Unlocking Development: Blue Carbon

Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized
GOVERNMENTS
UNLOCKING
BLUE CARBON
DEVELOPMENT
INVESTMENT READINESS FRAMEWORK FOR
© 2023 The World Bank Group
1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433
Telephone: 202-473-1000 | Internet: www.worldbank.org
This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank Group, with external contributions.
“The World Bank Group” refers to the legally separate organizations of the International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), the International Development Association (IDA),
the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency
(MIGA). The World Bank Group does not guarantee the accuracy, reliability or completeness
of the content included in this work, or the conclusions or judgments described herein, and
accepts no responsibility or liability for any omissions or errors (including, without limitation,
typographical errors and technical errors) in the content whatsoever, or for reliance thereon.
The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information Please cite work as:
shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on
the part of the World Bank Group concerning the legal status World Bank. 2023. Unlocking Blue Carbon Development:
of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such Investment Readiness Framework for Governments.
boundaries. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
expressed in this volume do not necessarily reflect the views
of the organizations of the World Bank Group, their respective
Boards of Executive Directors, and the governments Rights and Permissions
they represent.
The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because
The contents of this work are intended for general the World Bank Group encourages dissemination of its
informational purposes only and are not intended to knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part,
constitute legal, securities, or investment advice, an opinion for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this
regarding the appropriateness of any investment, or a work is given and all further permissions that may be required
solicitation of any type. Some of the organizations of the for such use (as noted herein) are acquired. The World Bank
World Bank Group or their affiliates may have an investment Group does not warrant that the content contained in this
in, provide other advice or services to, or otherwise have a work will not infringe on the rights of third parties and accepts
financial interest in, certain of the companies and parties no responsibility or liability in this regard. All queries on rights
named herein. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed and licenses should be addressed to World Bank Publications,
or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC
privileges and immunities of any of the organizations of The 20433, USA; email: [email protected].
World Bank Group, all of which are specifically reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, “$” refers to

United States dollars.
Acknowledgements
This report, Unlocking Blue Carbon The following peer reviewers provided valuable advice:
Development– Investment Readiness Framework Peter Kristensen, Pablo Cesar Benitez, Julian Gonzalo
for Governments, was produced by a core team of Jimenez, Loren Atkins, Isabelle Blouin, Fabiano de
The World Bank Group (WBG) and external partners Andrade Correa, Markus Pohlmann, Neeta Hooda,
led by Sylvia Michele Diez, Senior Environmental Erik Winter Reed, Rodrigo Martinez Fernandez,
Specialist, and Juliana Castano-Isaza, Natural Brenden Jongman, Andre Rodrigues Aquino,
Resources Management Specialist. The report was Ellysar Baroudy, and Rahat Jabeen.
written by Moritz von Unger, Mackenzie Taggart,
Regina Sánchez Sasso, Raquel Bustamante, and Guidance and strategic direction were provided by
Steve Crooks from Silvestrum Climate Associates; Juergen Voegele, Valerie Hickey, and Christian Peter.
and oriented and edited by Sylvia Michele Diez,
Juliana Castaño-Isaza, Andres Espejo, and The team is thankful for the funding support
Irina Likhachova. from PROBLUE.
The team is grateful for the valuable insights The finding, interpretations, and conclusions expressed
and technical contributions of Jacqueline in this document are those of the authors and do not
Alder, Mercy Amai Emojong, Josina Germaine necessarily reflect the view of the Executive Director of
Eleonora Mellink, Stefanie Onder and Morgan Graham. the World Bank, the governments they represent, or the
The team recognizes the operational assistance counterparts consulted during the study process. Any
provided by Shane Ferdinandus, and the copy-editing factual errors are the responsibility of the team.
support provided by Jennifer Stastny. The team also
acknowledges valuable inputs of background research
from Cerasela Magdalena Stancu and Nigel Bradly. The
visuals and layout of this report were developed by
Pablo Porta, Laura Hidalgo, and Natalia Fernandez from
Estudio Relativo.
Unlocking Blue Carbon
Development
Table of Contents
Abbreviations..................................................................................................................... VIII
Preface: Blue Carbon as an Opportunity............................................................................IX
Executive Summary.............................................................................................................XI
1. The Scientific Basis for Action on Blue Carbon

Ecosystems (Pillar 1)................................................................ 1
1.1 Established Blue Carbon Ecosystems....................................................................5

1.2 Emerging Blue Carbon Ecosystems.....................................................................13
1.3 Drivers of Degradation..........................................................................................16
1.4 Associated Costs of Addressing Degradation......................................................21
1.5 Opportunities from Blue Carbon Protection and Restoration.............................23
1.6 Knowledge Gaps...................................................................................................27
2. Building a Policy and Institutional Environment for

Blue Carbon (Pillar 2)............................................................ 32
2.1 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ............................................33

2.2 Commitments under the Paris Agreement..........................................................34
2.3 Convention on Biological Diversity’s COP15 and UNFCCC’s COP27 ..................39
2.4 Stacking the Platforms: Synergies of Climate Action, GBF, and
the Sendai Framework .........................................................................................41
3. Mobilizing Finance for Blue Carbon (Pillar 3)..................... 47
3.1 Multilateral Funding..............................................................................................48

3.2 Results-Based Carbon Finance............................................................................50
3.3 Carbon Markets.....................................................................................................52
3.4 Emerging Financing Approaches..........................................................................61
Development
4. Scaling Blue Carbon Opportunities: Creating a

Blue Carbon Readiness Framework.................................... 68
4.1 Blue Carbon Data Requirements for Nationally Determined Contributions.......75

4.2 Institutional and Legal Framework for Blue Carbon............................................80
4.3 Blue Carbon and REDD+.......................................................................................86
4.4 Financing Approaches..........................................................................................89
5. Recommendations for Action............................................... 96
Pillar One: Data and Analytics .......................................................................................97

Pillar Two: Policies and Institutions...............................................................................98
Pillar Three: Finance.......................................................................................................99
Appendix 1: Checklist (Blue Carbon Readiness Framework)..................................... 101

Appendix 2: Blue Carbon Habitats.............................................................................. 112
Appendix 3: Examples of Multilateral Funding for Oceans........................................ 118
Appendix 4: Blue Carbon Projects (Global)................................................................ 120
Appendix 5: Methodological Details (Blue Carbon).................................................... 126
References and Bibliography..................................................... 131

Development
List of Boxes
BOX 1 Commodity-driven mangrove losses in Southeast Asia .......................................................................17

