impatience Earth, the community of Vanga, and also researchers into the future of carbon financing, will address key topics and questions needed to help to direct this funding.

Our first blog, Voices from Vanga, will be posted on 28th February. If you would like to be signed up to our mailing list to receive this, drop us a line at aces@aces-org.co.uk.


[1] Sometimes, ‘blue carbon’ is used to refer to any carbon sequestered in the oceans – be it by mangroves, plankton, whales or even fish. Here, the term is used exclusively to mean mangroves, seagrass and saltmarsh ecosystems.

The post Financing Blue Carbon Ethically, Responsibly and Effectively: Blog Series appeared first on ACES.

]]>
Ethical offsetting in the journey to a zero-carbon world https://www.aces-org.co.uk/ethical-offsetting-in-the-journey-to-a-zero-carbon-world/ Wed, 24 Nov 2021 16:23:56 +0000 https://www.aces-org.co.uk/?p=8491 The ethics of carbon offsetting have become among the most contentious of any climate action strategy. Critics argue that the option to offset perpetuates unsustainable lifestyles and -facilitates greenwashing, giving carbon buyers a get-out-of-jail-free card when it comes to tackling their emissions; proponents argue that it can be used responsibly alongside reductions to reach net-zero. […]

The post Ethical offsetting in the journey to a zero-carbon world appeared first on ACES.

]]>
The ethics of carbon offsetting have become among the most contentious of any climate action strategy. Critics argue that the option to offset perpetuates unsustainable lifestyles and -facilitates greenwashing, giving carbon buyers a get-out-of-jail-free card when it comes to tackling their emissions; proponents argue that it can be used responsibly alongside reductions to reach net-zero.

Net zero, carbon neutral and other climate commitments are increasingly being made by businesses and governments. Achieving climate neutrality through emissions reductions alone is the ideal, yet at the same time challenging, if not impossible, without greater headway made towards a low-carbon global economy.  If net-zero targets are to be met, offsetting is, at least in the short term, essential.

Recent market data show that offsetting continues to grow. Voluntary offset sellers have reported sustained interest despite the Coronavirus pandemic, suggesting sustained commitments to sustainability strategies despite financial uncertainty. If the voluntary offset market is here to stay, then ethical standards must upheld not only within the projects themselves and the standard to which they are accredited, but in the way that carbon offsets are used by buyers.

The carbon market has been criticised on policy, scientific and moral grounds; the latter of which is often leveraged at buyers of carbon credits for using offsetting as an excuse to delay systematic change. Yet experiences of carbon credit providers – projects and resellers – in a ‘boutique’ segment of the voluntary carbon market is very different, instead finding that carbon buyers are overwhelmingly genuine in their commitments to sustainability, using offsets as only one part of their journey to net zero and engaging meaningfully with the moral dilemmas of choosing to buy offsets.

A research team from Edinburgh Napier University and ACES, the project coordinators for two Kenyan blue carbon projects, interviewed a range of stakeholders in the voluntary carbon market including carbon buyers, project developers, carbon standards and resellers of carbon credits, to explore how buyers use offsets alongside broader, long-term carbon reduction strategies. It was recognised that the views captured in the research are not necessarily representative of practices in the wider carbon market and the findings were not intended as such; rather, they were presented as an example of good practice in offsetting with lessons to be learned by project developers, carbon sellers and carbon standards.

Sincerity of buyers

The ‘permit to pollute’ criticism that offsetting simply perpetuates unsustainable lifestyles is often framed in the context of superfluous flights taken by people unwilling to change their lifestyle, or businesses that see offsets as a cheap way out of making changes to reduce their emissions. There was no evidence of this hazard among stakeholders interviewed; some even expressed guilt for activities such as driving to choir and said that being able to offset these emissions assuaged at least some of this guilt, particularly when the project that they chose to offset with delivered ‘charitable’ co-benefits such as community development or biodiversity enhancement.

Businesses need guidance

Our research found that carbon buyers took step to carry out their own due diligence on projects beyond accepting their certification at face-value. This included having conversations with offset sellers and even visiting projects personally. They did not, in general, appear to be looking for a certificate of offsetting as a CSR ‘badge’ or to tick a box – they were motivated to find high-quality offsets from projects that aligned with their interests and values. However, this due diligence took time, resources and a capability that cannot be expected of all buyers, particularly as the voluntary carbon market is fragmented between standards and projects with independently run, and variable, websites and communications. There is therefore a role for both sellers and third-party organisations to give buyers the clear and transparent information and guidance that they need to make informed decisions. An early example of this is the Oxford Principles for Net Zero Aligned Carbon Offsetting, which gives guidance on offsetting principles, and an upcoming platform by WWF to assess and evaluate carbon standards.

