Seagrass - ACES

Safeguarding Our Seas: Establishing Community Patrols in Vanga

24/11/2025 by Amelia Allerton in Community / Conservation / Natural Captial

Mwinyi Hassan Mohamed is responsible for the coordination and implementation of the Vanga Seagrass Project. He has recently worked with the communities of Vanga Bay and the local Beach Management Units (BMUs) to establish regular patrols within the 225ha seagrass locally managed marine area (LMMA). He has written this blog to share his thoughts and expertise on the process.

Introduction – World Fisheries Day

Every year on World Fisheries Day, communities across the globe come together to recognize the immense value of our oceans and the people whose lives depend on them. The purpose of this day is clear and urgent: to highlight the importance of sustainable fish stocks, to strengthen human rights for small-scale fishing communities, and to improve the working conditions of those who work tirelessly on our waters.
For the Vanga Seagrass Project in Vanga Bay, on the southern coast of Kenya, these values are lived out daily. At the heart of the project, spanning a 225-hectare Locally Managed Marine Area (LMMA), are community-led patrols that safeguard the seagrass meadows, protect fisheries, and uplift the people of Vanga.

Seagrass biodiversity (c) Dimitris Poursanidis

Why Patrols Matter in the Vanga LMMA

Seagrass habitats are nurseries for countless fish species, offering shelter and food that support local fisheries. But without proper protection, destructive practices such as illegal fishing gear, encroachment, and habitat disturbance can rapidly degrade the ecosystem. To address this, in summer of 2025, the Vanga Seagrass Project established dedicated patrol teams from the community, composed of local fishers—men and women who understand both the ocean and the needs of the community. These patrols serve three interconnected goals which I have listed below:

Goal 1: Strengthening Sustainable Fish Stocks
Through routine surveillance, the patrol teams ensure that the LMMA remains a safe haven for marine life. By monitoring fishing activities, preventing illegal gear use, and protecting breeding grounds, they help ensure that fish populations can recover and replenish naturally.

Healthy seagrass = healthy fisheries.
Healthy fisheries = long-term food security and stable livelihoods.
This work directly supports one of the central messages of World Fisheries Day: protecting the resource so it can continue to sustain future generations. – Mwinyi Hassan Mohamed

Goal 2: Upholding the Rights of Small-Scale Fishers
Small-scale fishers form the backbone of Vanga’s coastal economy. Yet, they often face challenges that threaten both their livelihoods and dignity—competition from trawlers, unfair practices, and degraded marine ecosystems. The patrol system empowers local fishers to take part in governing their own resources. By participating directly in marine protection, community members gain:
– A stronger voice in decision-making
– Improved recognition of their rights  Greater control over the sustainability of their fisheries
This aligns deeply with this year’s World Fisheries Day theme: ensuring that small-scale fishing communities are not only recognized, but respected and protected.

Goal 3: Improving Working Conditions and Community Resilience
Fishing is demanding work—physically, emotionally, and economically. Unpredictable catches, harmful fishing practices, and environmental decline increase the hardship for many. Patrols help improve conditions by creating:
– Safer fishing environments, free from destructive gear
– More predictable fish stocks, enabling financial stability
– Stronger community bonds, as members collaborate toward shared goals
– Livelihood improvement, made possible through the sale of biodiversity credits with the
income channeled to community projects
Through training sessions, safety protocols, and the creation of alternative income opportunities tied to conservation, the project strengthens resilience and capacity builds in a changing climate.

Small-scale fishers form the backbone of Vanga’s coastal economy (c) Anthony Ochieng Onyango

The Outcome

The Vanga Seagrass Project demonstrates that when local communities are at the heart of marine protection, both people and nature thrive. Patrolling the 225ha LMMA is more than a conservation activity. It is an investment in human rights, biodiversity, and sustainable livelihoods. It shows what is possible when grassroots action aligns with global goals.

On this World Fisheries Day, we celebrate the courage, commitment, and vision of the Vanga Bay community. Their work is a powerful testament to the idea that sustainable fisheries start with empowered people.

Project Officer Mwinyi patrolling the VSP project areas (c) Vanga Blue Forest CBO

Pioneering the biodiversity crediting market – Vanga Seagrass Project

28/08/2025 by Amelia Allerton in Biodiversity Credits / Conservation / Financing / Natural Capital

This blog’s author is 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.

Introduction

From community conservation in coastal Kenya to international recognition on the world stage, the Vanga Seagrass Project (VSP) is undergoing a pioneering and world-first journey. The project team, a coalition between ACES, a coastal community and research organisations, are working hard to establish a community-led seagrass conservation project funded through the sale of biodiversity credits. The project’s high-integrity work has led to it being selected as one of the International Advisory Panel for Biodiversity Credits (IAPB) pilot projects. In this blog we will explore what this means for the project and the recognition that VSP has received so far as a pioneer in the marine biodiversity market.

