The socio-cultural value of mangroves by Dr Dencer-Brown

10/12/2024 by Amber Baker in Conservation / Financing / Natural Capital

The contents of this blog were written by Dr Imi Dencer-Brown and are presented by Amber Baker. Imi is on the ACES Board of Trustees and has studied mangroves and their cultural value in New Zealand as part of her doctoral research. Imi is a mixed methods researcher and lecturer in education working in cross-disciplinary spaces specifically with people and nature.

This blog was written as part of our ‘Conservation’ series which showcases people in conservation and explores upcoming projects and trends.

The socio-cultural value of mangroves – what’s it all about and why is it important?

“When we think of mangrove ecosystem services, we normally relate them to some of the more tangible concepts, such as the provisioning services of food and clean water for both humans and nature. We may also recognise their importance as regulating services, in the roles of flood prevention and protecting against storm damage. As the effects of climate change take their toll on ecosystems worldwide, we understand the plethora of positive attributes these intertidal forests provide, in particular, the enormous below-ground carbon storage capacity of mangroves, in the form of blue carbon.

Lesser known is the socio-cultural value of mangroves. The complexity of human existence and relationships with nature has been little explored in the large body of work of mangrove science, even though it may be pivotal to the deeper recognition of the socio-ecological importance of these ecosystems. Cultural services may include aspects such as cultural identity, sense of home, aesthetic inspiration and a spiritual experience in relation to the natural environment¹. As some of these elements are intangible and complex to explain or quantify, it means that this area of research in relation to mangroves is under-researched and poorly understood.

There is such variation in the location of mangroves globally, which range from the United States such as Louisiana and Florida and the Japanese islands of Okinawa and Kyushu in the North, to the most southerly mangrove stands in New Zealand and South Australia. This variation in species and differing levels of degradation mean that humans interact with mangroves in different ways, based on their community needs and societal importance.”

Take New Zealand, for instance…

“Take New Zealand, for instance. Home to a monoculture of estuarine Avicennia marina subsp. australasica. Many of these stands are dwarf mangroves, growing and expanding in harbours and estuaries due to increases in nutrient levels brought about by urbanisation and farming practices. Many people regard these trees as a nuisance, nothing more than weeds, which have obscured the views of the beautiful beaches they had once enjoyed out of their windows.

Their ecological value is not recognised in many cases, making the relationship between humans and nature strained and not positive.”

“Previously, in New Zealand, mangroves were utilised for boat building and recognised as a valuable habitat for kaimoana (seafood) for local iwi (Māori communities).

Whilst some recognition of this may remain, the lack of utilisation and co-existing with mangroves in New Zealand has created a disconnection to nature and with it, a lack of understanding of the intrinsic value of this habitat.”

“Whilst New Zealand might be a very particular case of lack of socio-cultural integration with this ecosystem, many communities in the world do recognise the importance of this habitat to many aspects of human life., however, this has not prevented deforestation and degradation of mangroves globally due to anthropogenic activities such as replacement for aquaculture farms, construction of hotels, urbanisation and overexploitation of wood without sustainable forestry practices.”

Value and monetary value

“We tend to measure the value of goods and services provided by nature in monetary terms, this socio-economic value may be useful in driving forward conservation practices to restore and protect mangroves.”

“Kenyan mangroves are said to be worth around 82 million pounds (200, 473.93 KSH/ha²). Whilst this is an impressive number – what does it actually mean? Where does the money go and how does it benefit local communities? ”

– Dr. Imi Dencer-Brown

“Whilst valuing mangroves as a commodity in this way may influence policy on their conservation, it may not change understanding and awareness of this ecosystem, especially for the local people of the areas who have the closest relationship with mangroves.

In Kenya, the main drivers for loss are the excessive removal of wood for charcoal burning, fishing stakes, fencing and fuelwood, as well as conversion of areas for salt mining and settlement and coastal development. It is recognised in Kenya that poverty, inequalities, lack of education and poor governance have underpinned these losses.³

Communities living close to mangroves and have a high dependency on them for their livelihoods may have a greater cultural connection with these ecosystems and therefore have a high potential to work with conserving mangroves as they directly relate to their livelihoods.