BOX 2 Defining restoration and conservation...................................................................................................18
BOX 3 Successes in reversing degradation.......................................................................................................20
BOX 4 CASE STUDY | Jamaica’s Forces of Nature report:
An integral assessment of the contributions of mangroves to
coastal disaster risk reduction, adaptation, and climate mitigation.....................................................26
BOX 5 Addressing gaps examples: Mapping seagrass to support climate action...........................................28
BOX 6 Key priorities to address knowledge gaps.............................................................................................31
BOX 7 Blue carbon ecosystems and adaptation measures: Global NDC practice...........................................35
BOX 8 NDC implementation: Costa Rica’s 2023 Blue Carbon Strategy...........................................................36
BOX 9 Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+)...........................................37
BOX 10 Improving blue carbon accounting through REDD+, Indonesia............................................................38
BOX 11 Jurisdictional reach: Delta Blue (Mangrove) Project, Pakistan.............................................................39
BOX 12 Nature-based solutions..........................................................................................................................42
BOX 13 Payment for ecosystem services schemes on mangroves....................................................................45
BOX 14 CASE STUDY | Mikoko Pamoja, Kenya...................................................................................................46
BOX 15 Scaling climate action by lowering emissions partnership crediting framework.................................51
BOX 16 Stacking co-benefits...............................................................................................................................57
BOX 17 Crediting approaches under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement..............................................................58
BOX 18 Examples of payments for ecosystem services schemes on mangroves ............................................65
BOX 19 Emerging blue financing tools: Bonds and debt-for-nature swaps.......................................................67
BOX 20 Valuating blue ecosystem services........................................................................................................76
BOX 21 Planning for the 2013 Wetlands Supplement........................................................................................78
BOX 22 Action-specific blue carbon targets.......................................................................................................78
BOX 23 Marine spatial planning and blue carbon: Examples from Indonesia and Mozambique......................84
BOX 24 Designing and managing marine protected areas.................................................................................85
BOX 25 Mangroves REDD+ frameworks..............................................................................................................87
BOX 26 Community participation, and land and marine tenure.........................................................................88
BOX 27 Strategic deployment of concessional resources: PROBLUE................................................................91
BOX 28 Blue carbon opportunities for financial institutions: International Finance Corporation....................92
BOX 29 Concept of additionality....................................................................................................................... 127
BOX 30 Concept of leakage ............................................................................................................................. 128
BOX 31 Ensuring permanence.......................................................................................................................... 129
Development
List of Figures
Figure 1 The Blue Carbon Readiness Framework consists of three pillars........................................................XII
Figure 2 Summary of Blue Carbon Readiness Framework pillars and recommendations............................... XVI
Figure 3 Global distribution of established blue carbon ecosystems...................................................................2
Figure 4 Comparison of the potential for sequestering carbon, between coastal and terrestrial forests...........3
Figure 5 Blue carbon wealth redistribution (in US$ billion per year)....................................................................4
Figure 6 Actionable Blue Carbon Ecosystems (Climate Change Mitigation Policy)..............................................6
Figure 7 Abatement cost curve, nature-based solutions, US$ per metric ton of CO2e......................................22
Figure 8 Average GHG mitigation density of blue carbon interventions,
compared with average figures for terrestrial forests...........................................................................24
Figure 9 Voluntary Carbon Market credits issued by activity type (2022)..........................................................54
Figure 10 Blue Carbon Readiness Framework.......................................................................................................70
Figure 11 MSP and ICZM informing new policies and regulations for
the sustainable use of marine resources, and job generation..............................................................82
Figure 12 Figure representing budgetary allocations for the Blue Economy development.................................90
List of Tables
Table 1 Primary drivers of degradation for blue carbon ecosystems.................................................................16
Table 2 Non-exhaustive list of actions to restore blue carbon ecosystems......................................................19
Table 3 Total carbon stock and change in stock (value, percent) in MMT
for the top 20 countries, 1996–2020....................................................................................................30
Table 4 Comparison of the size of compliance and voluntary carbon markets.................................................53
Table 5 Carbon standards and methodologies for blue carbon credits in the voluntary market......................56
Table 6 REDD+ building blocks and reference resources..................................................................................93
Table 7 Examples of blue/coastal projects from international funding agencies
(top five in each case).......................................................................................................................... 118
Table 8 Existing wetland carbon projects (Verified Carbon Standard)........................................................... 120
Table 9 Existing wetland carbon projects (Plan Vivo)...................................................................................... 123
Table 10 Existing wetland carbon projects (American Carbon Registry).......................................................... 124
Table 11 Existing wetland carbon projects (Climate Action Reserve).............................................................. 125
Table 12 Existing wetland carbon projects (Japan)........................................................................................... 125
Development VIII
Abbreviations
ACMI Africa Carbon Markets Initiative ICZM integrated coastal zone management
ACR American Carbon Registry IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
AFOLU agriculture, forestry, and land use IPLC indigenous peoples and local communities
ARR afforestation, reforestation, and revegetation IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
BCAF Blue Carbon Accelerator Fund LEAF Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest
BC Blue Carbon Finance
BCE Blue Carbon ecosystem LOI letters of intent
BNCFF Blue Natural Capital Financing Facility LULUCF land use, land-use change, and forestry
CAR Climate Action Reserve ha-1 per hectare
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity km2 square kilometers
CCB Climate, Community, and Biodiversity MOA memorandum of agreement
Standard MPA marine protected area
CDM Clean Development Mechanism MRV measuring, reporting and verification
CO2 carbon dioxide NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
COP Conference of the Parties NDC Nationally Determined Contribution
CORSIA Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for NGO non-governmental organization
International Aviation ODA official development assistance
CPF Country Partnership Framework OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and
CPI Climate Policy Institute Development
CSA climate smart agriculture Pg petagram (1015g)
CVF Climate Vulnerable Forum PES payment for ecosystem services
CWON Changing Wealth of Nations PFP project finance for permanence
CZMAI Coastal Zone Management Authority and RBCF results-based carbon finance
Institute REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and
DOE designated operational entity Forest Degradation
EAFM ecosystems approach to fisheries SBTi Science-Based Target Initiative
management SCALE Scaling Climate Action by Lowering Emissions
EEZ exclusive economic zone SD VISta Sustainable Development Verified Impact
EIA environmental impact assessment Standard
EnABLE Enhancing Access to Benefits while Lowering SDG Sustainable Development Goals
Emissions SIDS small island developing states
ENACT Enhancing Nature-based Solutions for Climate TASA Turneffe Atoll Sustainability Association
Transformation Initiative tCO2e/tCO2eq tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
ERPA emissions reduction purchase agreement Tg teragrams (1012g)
ESL extreme sea-level UN REDD United Nations Collaborative Initiative on
EU ETS European Emissions Trading Scheme Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization Forest Degradation
FCLP Forest and Climate Leaders’ Partnership UNEA United Nations Environment Assembly
FCPF Forest Carbon Partnership Facility UNDP United Nations Development Programme
FREL forest reference emissions levels UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
G7 International Group of Seven UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and
GBF Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Cultural Organization
Framework UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on
GCF Green Climate Fund Climate Change
GEF Global Environment Facility USAID United States Agency for International
GHG greenhouse gas Development
GIZ German Agency for International Cooperation VCMI Voluntary Carbon Market Integrity Initiative
GMA Global Mangrove Alliance VCS Verified Carbon Standard
GMW Global Mangrove Watch VM0007 REDD+ Methodology Framework
GS4GG Gold Standard for the Global Goals VM0033 Methodology for Tidal Wetland and Seagrass
IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Restoration
Development WMB We Mean Business Coalition
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization WWF World Wildlife Fund
Development IX
Preface:
Blue Carbon as an Opportunity
The role of coastal ecosystems in

climate change mitigation has inspired
the concept of Blue Carbon markets,
where projects restoring or conserving
these ecosystems generate “credits”
based on the tonnes of carbon captured
and stored.
The credits are then sold to global buyers such as

businesses that want to offset their own carbon
emissions or, alternatively, seek a contribution to
climate mitigation beyond a claim of climate neutrality,
resulting in a variation of the carbon credit framework -
Blue Carbon finance. It establishes markets to buy and
sell emission credits, generating financial incentives
for preserving and restoring the underlying coastal
natural assets. These projects are helping countries
and companies meet climate change commitments, by
reducing greenhouse gas emissions while safeguarding
the marine environment.
Propelling Blue Carbon to its full potential in support

of countries’ blue economy efforts, however, will
require further steps to foster investment readiness recent complementary IFC report “Deep Blue”, which
and attract the public and private capital that focuses on the role that private investment plays in
the projects need. These require a comprehensive facilitating mitigation efforts.
framework of conditions that enable successful
carbon investing, including more precise and reliable Through the Blue Carbon Readiness report, the
measuring, as well as reporting and verifying of WBG is supporting the development of a practical
carbon dioxide equivalents and better accounting. framework to guide Bank client countries and their
Recent climate COPs have highlighted the urgency of governments in catalyzing and scaling up public and
accelerating climate change mitigation efforts which private sector investment in coastal Blue Carbon.
includes expanding climate credit finance. This urgency The WBG in supporting client readiness to catalyze
has been recognized by the WBG through various and bring coastal Blue Carbon to the scale needed
upstream analytics and capacity building, including the recognizes many challenges still exist. Many of the
Development X
world’s natural coastal assets, especially mangrove, enhance global public goods related to climate, and
seagrasses, and salt and tidal marshes are very biodiversity benefits.
efficient at sequestering carbon in the biomass and
in the soil and have a vital role in mitigating climate The report is intended for government services
change. Yet there are many areas where these critical and for cross-sectoral attention within government
ecosystems are being degraded or destroyed by structures. While its focus is on promoting Blue Carbon
development, logging, and pollution, globally average readiness and identifying pathways for action and
coverage is declining 1 to 3 percent annually. These funding from all sources, especially the private sector,
losses also result in more carbon released into the it is not an investment guide for the private sector,
atmosphere, driving temperature rise and climate or an assessment of the exact place Blue Carbon
change. The degradation and loss of mangroves, interventions hold within the field of private investment
seagrasses, and tidal marshes is also preventing for nature. Instead, the authors hope that this report
these ecosystems from continuing to absorb and encourages governments to identify with the Blue
store carbon. Carbon cause and promote it in key areas of knowledge,
policy, and finance.
Enhancing these coastal ecosystems has benefits
beyond the sequestering of carbon, including This report was commissioned by the World Bank with
reduction in flooding and erosion, storm protection, financial support from PROBLUE, an umbrella multi-
increased food security, improved livelihoods for donor trust fund administered by the World Bank that
women and indigenous groups, and biodiversity supports the sustainable and integrated development
maintenance and improvement. The many co- of marine and coastal resources in healthy oceans.
benefits mean that Blue Carbon financing initiatives
can bolster multiple sectors, including tourism,
fisheries, and energy, and therefore reduce poverty in
emerging economies.
The WBG’s experience in developing innovative

and emerging finance instruments, makes it
the ideal institution to describe the conditions
needed to catalyze and scale up Blue Carbon. The
WBG’s experience in deploying concessional and
non-concessional finance and structuring blended
mechanisms for nature and climate change, provides
many lessons learned for client countries wanting to
generate finance for the Blue Economy. The parametric
insurance scheme to protect small-scale fishers from
climate events in the Caribbean can be a model for
developing novel insurance models that benefit from
the natural coastal protection provided by BCEs. The
WBG anticipates through this report to generate
greater uptake of Blue Carbon investments, which will
Development
CHAPTER ToC EX.S 1 2 3 4 5 AP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY XI
Executive Summary
Development
CHAPTER ToC EX.S 1 2 3 4 5 AP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY XII
The purpose of this It does this by describing in detail a Blue Carbon Readiness Framework, a
paper is to provide a step-by-step, well-illustrated guide with simple checklists. Client countries
practical framework to can use the illustrations and checklists to determine their readiness to
guide governments in catalyze and scale up investment in blue carbon credit finance. The Blue
catalyzing and scaling Carbon Readiness Framework consists of three pillars:
up public and private
investment in Blue Carbon Pillar 1 : Pillar 2 : Pillar 3 :
as part of their blue Data and Analytics Policy and Institutions Finance
economy development.
Figure 1 The Blue Carbon Readiness Framework consists of three pillars
Blue Carbon Readiness Framework

PILLAR PILLAR PILLAR
1 2 3
DATA & ANALYTICS POLICY & INSTITUTIONS FINANCE
NDC COMMITMENTS LEVERAGE BLUE
A B & IMPLEMENTATION CARBON FINANCE
EVALUATE ASSESS GHG
BLUE CARBON INVENTORIES
ACTIONS
CO₂
BLUE ECONOMY
Development
CHAPTER ToC EX.S 1 2 3 4 5 AP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY XIII
“The first chapter, Scientific Basis for Action on

