Tag: Mikoko Pamoja

    Not all offsets are created equal

    Not all offsets are created equal

    01/03/2023 by Robyn Shilland in / /

    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.

    Financing Blue Carbon Ethically, Responsibly and Effectively: Blog Series

    Financing Blue Carbon Ethically, Responsibly and Effectively: Blog Series Featured

    31/01/2023 by Robyn Shilland in

    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 [email protected].

    [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.

    Ethical offsetting in the journey to a zero-carbon world

    Ethical offsetting in the journey to a zero-carbon world

    24/11/2021 by Robyn Shilland in /

    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).

    Mikoko Pamoja is one of The Economist’s Ocean Protectors

    Mikoko Pamoja is one of The Economist’s Ocean Protectors

    12/03/2020 by Robyn Shilland in

    Our Mikoko Pamoja project was featured in The Economist’s ‘The Protectors’ series, which showcases ‘the cutting edge of science and radical thinking at work in tackling the crisis facing the world’s seas’.

    ACES Chair, Professor Mark Huxham, and Mikoko Pamoja scientist Lilian Mugi talked to The Economist team about how Mikoko Pamoja has made the conservation of mangrove forests pay for itself.