The ongoing success of Mikoko Pamoja and Vanga Blue Forests projects in Kenya has been largely due to the direct stakeholder engagement with conserving these areas and seeing directly how improving the quality of habitat has a positive effect on livelihoods.

For instance, this may be in the form of increased numbers of juvenile fish using the mangroves as a nursery, which in turn allows for larger fisheries yields offshore, creating more sustainable income for families.”

“Mangroves are a cultural fabric to coastal communities, they support our livelihoods and beliefs, protect our homes and lands, and unite us with bordering communities.”
– Mwanarusi Mwafrica, Previous Project Coordinator for Vanga Blue Forest

“Realising the importance and value that mangroves have for communities and respecting and upholding social justice frameworks to empower these communities to conserve and protect mangroves is a necessary step for the sustainable use of and long-term presence of this precious ecosystem in an evermore volatile world.”

We thank Imi for this blog and their insights on the importance of socio-cultural value of ecosystems, drawing from their experience and research in New Zealand. Like many plants that are often considered weeds or pests – based in Scotland, I am thinking of the humble dandelion – mangroves can be viewed in this negative light but upon further inspection, mangroves and other often overlooked species can provide valuable benefits to people and nature. – Amber

Making biodiversity a credit to your business – Part 2 of 2

28/10/2024 by Amelia Allerton in Biodiversity Credits / Conservation / Financing / Natural Capital

This blog was written by our Project officer, Amelia Allerton. Amelia is responsible for the collaborative development of the seagrass biodiversity project and acts as the project’s technical coordinator. She has a background in biodiversity research within Marine Protected Areas and has experience supporting community projects. In this 2-part blog series, we explore the importance of biodiversity, the emerging market of biodiversity credits and the opportunities they provide for both forward-thinking businesses and nature. We hope you enjoy Part 2!

_{Seagrass in Vanga Bay (c) Anthony Ochieng Onyango/ACES}

Welcome to Part 2 of our blog series!

We have covered the biodiversity crisis and how important protecting and restoring nature is to our survival and quality of life. Now let’s explore how businesses can join the Nature Positive movement by investing in nature and our futures.

But how can businesses invest in nature?

An emerging market of biodiversity credits are providing an avenue for businesses to tangibly invest in nature. Biodiversity credits are not offsets, but instead are part of the Nature Positive movement. They are meant for the private sector to voluntarily increase their investment in nature conservation and provide an opportunity for forward-thinking companies and business leaders to get ahead of the curve and prove they value nature and people as well as the bottom line. When looking for biodiversity credits to invest in, it is important to ensure credits are verifiable and Free Prior and Informed Consent was granted from the resident communities within a project region. Organisations such as Plan Vivo review, audit and certify biodiversity credits to ensure that what they offer to the market is a positive product that was sourced fairly, ethically and sustainably. By setting a standard that must be met for projects to sell credits, purchasers can rest assured they are buying a trusted product that protects biodiversity, communities and climate. These credits are often referred to as high-integrity biodiversity credits.

_{Juvenile fish in the seagrass (c) Dimitris Poursanidis/GRID-Arendal}

What are the business benefits to investing in nature?

Investing in biodiversity credits does not have to be a one-sided affair and there are many potential benefits for businesses.

As discussed in Part 1, nature and natural resources directly contribute to the economy and global GDP. By investing in nature, businesses can help develop more stable markets that are not as heavily impacted by the uncertainty of dwindling resources, extreme climatic events or unproductive soils. Showing that your business supports biodiversity conservation and recovery also addresses the growing consensus among consumers that businesses shouldn’t just take from the natural world without giving back. By investing in nature from market inception, businesses can set themselves as industry-leaders. Furthermore, as regulatory frameworks develop and Several countries, including Australia, the UK, and Gabon, are already embracing credits and moving to legislate, by voluntarily involving your business in the market early, companies can prove that their business genuinely and proactively supports biodiversity and are not simply reacting to legislative change.