CO₂
Blue Carbon Ecosystems (Pillar 1)” focuses on the
latest scientific knowledge providing the impetus
for action.
It includes a comprehensive description of the highlights the threats and drivers of degradation
ecosystem services provided by BCEs and the and discusses recent trends to address degradation
rationale for the actionable status of established BCEs and restore these ecosystems. This section also
(mangroves, seagrass beds, and wetlands) as well provides the basis for evaluating blue carbon
as emerging BCEs. The first section describes the actions and for assessing GHG inventories within the
ecological, economic, and social importance of BCE readiness framework.
services, especially for sequestering carbon. It also
Mangroves, seagrass beds, and coastal wetlands mitigation output more than five times higher than that
are part of the established wetlands inventory of a similar area of restored terrestrial forest. Seagrass
category for reporting requirements to the United restoration compares to terrestrial restoration at a
Nations Framework Convention on Climate factor of 3:1, and seagrass conservation at a factor of
Change (UNFCCC) and are eligible for blue carbon almost 2:1. For saltmarsh interventions (restoration
credit schemes. Some marine ecosystems, such as and conservation), the ratio is almost 2:1.
kelp beds and mudflats, are progressing towards
becoming actionable for reporting to the UNFCCC, Restoration and conservation are two widely
ultimately within a carbon credit scheme. Others, such used practices to capitalize on the potential
as coral reefs, oyster of blue carbon as a means of addressing and
reefs, and marine fauna are currently considered preventing degradation. The established and emerging
non-actionable. A lack of scientific information on these BCEs provide a multitude of ecosystem services, from
BCEs is limiting and constraining their actionability flood protection to fish nurseries, which add to the
and inclusion. carbon sequestration value. Expressed in monetary
terms, carbon sequestration and storage by mangrove,
Blue carbon investments are among the most salt marsh, and seagrass ecosystems has been valued
effective climate solutions available. Restoring at roughly US$ 190 billion per year (about $ 580 per
one hectare of mangrove forest has, on average, a person in the US) in terms of global blue carbon wealth.
Development
CHAPTER ToC EX.S 1 2 3 4 5 AP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY XIV
Coastal ecosystem degradation threatens the Efforts over recent decades demonstrate that
prospects of realizing the significant potential of the degradation can be addressed and prevented through
three key BCEs. Over 50 percent of the world’s original restoration and conservation efforts in emerging
salt marshes were lost during the twentieth century. and industrialized countries. These efforts require
As much as 35 percent of mangroves were lost due substantial financial resources that depend on the scale,
deforestation in the 1980s and 1990s, and researchers scope, and nature of the needed efforts. In many cases,
estimate that 25 percent of total global seagrass beds however, BCE restoration is relatively less expensive
have been lost. Often upland and seaward drivers of than engineering works. Funding these efforts requires
degradation are linked, compounding the intensity and public and private sector financing, with blue carbon
effects of BCEs losses. credit markets as one source of finance.
The second chapter, “Building a Policy and Institutional

Environment for Blue Carbon (Pillar 2),” provides policy anchor
points for client countries to set objectives and pathways to
catalyze and scale up blue carbon investments.
Each country’s commitments to mitigate climate change The Paris Agreement commitments capitalize on
are different. This chapter can inform decision makers potential opportunities to generate co-benefits, such
on the best international policy commitments, especially as meeting Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) that from blue carbon actions. Co-benefits-generation
ground many blue carbon investments. A number of is an additional incentive to invest in blue carbon.
international instruments, such as the UNFCCC and Currently, many of the co-benefits generated are from
Paris Agreement, include NDCs as core commitments to BCE projects or projects that reduce fuel use. Emerging
addressing climate change. BCEs, as well as carbon fluxes between components
of marine ecosystems, are currently not eligible for
Many international commitments have resulted in such benefits.
greater inclusion of BCEs in GHG accounting. The
IPCC “2013 Wetland Supplement” and its updates Governments are increasingly designing REDD+
is an example. The supplement provides guidance to (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest
account for GHG emissions and removal of established Degradation) projects and toolkits to include
BCEs. Conversely, it also informs or guides client mangroves. However, by restricting their REDD+
countries on the GHG mitigation actions that can be accounting to above-ground biomass only, the
included in GHG accounting. This chapter and the enormous below-ground carbon sink underlying
Readiness Framework help to show client countries mangroves is missed. Including mangroves in forestry
how they can ensure their BCEs are included in GHG agencies can contribute to this missed opportunity.
inventories and are part of the accounting process. Nevertheless, the global REDD+ infrastructure
provides rich models and templates for intervention
that are helpful for the planning and design of blue
carbon interventions.
Development
CHAPTER ToC EX.S 1 2 3 4 5 AP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY XV
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) achieving their conservation targets is an additional
COP15’s Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity anchor point for client countries to invest in blue
Framework (GBF) vastly increased conservation and carbon. Together with other climate-change-related
restoration targets, including for coastal and marine policy commitments and disaster-related policies such
ecosystems, and notably for BCEs. The Framework’s as the Sendai Framework, synergies are possible.
Special Trust Fund to support developing countries in
The third chapter, “Mobilizing Finance for Blue Carbon

(Pillar 3),” provides the entry points for client countries to
pursue the public and private financing needed for blue
carbon investments.
This chapter reviews the different forms of investment parameters for the private sector, including
financing:multilateral funding, results-based carbon with respect to carbon finance such as defining and
finance, private philanthropy, and private finance allocating carbon rights, creating mandates for carbon
(project development, and carbon markets). trading, and presenting models for community
involvement and benefit sharing. The chapter ends
It describes the different forms of funds within each with an interesting discussion on trends in blue carbon
of these finance types, the conditions to access such pricing, opportunities for emissions trading under the
funds, broad eligible activities, and monitoring and Paris Agreement, and emerging financing approaches.
reporting obligations. This Pillar describes stable
Chapter 4, “The Blue Carbon Readiness

Framework,” provides a harmonized
response for governments to tap their
full blue carbon potential by combining
technical, institutional, regulatory, and
financial aspects.
Adopting such a comprehensive response will help a pillar-by-pillar approach, with a series of questions
countries shift to a more productive and resilient that guide governments on next steps or areas on
Blue Economy that gives stability to natural habitats which to focus actions and investments. Practical and
and predictability to the private sector. This chapter actionable recommendations for governments are
consists of effective illustrations, supplemented by proposed to improve readiness and to help accelerate
checklists, to guide the reader through the process of blue carbon investments.
assessing blue carbon readiness. The process follows
Development
CHAPTER ToC EX.S 1 2 3 4 5 AP EXECUTIVE SUMMARY XVI
Figure 2 Summary of Blue Carbon Readiness Framework pillars and recommendations
PILLAR
Recommendation 1: Strengthen country capacity
CO₂ 1 to develop GHG inventories for above and below-

ground carbon.
Data and Recommendation 2: Promote the use of ecosystem
Analytics valuation in decision making.
PILLAR
Recommendation 3: Strengthen existing national
2 institutional structures, and design specific policies that

facilitate the implementation of blue carbon commitments.
Policies and Recommendation 4: Adopt integrated planning and a blue
Institutions carbon strategy to enhance local benefits.
Recommendation 5: Leverage partnerships between

governments, the private sector, international financing
institutions, and philanthropic organizations to help
address the systemic risks stemming from BCE loss and
influence global agendas.
PILLAR
Recommendation 6: Adopt a holistic approach to
3 mobilizing finance.
Recommendation 7: Access international grant funding for

Finance blue carbon readiness.
Recommendation 8: Promote public-private partnerships

(PPPs) for blue carbon market development.
THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR ACTION ON
Development
CHAPTER ToC EX.S 1 2 3 4 5 AP
BLUE CARBON ECOSYSTEMS (PILLAR 1) 1
CHAPTER
1 The Scientific
Basis for Action
on Blue Carbon
Ecosystems
(Pillar 1)
Though their geographic extent does not rival was to raise awareness about limiting and reversing
terrestrial counterparts, coastal ecosystems store ongoing degradation of BCEs—primarily mangroves, salt
carbon at the highest rates per unit area (McLeod marshes, and seagrass beds. Today, the term is widely
et al. 2011; Pendleton et al. 2012). They are capable used in management, scientific, and policy settings
of capturing and burying carbon at a faster pace alike, to reference ecosystem services and SDGs
than tropical forests (Duarte et al. 2021; Donato et such as climate mitigation and resilient communities
al. 2011). Coined “blue” due to the ocean’s proximity, (Laffoley and Grimsditch 2009; Murdiyarso et al.
Blue Carbon refers to the atmospheric carbon dioxide 2009). Blue Carbon is a global phenomenon, with all
(CO2) captured by coastal ecosystems during growth continents and climate regions boasting Blue Carbon
and stored in deep soils and living plant material. When habitats (see Figure 3).
the term was introduced some 15 years ago, the aim
Development
Figure 3 Global distribution of established Blue Carbon ecosystems
Mangroves Seagrass Saltmarsh
Source: UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Center (UNEP-WCMC13) (2021)
The bulk of BCE carbon (50 percent to 99 percent) 1,030 megagrams (Mg) of CO2 equivalent per hectare
is stored in the soils. These carbon stores can be (Mg CO2eq ha−1) for estuarine mangroves, 920 Mg
up to 6 meters deep and hundreds to thousands CO2eq ha−1 for tidal marshes, and 520 Mg CO2eq ha−1
of years old. If undisturbed, they are considered for seagrass meadows. Adding the carbon in the plants,
long-term carbon sinks (McLeod et al. 2011). the mean carbon storage is in the range of 1,500; 950;
According to estimates (Pendleton et al. 2012), and 600 Mg CO2eq ha−1 for mangroves, tidal marshes,
carbon storage in the top meter of soil is equivalent to and seagrass meadows, respectively (see Figure 4).
Development
Comparison of the potential for sequestering carbon, between coastal and