Onus on sellers

Finally, our research concluded that there is an onus on sellers of carbon offsets to ensure ethical practices are adhered to. Sellers can work with buyers to educate them on best practice in carbon reductions and net-zero strategies and to ensure that the offsets sold are being applied in an ethical manner and communicated accurately to reflect their role in the organisation’s net zero strategy.

Our research suggests that contrary to narratives presented by critics of offsetting, ‘ethical offsetting’ is practiced in at least parts of the voluntary carbon market and the principles from these examples can be applied throughout the market to ensure best practice. Our full research paper can be read here (written in 2021; unpublished).

The post Ethical offsetting in the journey to a zero-carbon world appeared first on ACES.

]]>
Scaling community-led conservation to national climate action https://www.aces-org.co.uk/scaling-community-led-conservation-to-national-climate-action/ Thu, 05 Aug 2021 10:10:33 +0000 https://www.aces-org.co.uk/?p=8465 Our Mikoko Pamoja and Vanga Blue Forest projects have delivered climate, biodiversity and community benefits to two coastal communities on the Kenyan coast. They have demonstrated at a small, ’boutique’ scale how climate action can not only tackle the threat of the climate emergency, but how it can do so whilst delivering benefits to local […]

The post Scaling community-led conservation to national climate action appeared first on ACES.

]]>

Our Mikoko Pamoja and Vanga Blue Forest projects have delivered climate, biodiversity and community benefits to two coastal communities on the Kenyan coast. They have demonstrated at a small, ’boutique’ scale how climate action can not only tackle the threat of the climate emergency, but how it can do so whilst delivering benefits to local people, engaging local people in environmental governance and demonstrating how local livelihoods can be secured whilst managing the use of natural resources.

Whilst these projects deliver community benefits locally and make a contribution to fighting the climate crisis, much larger-scale action is needed to limit global temperature rise to 1.5-2°C in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

This is where Nationally-Determined Contributions, or NDCs, come in. They are commitments made every 5 years by nations who are signatory to the Paris Agreement to contribute to the global effort to limit temperature rise. In the case of blue carbon ecosystems such as mangroves, seagrass and saltmarsh, these can include commitments to protect and restore these carbon-rich habitats to prevent the loss of, and encourage further sequestration of, atmospheric carbon.

But when we scale blue carbon conservation like this, how do we ensure that community livelihoods are not overlooked in favour of carbon benefit? It is easy to make commitments on paper to halt the loss of these ecosystems, but how can we implement this in a way that involves local people and takes account of their needs, particularly when coastal communities rely on natural resources like timber for income and sustenance?

Our team have been part of an international research team investigating these questions and making recommendations for Kenya, and other nations, to commit to and implement socially-just blue carbon conservation and restoration.

As part of this work, we worked alongside the team developing Kenya’s 2020 NDC submission to ensure that blue carbon ecosystems were not only included in the submission, but included in a way which puts the needs of coastal communities at the heart of their management. More detail about how we achieved this can be found here. Now that Kenya’s 2020 NDC submission is finalised, we have produced a policy brief for Kenyan coastal and marine stakeholders with an interest in blue carbon management, summarising the blue carbon element of the NDC submission and what this will mean for government agencies, public bodies, NGOs and other stakeholders. This policy brief can be downloaded here.

National-level conservation and restoration of blue carbon ecosystems will not come without challenges. However by learning from projects such as Mikoko Pamoja, Vanga Blue Forest and other community-led initiatives, and by working together across government, community groups, research institutions and NGOs to understand and promote best practice, we can move towards a more sustainable future in which the needs of people are secured alongside ambitious climate action.

The post Scaling community-led conservation to national climate action appeared first on ACES.

]]>
It Takes a Village: ACES and University of Malaya webinar on community-led blue carbon conservation https://www.aces-org.co.uk/it-takes-a-village-aces-and-university-of-malaya-webinar-on-community-led-blue-carbon-conservation/ Wed, 14 Apr 2021 12:41:35 +0000 https://www.aces-org.co.uk/?p=8427 We’re often asked how the Mikoko Pamoja and Vanga Blue Forest projects were set up, and what the key is to their success. We were therefore delighted this month to partner with the University of Malaya in Malaysia to lead a webinar on the value of blue carbon to communities and the global climate, and […]

The post It Takes a Village: ACES and University of Malaya webinar on community-led blue carbon conservation appeared first on ACES.