By investing in biodiversity credits, your business has the opportunity to innovate and solidify itself as a business leader and forward-thinking company. Purchasing these credits provides new marketing opportunities around your businesses support for the Nature Positive Movement. This provides your company with a competitive advantage and improves brand reputation across your business and products. Ethical company behaviour has a positive relationship with increased brand loyalty so biodiversity credits can be an effective way for connecting with consumers. Furthermore, staff retention and talent attraction is also positively associated with companies with strong ethical values and biodiversity credits can be a tangible way to contribute to your company sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility goals.

Overall, businesses have a huge opportunity to address the biodiversity crisis for the benefit of the planet, people and business. Not only is supporting nature the right thing to do, but it can set your company apart as a business-leader.

If you would like to know more about biodiversity credits or are interested in supporting any of our projects, please do check out our web pages on our Vanga Seagrass Project and biodiversity credits. You can also reach out to the team at [email protected], we would love to hear from you!

_{New shoots in Vanga Blue Forest (c) Anthony Ochieng Onyango/ACES}

Making biodiversity a credit to your business – Part 1 of 2

08/10/2024 by Amelia Allerton in Biodiversity Credits / Conservation / Financing / Natural Capital

_{Merops orientalis, Green Bee-eater in The Gambia (c) Dona Bertarelli Philanthropy}

With the IUCN estimating that $600-800billion of funding is needed to sustain biodiversity, biodiversity credits are a new and exciting innovation that could help nature conservation and restoration address this funding gap. However, for biodiversity crediting to be a success, private sector buy-in is essential.

The crisis

Across the globe, plant and animal species are disappearing at an ever-faster rate due to human activity. Habitat loss is the main cause, with humans actively destroying vital habitats through deforestation, urbanisation and intensive farming and fishing practices. Further stressors from hunting, over-fishing, man-made pollution, human-introduced invasive species and the climate crisis further threaten the resilience and recovery of many important species and ecosystems. To put this crisis into context, only 4% of all mammals on earth are wild mammals.

The consequences of losing biodiversity are far-reaching and severe. As much as our human-centric approach has led to us viewing ourselves as separate from nature, we rely on it with every breath, bite of food and resource we use. Air, water, soil, food, and materials are directly reliant on our planet’s natural processes remaining healthy and in-balance. Exploring some of the benefits of healthy and biodiverse ecosystems can really put into context how important it is that we address this crisis:

_{Mangroves at Sii Island (c) Obiene Samson}

Variety is the spice of life

Biodiverse environments support more complex ecosystems, which improves overall resilience. As the number of species and communities grow, there is a higher chance of any one of them having the traits that enable them to adapt to a changing environment. The same is true for resilience against other stressors such as disease and the introduction of pollution into ecosystems. Productive, healthy and biodiverse assemblages are best-placed to try to adapt to changing conditions.

The backbone of big business

Businesses are dependent on nature and the services it provides which are finite and unique. Nature currently contributes to more than half the world’s GDP and not protecting and restoring nature will damage future economic prosperity. After many years of businesses taking resources from the planet without giving back, there is growing consensus among consumers, organisations and regulatory frameworks that the private sector needs to play a part in ensuring we have a healthy, sustainable and biodiverse planet well into the future. For example, at COP15, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) was agreed which includes text on the private sector investing in biodiversity. As a result, protecting nature should be high on investors and regulators agendas.

Supporting health and wellbeing

Well-functioning and biodiverse environments support human health by providing nutrition, clean water and medicine. Without pollinators, we will struggle to grow some fruits and vegetables including apples, berries and kale. Biodiverse ecosystems have also played a crucial role in traditional medicines and drug development throughout the years. Ensuring nature is part of our everyday lives is also extremely beneficial for both our mental and physical health. It can help reduce stress, promote improved mood and can help people easily include more physical activity in their lives through activities such as walking and wildlife watching. Biodiversity also plays an important role in disease prevention. By forcing animals to live in closer and closer proximity by removing their habitats and reducing diversity, we have reduced nature’s resilience, increasing the opportunity for diseases to spread. Optimal rates for microbe spillover occur when 40% of the forest cover disappears. In contrast, greater biodiversity reduces disease transmission due to a ‘dilution effect’ making it harder for a single pathogen to spread or dominate.