Figure 4 terrestrial forests
Soil Organic Carbon Living Biomass
Boral Forest
Terrestrial
Tropical
Forest
Mangroves
Coastal
Tidal Marsh
Seagrass
Meadows
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Mg CO2 ha-1
Source: Blue Carbon Initiative
On a local and global scale, BCEs are of critical Expressed in monetary terms, carbon sequestration
importance for biodiversity and humanity, and and storage by mangrove, salt marsh, and seagrass
the management and protection of BCEs has a ecosystems has been valued at roughly US$ 190
disproportionately large impact on vulnerable billion per year (about US$ 580 per person in the US)
communities, as well as on climate change mitigation in terms of global Blue Carbon wealth. This is based on
and adaptation measures (McLeod et al. 2011; Leal and a global mean social cost of carbon of US$ 640.30 per
Spalding 2022; Lovelock and Duarte 2019; Goldberg ton of CO2 emitted (Bertram et al. 2021). In an analysis
et al. 2020). of the economic damage caused by each additional
ton of CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere,
and the economic benefit of removing a ton of CO2,
Australia (US$ 22 billion), Indonesia (US$ 12 billion),
Development
and Cuba (US$ 6 billion) emerged as the three Philippines, Mexico, Papua New Guinea, Guinea Bissau,
countries that generate the largest positive net blue and Russia follow, with each contributing about US$ 4
wealth contribution for other countries. Myanmar, the billion to US$ 6 billion net (see Figure 5).1
Figure 5 Blue Carbon wealth redistribution (in US$ billion per year).
Positive and negative net wealth redistributions (in US$ bn yr–1)
–27 to –10 –10 to –0.5 –0.5 to 0 0–0.5 –0.5–10 10–23
No data available
Source: Blue Carbon Initiative
1 The valuation focuses on carbon and does not account for additional ecosystem services provided by Blue Carbon habitats. The analysis is also limited to
the established Blue Carbon habitats (that is, mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrass beds) leaving emerging Blue Carbon habitats for future study.
Development
1.1
Established Blue Carbon
Ecosystems
When the term “Blue Carbon” was first introduced, it adaptation has improved considerably in recent years,
was intended to include all carbon-rich coastal and and some of these ecosystems may be on their way
marine ecosystem types, not just established BCEs to actionability and inclusion as BCEs (see Figure 6).
(Nelleman et al. 2009; Laffoley and Grimsditch 2009). Actionability is widely understood to involve the
The science around other coastal and ocean systems following (Pidgeon et al. 2021):
and their relevance for climate change mitigation and
SCALE: LONGEVITY: THREAT:

The scale of GHG removals The ecosystems can store Anthropogenic impacts on
or emissions is significant; the CO2 sequestered the ecosystems are leading
long-term; to CO2 emissions;
VIABILITY: KNOWLEDGE:
Sustainable management of The science behind these
the ecosystems to reduce findings is sufficiently
CO2 emissions or enhance robust.
existing carbon stocks is
viable and practical; and
The actionability conditions make various coastal benthic sediments, and mud flats are on the path to
ecosystems—coral reefs, oyster reefs, and marine actionability as emerging BCEs.
fauna—non-actionable. It is noted that “actionability”
in this context refers to climate mitigation interventions Mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrass beds are
and does not extend to what are primarily climate considered established or “actionable” BCEs,
adaptation, biodiversity, or other interventions. For meaning that they fall into an established inventory
several ecosystems, science is not established enough category of wetlands under the reporting requirements
to decide on actionability. This is particularly true of the UNFCCC. Established Blue Carbon ecosystems are
for benthic sediments, but also for mud flats and also eligible for Blue Carbon crediting instruments (see
phytoplankton. Nonetheless, experts are increasingly Figure 6).
optimistic that macroalgae (notably kelp and seaweed),
Development
Figure 6 Actionable Blue Carbon Ecosystems (Climate Change Mitigation Policy).
Significant Long-term Gains / Manageability Actionability Annual

GHG scale CO2 storage losses from (loss control, Mitigation
anthropogenic enhancement) Potential
impacts (in GtCO2)
Mangroves Yes 0.06-0.73
Salt
Yes 0.0–0.1
marshes
Established
Blue Carbon
ecosystems
Seagrass Yes 0.28–0.37
(IPCC
recognized)
Macroalgae
(Kelp forests Likely 0.34
& seaweeds)
Benthic
Emerging Likely 0.4–1.1
sediments
Blue Carbon
ecosystems
(not yet Mud flats Likely 0.02
recognized
by IPCC)
Coral reefs No N.A.
Oyster reefs No N.A.
Other Phyto-
No N.A.
systems (no plankton
mitigation
potential) Marine
No N.A.
fauna
Source: Adapted from Lovelock and Duarte (2010) and Pidgeon et al. (2021). Figures on annual GHG mitigation potential from
Claes et al. (2022)
Development
This guidance is not compulsory for parties to the at COP25 (Madrid, Spain), and COP26 (Glasgow, UK).2
UNFCCC, but its use is encouraged by the Paris The established BCEs have also been found eligible for
Rulebook. This is the set of implementing provisions Blue Carbon crediting instruments, and they are central
for the Paris Agreement, adopted as part of the 24 th
to various initiatives that kicked off at the most recent
session of the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties UNFCCC and CBD negotiation sessions—COP27 and
(COP24) held in Katowice, Poland, and re-endorsed COP15, respectively (see below, Chapter 2).
Mangroves Seagrasses Salt marshes
1.1.1
Mangroves
Mangroves are among the most
carbon-rich tropical forests. Some
estimates suggest mangroves and salt
marshes can store on average between
6 to 8 megagrams (about the weight
of a school bus) CO2 equivalent per
hectare (Mg CO2e ha-1) annually—
roughly two to four times as much as
mature tropical forests. Often occurring
at the boundary between land and sea,
mangroves are salt-tolerant trees which
thrive worldwide in coastal zones within
tropical and subtropical latitudes.
2 The relevant decisions have been formally adopted by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA). The
body mirrors the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC but is legally separate.
Development
Distribution and trends
Just 15 countries represent roughly 75 percent of the stock (Hamilton and Freiss 2018). Deforestation trends
global mangrove area (Friess et al. 2019). A global have seemingly decreased since the early 1900s,
study assessing changes in mangrove area and carbon from a mighty 2 percent or more in annual losses
stocks between 2000 and 2012, calculated a global to a—still substantial—0.4 percent. Most of today’s
mangrove carbon stock of 4.19 petagrams of carbon emissions occur in Southeast Asia, though hotspots in
(Pg C) in 2012, with Indonesia, Brazil, Malaysia, and deforestation occur in Latin America and Africa.
Papua New Guinea accounting for 50 percent of the
Global mitigation opportunities
Globally, 42 percent of mangroves exist within protected areas recognized by the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Global Mangrove Watch (GMW) has published its goals to halt further loss and
restore 400 thousand hectares of mangroves by 2030 (Leal and Spalding 2022). Strengthening engagement
with local governments and communities, and integrating policy action, will be key steps in ensuring further
mangrove protections.
42%
Restore
of mangroves exist within

protected areas
400,000
hectares of mangroves by 2030
Conservation opportunities Restoration opportunities
Between 50 million and 130 million tons of CO2 (t CO2) Between 10 million and 600 million tons of CO2 (t CO2)
annually may be removed from the atmosphere. is annually may be removed from the atmosphere. That is
equivalent to taking between 11 million and 28 million equivalent to taking between 2 million and 130 million
cars off the road for an entire year. cars off the road for an entire year.
Development
1.1.2 Seagrasses
Seagrasses can store up to twice as much carbon global carbon cycle, so combating climate change. They
per hectare as terrestrial forests. Seagrasses are also play a role in supporting food security; enriching
underwater plants that accumulate carbon, the biodiversity; purifying water; protecting coastlines;
majority of which is stored in soils that can measure and battling disease. Seagrass meadows are often the
up to 4 meters deep. With meadows found from largest in estuaries and bays where harbors and cities
subpolar to tropical climatic zones (Duarte et al. 2005), are conjoined.
seagrasses represent a significant carbon sink in the
Seagrass meadows cover an estimated area of between to the annual emissions of 900 million to 16 billion
30 million to 60 million ha (Oreska et al. 2019), though cars on the road. The estimated annual emissions
modeling studies of potential seagrass area hint that from seagrass degradation are 150 million tons CO2
this may be a substantial underestimation (Jayathilake (Duarte et al. 2005; Pendleton et al. 2012). In many
and Costello 2018). The World Atlas of Seagrass cases, global maps of seagrass area and area change
(Green et al. 2003) highlights Australia as having the are incomplete or poorly resolved, which in turn limits
most extensive areas (9.63 million ha), followed by accurate estimates of global seagrass carbon stocks
Indonesia (3 million ha) and the Gulf of Mexico (1.94 (Oreska et al. 2019). Lack of detailed baseline data—
million ha). Seagrasses are spread across the Coral Sea such as maps of historic coverage— and globally patchy
countries, along East Africa and elsewhere. On a global carbon stock data are other key obstacles to overcome
scale, seagrasses are estimated to store 15.4 to 72 (Fourqurean et al. 2012).
billion tons CO2 equivalent—an amount roughly equal
Development
Global loss of seagrass is proceeding at a rapid pace. Programme (UNEP), this is an amount roughly
These losses represent potential emission of 650 equivalent to the annual emissions of the entire global
million tons CO2 per year (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. shipping industry (UNEP 2020).
2019). According to the United Nations Environment
Days
1 365
650
million
tons CO2 per year annual emissions of the entire

global shipping industry
Between 130 million and 160 million tCO2 annually may Between 150 million and 210 million tCO2 annually may
be removed from the atmosphere. That is equivalent to be removed from the atmosphere. That is equivalent to
taking between 28 million and 35 million cars off the taking between 32 million and 46 million cars off the
road for an entire year. road for an entire year.
Development
1.1.3 Salt marshes