]]>
We’re often asked how the Mikoko Pamoja and Vanga Blue Forest projects were set up, and what the key is to their success. We were therefore delighted this month to partner with the University of Malaya in Malaysia to lead a webinar on the value of blue carbon to communities and the global climate, and how community groups can protect mangrove and other blue carbon ecosystems for the benefit of the climate, the environment and local people.

The post It Takes a Village: ACES and University of Malaya webinar on community-led blue carbon conservation appeared first on ACES.

]]>
Protecting seagrass through carbon trading: resources for policy makers, project developers and communities https://www.aces-org.co.uk/community-seagrass-resources/ Fri, 14 Aug 2020 10:35:11 +0000 https://www.aces-org.co.uk/?p=8335 Blue carbon ecosystems – mangroves, seagrass and saltmarsh – have been at the forefront of natural climate solutions in recent years. Public awareness of their existence and importance has skyrocketed, and their role in fighting climate change is increasingly recognised by scientists, natural resource managers and the public. These ecosystems store massive volumes of carbon, […]

The post Protecting seagrass through carbon trading: resources for policy makers, project developers and communities appeared first on ACES.

]]>
Image: Dimitris Poursanidis, https://www.grida.no/resources/13451

Blue carbon ecosystems – mangroves, seagrass and saltmarsh – have been at the forefront of natural climate solutions in recent years. Public awareness of their existence and importance has skyrocketed, and their role in fighting climate change is increasingly recognised by scientists, natural resource managers and the public.

These ecosystems store massive volumes of carbon, locking atmospheric CO2 into the carbon-rich soils for centuries or even millennia. But they can only do that if they are protected from degradation and destruction. ACES have been at the forefront of pioneering mangrove conservation through carbon trading since 2013. But seagrass is a relative newcomer to the carbon world, despite the benefits it brings to coastal communities and to the climate.

Image: Dimitris Poursanidis, https://www.grida.no/resources/13423

In 2019, we began a partnership with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), as well as Edinburgh Napier University and Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI), to explore the opportunities and challenges for communities looking to protect seagrass meadows through carbon trading and other Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) frameworks.

Policy document
We produced a document for policy makers, outlining the opportunities that community-based seagrass conservation offers and the challenges that communities face when trying to protect these vital ecosystem services. We outline policy recommendations that we see as necessary to enable community-based management of seagrass meadows under PES.

Community guide
We also produced a community guide to protecting seagrass through PES. This guide translates more technical guidance for seagrass carbon and management, as well as drawing on our own experiences of running community-based mangrove conservation projects in Kenya, into an accessible document intended for use by community groups worldwide.

The community guide outlines the opportunities and challenges of running blue carbon projects, as well as signposting the steps that communities should take when planning and operating a project.

(c) Dimitris Poursanidis

Protecting the seagrass meadows of Gazi Bay

Finally, we incorporated seagrass conservation into our pioneering Mikoko Pamoja project in Gazi Bay, Kenya. We have been working with Plan Vivo as our certifying body to incorporate seagrass into the formal Project Design Document (PDD) under a ‘carbon-plus’ model.

Given the current barriers to fully accrediting seagrass under a community-led model, we are combining our seagrass conservation with our fully accredited mangrove carbon credits to enable the seagrass meadows to be protected as an “added benefit”.This means that the rigorous monitoring of carbon required for our mangrove carbon will not be needed for seagrass, but instead we will follow a citizen science monitoring protocol to report on seagrass coverage in the bay, and with Plan Vivo’s approval, offer mangrove credit buyers the option of seagrass carbon as a “bolt on” to their mangrove credits. This is the world’s first example of seagrass being incorporated into a certified blue carbon project, and we’re excited to be pioneering this alongside our partners. More information can be found in our Project Design Document.

Webinar on community-based seagrass conservation

In August 2020, ACES joined The Nature Conservancy (TNC), UNEP, KKMFRI and Edinburgh Napier University in presenting our research into how communities can protect seagrass meadows through carbon trading and other PES frameworks, as well as our work on the ground to do just that in Gazi Bay. The webinar is available to watch here.

This work was made possible by UNEP under a Small-Scale Funding Agreement which was generous funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA).

The post Protecting seagrass through carbon trading: resources for policy makers, project developers and communities appeared first on ACES.

]]>