Spotted jellifish (*Mastigias papua*) hangs out above the seagrass in Vanga Bay
(c) Anthony Ochieng Onyango

The Vanga Seagrass Project (VSP)

Vanga Bay is the largest fish landing site in Southern coastal Kenya. The area is economically and culturally important and home to the unique mangrove island, Sii Island. The local communities of Vanga Bay – Vanga, Jimbo and Kiwegu – contacted the ACES in 2018 to replicate the successes of the world’s first community-led blue carbon project, Mikoko Pamoja, located just 50km up the coast from Vanga. The mangrove conservation project, Vanga Blue Forest, covering 460ha of mangrove forest was launched in 2020.

From the inception of Vanga Blue Forest, the communities of Vanga Bay – in collaboration with ACES – have explored various ways of sustainable financing seagrass conservation, including the development of a ‘carbon-plus’ approach. Now, after years of successful mangrove conservation, the launch of Plan Vivo’s PV Nature Standard offers an opportunity to finance community-led seagrass conservation activities through the emerging biodiversity market. As a result, the community-led Vanga Seagrass Project was born, the first of its kind to use biodiversity credits to fund community-led seagrass conservation and protection.

The VSP aims to protect 225ha of seagrass meadows in Vanga Bay, within the East African Marine Ecoregion. Here, seagrass decline is driven by unsustainable fishing practices, predominantly illegal seine netting. The community of Vanga Bay are keen to protect this vital ecosystem and as a result, management interventions centred around gear restrictions and seasonal access for the closure sites have been formulated through a series of community consultations with the local fishing community and key stakeholders. These interventions are aimed at reducing human pressures, providing necessary time for this habitat to sufficiently recover over time. Boat patrols and enforcement of fishery rules and regulations will be implemented to ensure no destructive fishing takes place in the project area.

The project will also help raise awareness for sustainable fishing practices, seagrass conservation and the numerous benefits these fragile habitats offer. Protecting seagrasses enhances its habitat and nursery provisioning, especially for commercially valuable fish. This economically supports livelihoods for many coastal communities and provides other co-benefits such as acting as a carbon sink and improving resilience against climate change and coastal erosion. Adjacent communities will benefit from the protection of seagrasses and associated biodiversity in the bay, that includes increased fish stocks, and healthier ecosystems. The project includes 2,126 households of predominantly fishing communities represented through the Vanga Seagrass Project Committee.

Vanga landing site: Fish catches in Vanga (measured in kg landed) have seen a >30% reduction over the past decade (Fortnam et al., 2021). Vanga Seagrass Project will protect vital nursery grounds for culturally and commercially important fish stocks.
(c) Anthony Ochieng Onyango

The team are working hard to certify the project under Plan Vivo’s new PV Nature Standard. Our choice to align the project with Plan Vivo was a strategic one as they have a high-integrity and community-focused approach to certifying nature finance projects. Plan Vivo has recently developed a holistic and nature-positive approach to biodiversity finance, ensuring that there is accountability, inclusivity, transparency and equitable sharing of benefits during all stages of the project. Plan Vivo stipulates that at least 60% of the project income goes to the local community, enhancing local development and funding key projects selected by the community. For example, the communities participating in Vanga Blue Forest have allocated project income to the building, refurbishment, and furnishing of local schools and madrasas, to equipping the local school laboratory and medical facility (e.g. with maternity beds).

From local impact to global influence, VSP hopes to follow in the footsteps of Vanga Blue Forest who has been featured as a case study in multiple best-practice guidelines and articles. Already, VSP has been selected as one of the IAPB’s pilot projects and the team are actively participating in the Community of Practice.

The International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits (IAPB)

The IAPB is a is an independent initiative established in 2023 by France and the UK to facilitate the creation and growth of high integrity biodiversity credit markets and encourage enabling policy and regulatory mechanisms, in ways that are credible, timely, and coherent on an international level. Since its establishment, the IAPB has continued to evolve and has released clear, impactful market guidance through the IAPB’s Framework. Building on the momentum, the IAPB is currently moving to operate as a fully independent legal entity and will continue to implement ambitious plans to support the high-integrity biodiversity market. These plans include a Policy Lab to support governments with enabling policy and regulation, supporting a Community of Practice to enable shared learning among selected pilot projects and continued work on standards for high-integrity markets.

Pilot Projects

One of the focuses of the IAPB is to have a cohort of pilot projects that are working to operate in the biodiversity credit market. IAPB has brought together an initial set of more than 30 Pilots, which together give a tangible indication of the current state of the market and its development prospects. The pilots will also facilitate knowledge sharing between the wide group of projects around the globe (across 22 countries).