Salt marshes are tidal ecosystems formed by accumulation of mineral sediments and organic material, and
are regularly flooded with salt water at high tide. The soil, which can be several meters deep, contains almost all
the carbon in salt marshes ecosystems.
Tidal marshes have not been systematically mapped Mexico (272,527 ha), and Russia (700,719 ha) host
globally, though technology exists to do so. A total major extents of tidal marsh, with lesser degrees of
estimate of the extent of 5,495,089 ha is provided protection. Southern Brazil and Uruguay (37,858 ha)
by Byrd et al. (2019). Tidal marshes are found largely hold extents of marshes within estuaries. China once
outside of the tropics, with those in the United States had extensive areas of tidal marsh; however, over 95
(1,723,410 ha), Canada (111,274 ha), Europe (356,947 percent of these marshes have been converted for rice
ha) and Australia (1,325,854 ha) enjoying a relatively cultivation, aquaculture, and development.
high level of regulatory protection. For these countries,
inventories of change exist. Argentina (118,870 ha),
Development
Between 2000 and 2019, an area of salt marsh of global salt marsh loss during this period. The net
equivalent to two soccer fields was lost every hour, loss of salt marsh during this period released 16.3
totaling roughly 1,453 square kilometers (km ) globally.
2
teragrams of CO2—an amount equivalent to the annual
The United States and Russia accounted for 64 percent emissions of approximately 3.5 million motor vehicles.
64%
Between
2000-2019 of global salt marsh loss
Between 40 million and 60 million tCO2 annually may Between 30 million and 40 million tCO2 annually may
be removed from the atmosphere. That is equivalent be removed from the atmosphere. That is equivalent
to taking between 9 million and 13 million cars off the to taking between 6.5 million and 9 million cars off the
road for an entire year. road for an entire year.
Development
1.2
Emerging Blue Carbon
Ecosystems
1.2.1 Benthic sediments
If left undisturbed, benthic sediments hold vast amounts of carbon on geologic
timescales—from thousands to millions of years (Estes et al. 2019). Globally, seafloor
sediments are believed to store nearly twice as much carbon as the top meter of
terrestrial soils (Atwood et al. 2020). In fact, the amount of carbon stored by benthic
sediments within exclusive economic zones (EEZ)—the 200 nautical mile area (from
the coast) for which coastal nations hold special rights—is roughly the same as the
amount stored in the high seas (Atwood et al. 2020).
To date, no maps have been produced on the global at a resolution of one kilometer (Atwood et al. 2020).
distribution of benthic sediment extent or change Despite the uptick in research into this emerging BCE,
in extent over time. However, a 2019 study used direct observations of benthic sediments are sparse,
machine learning to predict and map global seafloor and spatially explicit estimates of global benthic
carbon stocks (Lee et al. 2019), and a 2020 study sediment carbon stocks are lacking (Atwood et al.
quantified global benthic sedimentary carbon stocks 2020; Lee et al. 2019).
The widespread practice of bottom trawling 4 percent of the ocean floor, primarily within national
disturbs the ocean floor, releasing stored carbon waters, could eliminate 90 percent of the risk of carbon
and disrupting the capacity for future storage. While disturbance from bottom trawling (Sala et al. 2021).
uncertainties remain on how to quantify the impact Prioritization frameworks are being developed, with
of bottom trawling and dredging on atmospheric several calling for a globally coordinated effort towards
CO2 contributions (Pidgeon et al. 2021), recent marine conservation for climate mitigation (Sala et al.
assessments have been forthcoming. Currently, only 2021; Hutto et al. 2021). No information on emission
around 2 percent of benthic sediment carbon stocks reductions through conservation or restoration is
are in highly or fully protected areas (Atwood et al. currently available for this ecosystem.
2020). Yet studies suggest that protecting roughly
Development
1.2.2 Coastal mud flats

Coastal mud flats—also known as tidal flats—generally have higher carbon
sequestration capacity when compared to vegetated coastal ecosystems. Coastal
mud flats are formed by the slow accumulation of sediment left behind by rivers and
tides. They commonly occur in sheltered areas along coastlines, such as lagoons,
estuaries, and bays.
Research suggests that tidal flats across the globe occur in Asia, North America, and South America
occupy an area of roughly 127 thousand km . For 2
(Murray et al. 2019). Natural- and human-driven
comparison, this is an area roughly equal to that of stressors have resulted in a 16.02 percent reduction
mangroves (81 to 137 thousand km ), less than the
2
(> 20 thousand km2) in the extent of global tidal flats
known area of seagrasses (160 thousand km2), but far since 1984 (Murray et al. 2019). Rates of loss are
greater than that of salt marshes (41 thousand km ) 2
particularly high in East Asia, where increased urban
(Chen and Lee 2022). Coastal mud flats are found development is at a high (Chen and Lee 2022).
across wide latitudinal ranges, but nearly 70 percent
On the assumption that the rate of tidal-flat loss over 17.6 Tg CO2 to the water column and atmosphere (Chen
the past three decades persists, and that all disturbed and Lee 2022). No information on emission reductions
carbon is re-mineralized, the annual loss of carbon through conservation or restoration is currently
from mud flat sediments would be 4.8 teragrams of available for this ecosystem.
carbon (Tg C), which is equivalent to emissions of
Development
1.2.3 Macroalgae:
kelp forests and seaweeds
Macroalgae have a wide reach. They can be found from the intertidal zone across
most coastlines, out to the deepest depth of the world’s oceans. Macroalgae such as
kelp forests and seaweed rely on the process of photosynthesis to store carbon in
their living tissues. Upon death, macroalgae can sink to the ocean floor, where cold
temperatures and lack of oxygen promote potentially long-term carbon sequestration
(Duarte et al. 2022).
Global estimates of macroalgae distribution and area and changes in the global extent of macroalgae are
carry high levels of uncertainty. However, huge growth important means of estimating the role and impact
in research surrounding macroalgae has refined this ecosystem has on global carbon cycling and CO2
regional understanding of macroalgal extent (Duarte et emissions or removals. For example, a recent study
al. 2022). Refined distribution models (which predict found that the kelp forest of Australia’s Great Southern
the occurrence of macroalgal extent) have been used Reef sequesters 30 percent of national Blue Carbon
to predict regional extent but are not yet effective at sequestration and around 3 percent of the global
global scales. Refinement at regional scales has made Blue Carbon budget annually (Filbee-Dexter and
it possible to estimate carbon stocks of macroalgae in Wernberg 2020).
several regions. Improved understanding of the area
Technologies surrounding the cultivation and sinking this ecosystem. However, in late 2022 Ocean Visions
of seaweed as a means of sequestering carbon are still and the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
in their early development as potential CO2 removal released a framework intended to guide and accelerate
strategies (CDR) (Ocean Visions and MBARI 2022). the comprehensive science needed to determine the
No information on emission reductions through actionability of seaweed (Ocean Visions and MBARI
conservation or restoration is currently available for 2022).
Development
1.3
Drivers of Degradation
Coastal ecosystems have suffered from exceptional historical baseline—25 percent of total global seagrass
degradation in the past. More than 50 percent of beds have been lost (Waycott et al. 2009). Drivers of
the world’s original salt marshes were lost during degradation for these and other coastal ecosystems
the twentieth century (Barbier et al. 2008; Duarte et can occur inland (known as upland degradation), or
al. 2009; Xin et al. 2022) and estimates for loss of along coastlines at the seaward boundary (known as
mangroves due to deforestation by the 1980s to 1990s seaward degradation). Often drivers of degradation are
are reported to be as high as 35 percent (Friess et al. linked, compounding the intensity—and effects—BCEs
2019). Global seagrass data remains incomplete, but experience (see Table 1).
researchers have estimated that—in relation to the
Table 1 Primary drivers of degradation for Blue Carbon ecosystems
Driver Primary Location BCEs Impacted (Established)
Logging Upland Mangroves
Coastal Development Upland Mangroves Salt marshes Seagrasses
Commodities (agriculture,
Seaward Mangroves Salt marshes Seagrasses
aquaculture)
Pollution Seaward Upland Mangroves Salt marshes Seagrasses
Fisheries (small & large) Seaward Seagrasses
Climatic Changes
Seaward Mangroves Salt marshes Seagrasses
(tropical stroms, sea-level rise)
Source: Compiled using data from Campbell (2022), Global Mangrove Watch (GMW) (2022).
Development
Commodity-dependent economies can drive the for offshore mining. Commodities vary regionally but
loss of ecosystems. Coastal development includes broadly encompass agriculture, aquaculture, and timber.
buildings and infrastructure on land (this encompasses Commodities can further drive coastal development and
drainage of wetlands to reclaim land), and the build-out lead to contamination of soils and water, both upland
of port facilities such as shipping lanes and of terminals and seaward (see Box 1).
BOX
1 Commodity-driven mangrove losses in Southeast Asia
Covering some 3.3 million hectares This is primarily due to widespread Commodity-driven losses in
in area size, the largest and most mangrove conversion to aquaculture Indonesia have been decreasing.
diverse mangrove ecosystems in the and agriculture (Goldberg et al. 2020). It has been noted that of all
world are in Indonesia. Since 1985, Approximately 92 percent of all global anthropogenic drivers, commodity-
however, the country has lost some commodity-driven losses (due to driven losses declined most
40 percent of its mangrove forests, shrimp farming, as well as rice farming substantially from 2000 to 2016,
creating GHG emissions in the range and palm oil cultivation) occurred with a 77 percent decrease in total
of between 70 and 210 m tCO2e in Southeast Asia. Just six nations— loss area. The reasons are not fully
each year (Murdiyarso et al. 2018). Indonesia, Myanmar, Malaysia, the understood but this trend has been
Here, and across the Southeast Asian Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam— attributed to successful conservation
region, anthropogenic losses remain account for some 80 percent of losses efforts, as well as temporary market
high (even though they have recently in the region. saturation (Goldberg et al. 2020)..
declined, mirroring global trends).
The slowing of the trend toward mangrove Compared to salt marshes and mangroves,
deforestation because of logging and timber seagrasses’ sensitivity to drivers of degradation can
extraction over recent decades (FAO 2020), has been be acute. Heatwaves, as well as poor water quality due
cautiously attributed to successful conservation efforts to pollution or sedimentation, have caused widespread
in various—though not all—regions of the world (Friess die-offs in certain regions. In addition, destructive
et al. 2020). The finding is corroborated by the fact that fishing practices—including use of nets and anchors in
continuous deforestation is highest where protection shallow waters—can rip up and damage seagrass beds
is the lowest; and it remains elevated, with agriculture, (Unsworth et al. 2022). When these ecosystems are
aquaculture, infrastructure, and urban development degraded and converted, the carbon they store can be
putting immense pressure on the ecosystems (Murray lost (Stuchtey et al. 2020). Studies estimate economic
et al. 2022). Climatic changes—which broadly include damages of US$ 6 billion to US$ 42 billion annually due
hurricane intensity and frequency, as well as climate- to degradation of BCEs (Pendleton et al. 2012).
change effects such as sea-level rise—have been one
of the primary drivers of BCE loss in recent decades
(Campbell et al. 2022; Leal and Spalding et al. 2022).
Development
1.3.1 Addressing degradation