Nature’s unique value

Biodiversity provides many clear benefits to humans and is essential to our survival, but even despite this, we should still be motivated to protect nature ‘just because’. This planet is absolutely wondrous and full of complicated relationships between plants, animals and ecosystems that all work in harmony to survive and thrive together. We share this planet with intricate creatures who feel pleasure, pain and a desire to survive. Some have strong family bonds or a clear sense of home and some undertake wonderous journeys across the planet that we still can’t fully understand or comprehend. We need to understand how magical biodiversity is and find ways to live peaceably with the natural world. Nature and biodiversity work in harmony to support living thriving ecosystems and we need to find ways to reintegrate ourselves into this glorious and enduring synergy.

Investment in nature and biodiversity is also an investment into ourselves, our economy, our wellbeing and our futures. Follow along for Part 2 to find out how business can help support and restore global biodiversity.

Meet a mangrove champion by Prof. Mark Huxham

22/08/2024 by Amber Baker in Conservation / Financing / Natural Capital

The content of this blog was written by Professor Mark Huxham and is presented by Amber Baker. Mark is the founder and chair of ACES and has spent nearly two decades working with local communities dependent on mangrove resources to understand their ecosystems better and to use this science to help restore their environments and bring community development benefits.

This blog was written as part of our ‘Conservation’ series which showcases people in conservation and explores upcoming projects and trends.

Meet a mangrove champion, a conversation between Mark and Ansumana

ACES is a proud partner in Nnaa Saama Mankolou, our new project working with the community of Sankandi in The Gambia to restore their mangrove sites and help support livelihoods and biodiversity in the area.

Mr Ansumana Darboe (pictured left, photo (c) Dona Bertarelli Philanthropy) is a founding member of the Sankandi Youth Development Association, our key in-country collaborator in this project.

He has an infectious passion for conservation and for mangroves and has been instrumental in making the project happen; he first contacted Mark seven years ago, seeking help from ACES, and we have worked together since then. Here, Mark and Ansumana talk about his background, his motivations and his hopes for the future.

Mark: tell me where you were born and a little about your early life

Ansumana: I was born in Sankandi [the village where Ansumana lives still]. My father was a farmer, as was my grandfather. He died in 1984 when I was a little boy. As a child I had to assist my mum in cultivating her rice fields and protecting them from wild animals, like monkeys and birds, until the time of harvest. I had to be at the fields by 7 am. Then when the time comes for lunch the adults sent me to go and collect lunch from home and then bring it back to the rice field for them, because the fields were far from my home.

Mark: and did you combine all this work with going to school?

Ansumana: yes I was enlisted in the school and started my primary education, but at the beginning it was tough because my mum wanted me to go to Arabic school instead of, you know, conventional school. So she did not always support my schooling. In the early years I had to go to school without lunch, and in fact, I did my primary school without a uniform.

Mark: so it sounds as if you were motivated even as a young boy to learn and to develop?

Ansumana: yes I had to struggle. I started as a local volunteer in a medical clinic whilst still at school. That led to opportunities for work and training as a medical assistant. Eventually, I was supported to train as a radiographer and so that was my profession until 2009.

Mark: so how did you become interested in conservation and in mangroves?

Ansumana: back in primary school, in 1994, I was invited to read a poem at the opening ceremony for a new national park [Kiang West National Park]. The poem was about conservation and the need to look after our forests; I learned it by heart and it still serves as a motivation for me.

Mark: how did you start Sankandi Youth Development Association?

Ansumana: in 2005 the president came through our village. I wanted to escort his car to where he was going, but the driver said ‘no no it is too far, we are going five kilometers’. But me and other youths insisted on going all the way on foot with him. When he arrived he was so impressed he gave us some money in thanks. We used that money to found the Youth Association.