Excitingly, the VSP has been recognised for its high-integrity approach and has been selected as one of the 30 pilots that will collaborate with the IAPB and share learnings with other projects through its development journey in this emerging market. As a pilot project, VSP will provide feedback on applying the high-quality principles and frameworks on the ground and share insights and learnings among the 30 selected projects.

Furthermore, VSP’s work around community engagement, inclusion and local leadership has been recognised by the IAPB and the team were recently invited to present their work in the recent Community of Practice meeting. VSP and ACES were represented by Mwinyi Hassan Mohamed and Amber Baker who delivered an invigorating presentation and participated in a lively panel discussion. The meeting focused on the topic ‘equity and inclusion, particularly of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IP and LCs), in biodiversity credit projects and markets, with a focus on benefit sharing and grievance mechanisms.’ VSPs work was well-received and led to some interesting discussions around data equity.

Vanga Seagrass Project committee meeting with ACES and funders in attendance
(c) Anthony Ochieng Onyango

The VSP presenters discussed the need that to maintain high-integrity projects, the use of biodiversity metrics and measurements that are verifiable and can be audited by third parties is deemed essential for robust and verified biodiversity outcomes by the IAPB and the wider market. However, to produce auditable biodiversity data, many projects (including ours as part of the PV Nature Standard) are focusing on digital data collection methods for monitoring biodiversity and calculating credits. However, there are risks to using remote and digital monitoring technologies as it shifts biodiversity data away from local communities and towards remote actors, with potential implications for equity and data justice. The Plan Vivo and VSP teams see this as a very relevant governance consideration for many biodiversity crediting projects as digital data collection becomes more prevalent and are working to develop approaches that are both digital and are accessible to local communities. As a result, VSP is being developed in accordance with the available Biodiversity Credit Alliance High-Level Principles to ensure good governance around data sovereignty. The PV Nature Standard and PV pilot projects are working closely with biodiversity data analytics providers and communities to ensure robust auditing can be conducted whilst also ensuring monitoring methods are accessible to the community and that data ownership remains with the local communities.

The VSP team in action during some biodiversity monitoring trials in conjunction with ACES, Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute and Edinburgh Napier University
(c) Anthony Ochieng Onyango

Growing interest in high-quality projects

The hard work of the VSP team has not gone unnoticed, as supporting community-led conservation momentum was a key takeaway for many at the 3^rd United Nations Ocean Conference earlier this year. The projects involvement with the IAPB has even received international endorsement from the French President! In his speeches, at the Blue Economy and Finance Forum, President Macron praised the work of IAPB’s pilot projects in channelling investment and accelerating the transition to a nature-positive future. This included a reference to the VSP, Where Macron referred to the pilots working in marine ecosystems, including “seagrass meadows in Kenya”. The project is also starting to generate interest among some current carbon credit buyers and philanthropists who already support ACES’ work and are interested in the opportunity to support holistic biodiversity conservation with verified outcomes that also provides wider local benefits.

President Emmauel Macron’s Blue Economy and Finance Forum speech (c) IAPB

In addition to the interest in VSP, wider interest in the biodiversity market as a whole is growing. The World Economic Forum has put extensive effort into defining the business use cases for the emerging biodiversity market. A report on demand analysis and market outlook listed 4 key interrelated ways that biodiversity credits could deliver value for companies, 3 of these use-cases had a marketing focus either through brand reputation, product enhancement and quality assurance. Marketing use-cases are a key focus for businesses as they address the emerging societal expectation for businesses to support global nature recovery by voluntarily contributing to tangible, positive outcomes for nature (TBC, 2022). A key focus for businesses to address consumer expectations and develop a marketing advantage is to support the Nature Positive Movement, of which nature markets are a key tool.

Next steps

The Vanga Seagrass Project is continuing its development journey through key on-the-ground activities and a strong focus on developing robust metrics and data collection methods for marine environments such as seagrass. The team are also working to identify key innovators, pioneers and leaders who wish to support vital community-led biodiversity conservation work that supports the Ocean Positive Movement. If you are interested in discussing high-integrity biodiversity certificates and wish to capitalise on being an early-market entrant and proactively show you value nature, please do reach out for a no-obligation discussion. To receive a copy of our coveted Biodiversity Brochure for Buyers, please do email aces@aces-org.uk and a copy will be sent to your inbox!

Vanga Seagrass Project is thankful for the support of ORRAA and Dona Bertarelli Philanthropy.

Ocean Bottle: Supporting blue carbon beyond offsetting

31/05/2023 by Robyn Shilland in 2023 Blue Carbon series / Financing / Natural Capital

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.

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.

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

31/01/2023 by Robyn Shilland in 2023 Blue Carbon series

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 28^th 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.

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).

Tag: Seagrass