Restoration and conservation are two widely utilized restoration is the most appropriate practice to employ.
practices in addressing and preventing degradation. If the ecosystem is not experiencing any degradation
The application of one practice over another depends but is currently threatened or could become
on the status of the ecosystem in question. If the endangered, conservation would be the primary
ecosystem is currently experiencing degradation, practice to employ (see Box 2).
BOX
2 Defining restoration and conservation
Restoration is the practice of manipulating the physical, Conservation s the practice of protecting and preserving
chemical, and or biological characteristic of a degraded characteristics and ecological functions of an ecosystem.
ecosystem. The goal of restoration is to restore the natural, The goal of conservation is to maintain the services and
or historic, functions of the ecosystem. values the ecosystem currently provides. Restoration is a
commonly used technique and method of conservation.
In recent decades, regional efforts to combat

degradation have seen increased success. Policy Restoring hydrological conditions;
approaches such as marine spatial planning (MSP);
government conservation efforts through the creation Altering sediment supply;
of protected areas; community-based restoration
with a focus on fishing communities; and advances in Changing salinity characteristics;
science have been utilized in an increasing number
of projects, launched in both industrialized and Reintroducing or reforesting with native and
developing countries (see Box 3). diverse plant species;
Restoration of Blue Carbon habitats is an important Improving water quality; and

part of this growing trend. Increasingly sophisticated
restoration techniques include: Improving management practices (see Table 2).
Development
Table 2 Non-exhaustive list of actions to restore Blue Carbon ecosystems
Restoring hydrological
Altering sediment supply
conditions
Remove tidal barriers Use dredge material beneficially

Improve hydrological connectivity Divert river sediments to sediment-starved
Restore tidal flow to wetlands areas
Lower water levels on impounded wetlands
Changing salinity
Improving water quality
characteristics
Restore tidal flow to tidally restricted areas Reduce nutrient loads and improve water
clarity to expand seagrass meadows
Recover tidal and other hydrological flushing
and exchange
Reduce nutrient residence time
Reintroducing native plant Improved management

communities practices
Re-seed or re-plant Remove invasive species

Repopulate with native species areas that were Reduce grazing
previously destroyed or degraded Shift to sustainable aquaculture practices (e.g.
mangrove-shrimp, mangrove-oyster)
Source: Developed for this product

Development
BOX
3 Successes in reversing degradation
MANGROVE
In Senegal, roughly a quarter of the as alternative livelihoods training. One of the biggest mangrove
total surface area of mangroves in Led by the International Union for restoration campaigns in the
the country has been lost since the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), with world, Pakistan’s Delta Blue
1970s, as a result of drought and Wetlands International and 5Deltas, is a project located on the
deforestation for timber (Livelihoods the project focuses on advancing south-eastern coast of Sindh. Through
Fund, N.D.). As part of the largest mangrove restoration and the sharing a public-private partnership between
mangrove restoration project in of science in West Africa (Marice and the regional government of Sindh and
the world, the Livelihoods Fund33 Spalding et al. 2022). a private investor, restoration and
restored 7,920 hectares of mangroves sustainable management of 350,000
in Senegal, with an estimated A small town in central Philippines ha mangroves is underway. More
500,000 tons of carbon offsets has completed a successful recently, the World Bank approved
available by the time the project has four-year mangrove restoration of 9.5 the Mangroves for Coastal Resilience
reached completion. ha of abandoned fishponds. Involving Project in Indonesia, which is
thousands of community members, designed to support the government’s
In another West African project, students, and government employees, National Mangrove Rehabilitation
Mangrove Forest Management from the project showcased advances in Program. This program aims to
Senegal to Benin is working across restoration techniques, as well as rehabilitate 600,000 hectares of
nine coastal countries, providing the power of effective community mangroves by 2024.
local partners with small grants engagement (Marice and Spalding et
for mangrove restoration as well al. 2022).
SALT MARSHES
The number of salt marsh restoration There is growing awareness of barrier islands to protect against
projects has increased in recent years, restoration opportunities, not least storm surges, and is implemented
though most projects are small. For because of the protective functions on some 300,000 hectares. The
example, the Indian Government has of healthy salt marshes in the face of Humber Estuary Partnership Project
made efforts to restore marshland in increasing risks of sea-level rise. The (UK), which seeks to restore natural
Chilika Lake, India, and a project in Mississippi River Delta Restoration habitat lost due to dredging and land
the Peruvian Paracas Bay Area has Project (USA) aims to restore the reclamation, has an implementation
undertaken salt marsh restoration. Delta’s wetlands and rebuild its scope of 10,000 hectares.
SEAGRASSES
Seagrass restoration is not yet 85-90 percent. While the seagrass areas in terms of seagrass cover and
widely practiced, even though rehabilitation aimed at conserving the the density of associated biodiversity.
researchers and experts at Gulf of endangered dugong, it also enhances It costs about Rs 8 to Rs 10 lakh
Mannar Marine Biosphere Reserve carbon storage in the soil and living per acre for planting, monitoring
in India have restored 14 acres of biomass. The ecological functions of and maintaining.
degraded seagrass on the seabed the rehabilitation sites were attained
of the Gulf of Mannar region from within two years as the rehabilitation
2011 to 2020, with a success rate if sites look similar to natural seagrass
3 https://livelihoods.eu/portfolio/oceanium-senegal/
Development
1.4
Associated Costs of
Addressing Degradation
It is difficult to provide average prices for Blue the cost incurred for restoration is up to 200 times
Carbon interventions. This is because of high lower. Furthermore, restoration costs for mangroves
variabilities in factors such as habitat, location, were found to be considerably lower (US $3,000
drivers of degradation, restoration needs, economic per ha).
and logistical conditions, and so on. This is true
even at the national level. For example, a seagrass Conservation interventions, on the other hand, are
restoration project in West Papua will have different regularly calculated at much lower rates. Bryan
cost factors from a seagrass restoration project et al. (2020)—who base their analysis on research
in Sumatra. by McCrea-Strub et al. (2011), Vasconcelos et al.
(2014) and Pendleton et al. (2014)—assume initial
As the number of Blue Carbon projects grows, and protection costs of between US$ 25 and US$ 232
scientific experience accumulates, we are able to per hectare, with annual maintenance costs of US$ 1
generate increasingly reliable (hard), project-specific (not accounting for law enforcement and remedial
data, primarily in the area of restoration. Real-cost actions). The large spread points to site-specific
assessments for coastal wetland restoration—including differentiation and the hard-to-control opportunity
for restoration of mangroves and seagrass beds—show costs of protection as opposed to conflicting land
interesting trends. Reviewing hundreds of restoration use. The cost of protection of mangrove forest within
projects in 2015, Bayraktarov et al. (2015) found that a marine protected area that does not permit land
the overall reported median and average costs for conversion, is very different from the cost of protection
4
restoration of 1-hectare marine coastal habitat of areas that may be (legally) converted to agricultural
were in the range of US$ 80,000 to US$1,600,000, or aquacultural use.
respectively (2010 cost figures). If both capital
and operating costs are included, the real total costs According to a recent report by McKinsey (Claes
are likely four times higher, increasing median costs et al. 2022), about one-third of total abatement
to between US$ 150,000 and US$ 400,000/ha opportunities worldwide would be viable below
5
(Bayraktarov et al. 2015). However, most marine and US$ 18 per tCO2e. The report translates these costs
coastal restoration projects have focused on developed (with caveats) into costs per carbon credit (US$ per
countries—in particular Australia, Europe, and metric ton of CO2e) (see Figure 7).
USA. The authors estimate that, when accounting for
the local value of the US dollar in developing nations,
4 Marine coastal habitat is a category that includes Blue Carbon habitat but is wider in scope.
5 This is at 2010 cost figures.
Development
Figure 7 Abatement cost curve, nature-based solutions, US$ per metric ton of CO2e
Established Blue Carbon (sequestration) Reforestation 1/3 of total potential
Established Blue Carbon (avoided emissions) Avoided deforestation abatement would

be viable below
Emerging Blue Carbon (sequestration) Cropland (trees and cover crops) $18 per tCO2
Emerging Blue Carbon (avoided emissions) Peatland restoration
Mangrove Kelp
protection restoration
Bottom trawling3
Salt-marsh (Denmark, France, Bottom trawling3 Seagrass
protection Germany, Italy, (China) restoration
Netherlands) Seagrass
Seagrass
protection restoration4
Mangrove Salt-marsh
Kelp
restoration restoration
protection Bottom trawling3
(other nation’s
exclusive
economic zones)
~6,000
~300
~250
180
$
160
140
120
100
80
60
40 Not
costed2
20
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 7.5
metric ton of CO2
Source: McKenzie and Company, 2022