© SYDA – Ansumana Darboe – SYDA Project Manager

Mark: and why did you start work on mangroves?

Ansumana: the local fishermen were finding that they could no longer find fish so we decided to look how best we could help them and restore the areas where they fish. So I did some research on mangroves and mangrove restoration in Africa.

Mark: and that is how you found out about ACES?

Ansumana: yes I came across an article that was written by you and then how you spearheaded the Mikoko Pamoja project and then I clicked on your email and thought yeah let me just talk to Mark and see whether we will be in a position for another mangrove project in the Gambia.

Mark: and now after some years we have managed to find funding for this work and are in a position to work together on this new project. What are your hopes for the future from this work together?

Ansumana: Well, my hopes for this project is for it to be modelled and replicated in all parts of the Gambia and let other communities benefit directly from the work they have been doing. And in fact, maybe it can be used by the government to help with their carbon policy.

Mark: and finally, do you have any advice for anybody who may be reading this, who perhaps is in a similar situation to you?

Ansumana: my advice would be for them to reach out because there are experts who will help. You need to make sure that your project will really benefit local people and make sure that you are able to take ownership of your mangrove restoration project.

© Dona Bertarelli Philanthropy. Mark and Ansumana (pictured) discussed the partnership and project during the community meeting in January 2024 in Sankandi, The Gambia.

You can find out more about Ansumana, the Sankandi Youth Development Association, and the Nna Saama Mankolou project on the ACES website SYDA’s social media pages.

Philanthropy and climate change: A conversation with Impatience Earth

05/05/2023 by Robyn Shilland in 2023 Blue Carbon series / Conservation / Financing / Natural Capital / Uncategorized

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.

Not all offsets are created equal

01/03/2023 by Robyn Shilland in Conservation / Financing / Natural Capital

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.

Scaling community-led conservation to national climate action

05/08/2021 by Robyn Shilland in Conservation / Government / Uncategorized

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.

Protecting seagrass through carbon trading: resources for policy makers, project developers and communities Featured

14/08/2020 by Robyn Shilland in Conservation

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.

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).

Keep it in the ground – mangrove carbon, that is

20/04/2020 by Robyn Shilland in Conservation / Natural Capital

“Keep it in the ground” has been the motto of climate change campaigners for years. Until now this was in reference to crude oil – but thanks to research recently published in Nature, this could equally mean soil carbon. The research, led by Conservation International scientists, has identified carbon-rich landscapes, including mangrove forests, that contain so much carbon that their conservation is pivotal to avoiding a climate catastrophe – they are calling this ‘irrecoverable carbon’.

Carbon stored by ecosystems is lost to the atmosphere when those ecosystems are destroyed. When the ground is disturbed, as happens when forests are cut down, the soil becomes exposed to the air and the organic carbon is degraded into carbon dioxide. In mangrove forests, deforestation is happening at an alarming rate globally. Mangroves are cut down to make way for shrimp farming, marinas, coastal development and as a source of timber for building and firewood. They are also threatened by pollution, sedimentation and climate change.

Climate scientists have warned that we must reach net-zero emissions by 2050 if we are to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Keeping natural carbon sinks – as carbon-rich habitats are known – intact is a vital part to achieving this goal. We must take action to reverse the decline of these habitats to keep that carbon in the ground.

It’s hard to imagine just how much carbon is stored in these habitats. The numbers become unimaginably huge – what does 260 billion tonnes, the amount of this ‘irrecoverable carbon’ – look like? In 2019, global fossil fuel emissions reached nearly 37 billion tonnes CO2, or 10 billion tonnes of carbon. That means that 26 years worth of global emissions, at 2019 emission levels, are locked away in our ecosystems. Losing them would catapult us 26 years closer to climate catastrophe – and it is clear that we don’t have that kind of time on our hands to lose.

Tackling the climate crisis: The 3 Ps

12/03/2020 by Robyn Shilland in Conservation

Robyn Shilland (10min read)

The climate crisis is the biggest challenge of our time. It affects every one of us on earth, and we all have a responsibility to be part of the solution. Tackling this crisis head-on is a huge and complex task. It involves all of us acting not only as individuals but as institutions and as a community. It involves bold decisions, decisive action and a willingness to make changes to our own lifestyles.

When we’re faced with how to approach the challenge as individuals, organisations, nations and as an international community, there are debates as to who should be bearing the burden of action. We can all do our bit as individuals – walking, cycling or taking the bus, cutting down on flying, turning the heating down a degree or two – but these changes can feel piecemeal in comparison to emissions from industries and from nations as a whole. And alongside this, there’s the concept of offsetting – continuing to emit but paying to make up for it elsewhere.

Reducing our carbon footprint – as individuals, institutions and nations – is first and foremost when it comes to making a difference. Our lifestyles, particularly in the west, are unsustainable – this has been recognised for decades now, and yet we are only recently coming to truly accept this. The Global Footprint Network estimates that we need 1.75 earths to sustain our lifestyle. That number shoots up when you look at individual developed countries – if we all lived like the UAE, for example, we would need 5.4 earths to sustain our lifestyle.

More recent than the push to reduce our footprint is the concept of offsetting. Offsetting means paying for activities or land management measures that make up for emissions or degradation elsewhere. Carbon offsetting is the most prominent form of offsetting today, and involves people, organisations and nations paying for activities that absorb CO2 from the atmosphere in order to offset their own carbon emissions such as from flights.

Carbon offsetting has been criticised as a distraction from reducing carbon emissions. Why bother changing our activities and lifestyles when we can just pay someone else to make up for it? The economics of offsetting mean that it is largely people and organisations in developed countries paying for offsets in developing countries, raising further ethical challenges about who should be bearing responsibility for the climate crisis.

These criticisms aren’t unfounded. Offsetting should not be used as the first line of defence against the climate crisis – it is simply not enough, and not sustainable, to expect offsets to make up for the lifestyles of developed countries.

Yet, we at ACES still decide to use offsets as a means of conservation. Why?

We see offsetting as just one part of the solution. We have developed the concept of the ‘3 Ps’ to illustrate our position on where offsetting lies in the bigger picture. In order of importance, they demonstrate how action needs to be taken to address the climate crisis.

First of all, we need political action. The biggest impact on the climate crisis can be made by the international community taking bold decisions to reduce emissions on national scales to reduce emissions from manufacturing, transport, energy and other large-scale, polluting activities. Actions must be taken by nations to incentivise and facilitate low-carbon lifestyles, and these lifestyles must be adopted through personal action. The climate crisis is out of the hands of individuals alone, but by making changes to our own lifestyles we can make a collective contribution to the solution to the climate crisis. Taking public transport instead of the car, cutting out non-essential flights and making our homes more energy-efficient may feel like a drop in the ocean, but together our carbon reductions add up. And as consumers we can vote with our wallets, demanding that institutions change their ways.

Yet we can only go so far. It will take time to adapt as a society to a truly low- or zero-carbon lifestyle. Even with the best intentions, we are all at risk of overshooting the one-planet lifestyle. And this is where offsetting comes in. It is the last resort after we have done what we can as individuals, institutions and nations to reduce our carbon footprint.

For this reason, we seek to work with responsible and ethical buyers. We encourage anyone buying offsets from us to first look at their lifestyles and ask whether they can first reduce their carbon footprint, rather than paying to offset it. We are ever-conscious of ‘greenwashing’ and want no part in superficial or unethical attempts to appear more environmentally-friendly. We want our clients to understand and share these values. We would rather our clients reduced their contribution to us if it meant reducing their carbon footprint first.

We accept that offsetting is not perfect as a solution to the climate crisis. It is not even the most important solution. It can have its flaws, and it is up to us, as the managers of offsetting projects, to face these flaws head-on and create projects that are ethical, sustainable and grounded in local communities. We have seen the success that well-run offsetting projects can have for people and the environment, and we will continue to advocate for the place of these projects in a wider global effort to stop the climate crisis.

Category: Conservation