Development
These figures broadly reflect studies for countries and regions deemed high opportunity for, firstly, the outstanding
size of BCEs and, secondly, high levels of ongoing degradation. For instance, Jakovac et al. (2020) found that
conserving remaining mangroves would prevent the release of up to 15.51 billion tCO2eq. to the atmosphere and
could be achieved at carbon prices between US$ 3 and US$ 13 per tCO2 for 90 percent of remaining mangroves.
Restoring mangroves can sequester up to 320 million tCO2e globally. Carbon prices between US$ 4.5 and US$ 18
per tCO2 could support the restoration of 90 percent of deforested mangroves—though these figures do not include
opportunity costs from alternative land use (for aquaculture and infrastructure, for example).
1.5
Opportunities from
Blue Carbon Protection
and Restoration
Despite their potential complexities and high costs, Blue Carbon investments are among the most effective
climate solutions available. Mangrove interventions specifically stand unrivalled for their climate mitigation
density—that is, the average mitigation opportunity per hectare (see Figure 8).
Restoring 1 hectare of Seagrass restoration and seagrass For salt marsh

mangrove forest offers, compares to terrestrial conservation at a factor interventions
on average, a mitigation restoration at a factor of of almost 2:1. (restoration and
output more than five 3:1, conservation), the ratio
times higher than is almost 2:1.
the mitigation output
generated by restoration
of a comparable area in
terrestrial forests.For
conservation, the ratio
is 4:1.
4:1 3:1 2:1 2:1

R C
Development
Average GHG mitigation density of Blue Carbon interventions, compared with

Figure 8 average figures for terrestrial forests
1,400
Costal Terrestrial
1,287
Restoration
Protection
705
x 10
522
tCO2 375 522
304
234
equivalent /ha
123
Ecosystem Magroves Seagrasses

Salt
marshes
Terrestrial
forests
Source: Underlying data is sourced from Claes et al. 2022; Roe et al. 2021; and Griscom et al. 2017. Adapted for this report
Looking beyond carbon, protection and restoration Blue Carbon habitats for fish stocks and for flood and
of BCEs benefits coastal communities in numerous storm protection hold significant value. In the case
ways—especially by strengthening climate resilience of mangroves, an estimated 4.1 million small-scale
in the face of a warming planet and rising sea-levels. fishers globally rely on mangroves for fishing. In some
Blue Carbon ecosystem services include: countries (for instance Bangladesh and Nigeria), up to
90 percent of fishers fish predominantly in mangroves
Provisioning clean water, timber, fisheries; (Spalding et al. 2022). Mangroves’ value with regard to
Supporting breeding and nursery habitats, the commercial fishing industry derives from their role
biodiversity hot spots; as nursery habitats for many commercially important
Regulating protection from storms and floods, fish and shellfish.
erosion control, carbon sequestration; and
Livelihood support of local communities.
Development
Blue Carbon ecosystems have immense importance and adaptation. Nature-based approaches to
for climate change adaptation and disaster risk adaptation, and disaster risk management, are
reduction plans. Coastal areas have been centers considered to be more sustainable, cost-effective,
of population growth and economic development for and ecologically sound alternatives for coastal
centuries. Coastal hazards affect hundreds of millions adaptation (Losada et al. 2018).9 In addition to BCEs’
of vulnerable people, important infrastructure, and mitigation benefits, research on natural capital and
economic activity, and cause significant losses to its contribution to coastal protection has shown, for
national economies. Risks are expected to increase as instance, that mangroves protect more than six million
a result of population growth, sea-level rise, and other people from annual flooding and prevent additional
6
climate-change impacts (Global Risks Report 2019). annual losses of US$ 24 billion of productive assets
(World Bank 2021).10 Similarly, seagrasses contribute
Over the last two decades, climate-related disasters to coastal protection through the accumulation of
have accounted for 91 percent of recorded disaster sediment in their root systems (Ondiviela et al. 2014).11
events (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk
Reduction 2017).7 As climate change is likely to Climate change adaptation and disaster risk
increase the intensity of coastal storms, mangroves, reduction have similar aims and mutual benefits.
coral reefs, and coastal wetlands will increase in Governments can tap into the multiple benefits that
value, as they substantially reduce risks to critical BCEs provide to achieve national policy commitments
economic infrastructure and help prevent loss of life related to climate change adaptation and disaster
8
(World Bank 2022) . Unsustainable natural resource risk reduction (see Box 4). The different services
management and use, as well as land degradation, are provided by Blue Carbon habitats are typically rendered
underlying drivers of risk. Concurrently, disasters cause cumulatively—that is, successful conservation and
environmental impacts. Despite these challenges, restoration activities typically deliver on all the benefits
nature is a solution—reducing risk as the sustainable outlined, often at significant and incremental scale.
use and management of ecosystems builds resilience. In the Philippines, a study found that mangroves can
reduce the damage from typhoons by 25 to 75 percent,
Investing in nature through the restoration depending on the density of the mangrove forest. In the
or conservation of ecosystems is increasingly Mississippi River Delta, a study found that marshes can
understood to contribute to climate risk reduction reduce storm surge by up to 90 percent.
6 Global Risks Report. 2019. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_Risks_Report_2019.pdf.

7 UNISDR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). 2017. “Economic Losses, Poverty and Disasters 1998-2017.” https://www.undrr.org/
publication/economic-losses-poverty-disasters-1998-2017.
8 https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/111a397e3cdec79a7f1ee6db6b329fb4-0020012022/original/WB-Nature-Based-221102-1838.pdf.
9 Losada, J. et al. 2018. “The global value of mangroves for risk reduction mangroves protect coastlines by decreasing the risk of flooding and erosion.” 44.
doi:10.7291/V9DV1H2S.
10 World Bank 2021. The Changing Wealth of Nations 2021: Managing Assets for the Future. Washington, DC: World Bank.
11 Ondiviela, B. et al. 2014. “The role of seagrasses in coastal protection in a changing climate”. Coast. Eng. 87: 158–168. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
coastaleng.2013.11.005.
Development
CASE STUDY BOX
4 Jamaica’s Forces of Nature report: An integral assessment

of the contributions of mangroves to coastal disaster risk
reduction, adaptation, and climate mitigation12
This report supports the development

agenda’s growing interest in the
inclusion of nature-based solutions
(NbS) for disaster risk management.
It also provides vital information
for discussion on climate change
adaptation and mitigation, insurance,
and disaster-recovery decisions.
Mangroves play a key role in protecting
Jamaica from flood risks, and risk
would be significantly increased if
mangroves are lost.
• If the current mangroves were lost,

the proportion of the Jamaican
population facing annual flooding
would increase by over 10 percent.
This represents an additional • During a 200-year storm, • Mangroves were found to reduce
1,458 people, many of whom live mangroves reduce the number wave height between 36 percent
in poverty. of people flooded and avoid and 55 percent, and to reduce wind
• Damages to residential and damages by nearly 50 percent speed between 64 percent and
industrial property would increase throughout Jamaica. 80 percent.
by nearly 24 percent, or by more • More than 770 hectares of
than US$ 32.6 million annually, if mangroves have been lost in Mangrove benefits for Jamaica
mangroves were lost. Jamaica over the past two decades, go beyond flood reduction.
• One hectare of mangroves in but more than 70 percent of these
Jamaica provides on average more could be potentially restorable. • Using global averages, 3.7 million
than US$ 2,500 per year of direct • If Jamaica keeps its mangroves alive tons of carbon are sequestered
flood reduction benefits from and healthy, they will continue to annually by Jamaica’s mangroves.
tropical cyclones. keep pace with tectonic subsidence • Mangroves contribute between
• If considered over a 30-year period, and sea-level rise, and therefore US$ 5,218 (at Salt Marsh) and US$
the average benefits per hectare continue to protect coastlines from 54,145 (at Portland Cottage) in
for a mangrove conservation or storms/tsunamis. mixed fisheries per hectare per year.
restoration project would exceed • Soil carbon stocks were higher than • Other currently untapped benefits
US$ 43,000 in coastal protection the global average at all sites. include potential for high-end
benefits alone. recreational fishing, low impact
mariculture, and ecotourism.
12 World Bank. 2019. Forces of Nature: Assessment and Economic Valuation of Coastal Protection Services Provided by Mangroves in Jamaica
(English). https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/357921613108097096/forces-of-nature
Development
Case studies on restoration of mangroves have (Primavera et al. 1997).13 If well-managed, restoration
proved that restoration works. Mangrove destruction is feasible within a relatively short timeframe. Fish
leads to a loss of nursery habitat, loss of food sources, population and catch rates often improve significantly.
loss of breeding ground and—often—increased For example, a study conducted in Indonesia found
sedimentation, which negatively impacts fish that actively restored mangroves provided important
productivity by smothering fish eggs and reducing habitat for juvenile fish, and that the abundance and
water clarity. In a case study from the Philippines, diversity of fish in the restored areas was similar to that
the loss of fish productivity was a startling 90 percent in nearby natural mangroves.
1.6
Knowledge Gaps
Over recent years, considerable scientific progress longevity of storage (permanence), as well as inter-
has been made to consolidate our understanding connectivity across marine ecosystems (Williamson
of the planet’s Blue Carbon ecosystems. However, et al. 2022). Moreover, these gaps concern core
important science gaps remain. They include information on geography and socio-economic factors.
research into habitats beyond the recognized coastal Many, if not most, countries lack robust information,
BCEs (mangroves, seagrasses, and salt marshes) to especially on mapping and monitoring of seagrass
include macroalgae, benthic sediments, mud flats, and beds and other BCEs (including their health) in their
phytoplankton. There are also science gaps relating to exclusive economic zones (EEZ). Nevertheless,
the scope of Blue Carbon emission fluxes—including countries are making progress in the collection of
methane and nitrous oxide emissions—and the scientific data to inform national policies (see Box 5).
13 Primavera, J.H. et al. 1997. “Mangroves as nurseries: shrimp populations in mangrove and non-mangrove habitats.” Bulletin of Marine Science.
Development
BOX
Addressing gaps examples:

5
Mapping seagrass to support climate action
Although seagrass meadows are found

along the coasts of all continents
except Antarctica (Serrano et al. 2021),
robust global estimates of seagrass
carbon storage are limited by gaps in
regional data.
Estimates of carbon storage for seagrass meadows are

scarce in portions of North and South America (Serrano et
al. 2021), precluding seagrass incorporation into national On another continent, an initiative currently underway
carbon accounting and implementation of Blue Carbon through Pew Charitable Trusts focuses on mapping the
strategies within NDCs. Despite a limited extent of just extent of seagrass beds in Seychelles—generating the first
661 km2 within the Colombian Caribbean, a 2021 study countrywide estimates of the Blue Carbon ecosystem’s
measured an annual carbon sequestration equivalent to carbon stocks. The data gathered through the study will
roughly 0.4 percent of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels in provide a scientific baseline that policymakers will use to
Colombia (Serrano et al. 2021). The addition of data from support the country’s climate action plan, and to include
a data-scarce region bolstered a growing global dataset on seagrass protection in Seychelles’ Nationally Determined
seagrass carbon storage. Contributions (NDCs) to the Paris Climate Agreement.
There are also considerable gaps concerning continuity for the enhancement of Blue Carbon
practical knowledge and expertise (Macreadie et al. science, improved policy design, and the scaling-up
2022). Mangrove restoration specifically is often done of Blue Carbon interventions. Several examples—
without proper planting plans and designs, causing including from the forestry (REDD+) sector, such as
unnecessary planting failures. A warming ocean, the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the
extreme weather events, and sea-level rise have an Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance
ever-growing impact on the health of Blue Carbon (LEAF)—provide interesting templates for deep and
habitats. Vastly lacking are practical datasets on how lasting international institutional cooperation. Some
to respond to these factors, and how to make Blue of these initiatives (including the FCPF with its country
Carbon habitats—and in turn coastal communities, programs in Indonesia, Madagascar and elsewhere)
coastal infrastructure, and the broader Blue Economy— even give attention to Blue Carbon—albeit restricted to
more resilient. mangroves and therefore marginal, since the portion of
mangrove forests in a country’s overall forest inventory
Furthermore, there are knowledge gaps at the level is usually minimal. Existing international initiatives may
of governments and policymakers. This is often deepen their focus on Blue Carbon, and some of them
the result of a conspicuous absence of institutional may be replicated specifically for Blue Carbon.
structures, knowledge reservoirs, and governance
Development
There are also various global initiatives dedicated to Blue Carbon knowledge
sharing that link governments and non-state actors, including:
The Blue Carbon Initiative (launched Blue Forests Project (2014–2021).

in 2011, ongoing). This is a partnership BFP This project was a partnership between
between the Intergovernmental several non-governmental organizations
Oceanographic Commission of (NGOs) and the governments of
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Indonesia, Ecuador, and Mozambique.
Scientific, and Cultural Organization), The project aimed to demonstrate the
the IUCN, and the Food and Agriculture value of mangrove and other coastal
Organization (FAO) of the United ecosystems for carbon sequestration,
Nations. It works to raise awareness and to promote their conservation
about the role of coastal and marine and restoration as a climate change
ecosystems in mitigating climate change mitigation strategy. It has generated
and to develop policies and strategies important platforms for Blue Carbon
to promote the conservation and engagement between governments and
restoration of these ecosystems. non-state actors in the participating
countries, and given rise to a robust set
of knowledge resources.
Global Mangrove Alliance (launched The Changing Wealth of Nations

in 2018, ongoing). This is yet another CWON (CWON) (launched in 1995, ongoing).
successful partnership between CWON is a database on the world’s
governments and non-state actors. wealth, which recently presented its
The GMA brings together governments, first valuation of “blue natural capital,”
NGOs, and private sector actors with a focus on mangroves and fisheries
to promote the conservation and (World Bank 2021d). The initiative is a
restoration of mangrove ecosystems, milestone for the universal recognition
given their importance for Blue of the economic value of Blue Carbon
Carbon storage and other ecosystem habitats. It is only a beginning, however,
services. The Alliance has already and other BCEs outside mangroves
achieved significant progress in should be added in the near future. The
protecting and restoring mangroves CWON 2.0 (forthcoming), will present
in several countries, including the technical results of the Estimated
Indonesia, Madagascar, and the Global Carbon Storage in Mangrove
Dominican Republic. Ecosystems (see Table 3).
Development
Total carbon stock and change in stock (value, percent) in MMT for the
Table 3 top 20 countries, 1996–2020
Country 1996 2010 2015 2020 1996-2020 % Change
2,036.06 1,910.22 1,894.96 1,892.07

Indonesia -143.99 7%
491.03 482.69 480.26 487.30

Brazil -3.73 1%
446.27 439.77 438.37 435.49

Nigeria -10.78 2%
431.47 410.86 406.57 405.95

Australia -25.52 6%
352.62 333.90 331.93 334.06

Mexico -18.56 5%
324.28 321.54 319.77 318.65

Malaysia -5.63 2%
Papa New 277.86 277.47 276.35 274.11

-3.75 1%
Guinea
223.27 207.41 203.41 206.44
Myanmar -16.83 8%
214.25 199.03 193.94 194.42

Cuba -19.83 9%
162.05 156.83 156.23 157.21

Colombia -4.84 3%
161.38 153.24 153.35 155.53

Philippines -5.85 4%
148.03 147.06 147.31 148.36

Venezuela 0.33 0%
139.93 135.56 133.07 134.75

United States -5.18 4%
120.54 121.48 120.94 121.45

Bangladesh 0.91 1%
117.37 113.79 114.90 114.61

India -2.76 2%
107.81 107.54 107.32 106.87

Gabon -0.94 1%
106.98 107.51 107.71 107.22

Cameroon 0.24 0%
105.16 99.09 99.17 101.53

Thailand -3.63 3%
103.16 100.43 100.32 100.66

Madagascar -2.50 2%
102.01 100.66 100.82 99.72

Guinea Bissau -2.29 2%
Grand Total 6,171.53 5,926.09 5,886.69 5,896.41
Source: World Bank, and Silvestrum Climate Associates 2023. CWON 2.0 (forthcoming, 2024)
Development
These instances of institutionalization help ensure online tools on Blue Carbon data, with a wide variety of
that knowledge is built, archived, updated, and formats customized for specific end-user communities.
shared as needed among participating countries. Such initiatives could also enable identification of
Ultimately, this will provide a multilateral, results- suitable partners—not just philanthropic donors but
based finance framework dedicated to Blue Carbon also Blue Carbon delivery institutions—with the aim
and/or acting as a conduit for national results-based of creating regional Blue Carbon clusters or “hubs”
frameworks. Multilateral initiatives could promote and (regional Blue Carbon hubs or RBCHs). Key priorities to
support science projects, including those concerning address knowledge gaps are presented in Box 6.
the development of user-friendly and publicly available
BOX
6 Key priorities to address knowledge gaps
Design Blue Carbon-tailored research programs that

deepen the understanding of BCEs, with a specific
focus on actionability (see above).
Improve mapping and monitoring of carbon

stock changes, as well as of human-induced
degradation trends.
Promote the assessment of the economic value of

BCEs outside mangroves by the Changing Wealth of
Nations (CWON)—or similar—initiatives.
Enhance the space for Blue Carbon in existing

and planned initiatives on REDD+. That includes
developing comprehensive carbon-stock data
and data on stock changes; assessing drivers of
degradation from land and sea; and designing tailored
solutions to reverse the degradation trends.
Create and boost national and international

partnerships between government, non-governmental
organizations, and private institutions, to promote
knowledge-sharing of BCEs.
Consider designing a multilateral initiative on Blue

Carbon, building on the experience from REDD+ and
including the experience from the FCPF to provide
World Bank client countries with a Blue Carbon
knowledge and technical cooperation framework.
BUILDING A POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL
Development
CHAPTER ToC EX.S 1 2 3 4 5 AP ENVIRONMENT FOR BLUE CARBON 32
(PILLAR 2)
CH APTER
2 Building a Policy
and Institutional
Environment for
Blue Carbon
(Pillar 2)
Governments are not entirely left to their own such as the 1971 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
devices when it comes to improving knowledge, (“Ramsar Convention”), were adopted even earlier.
refining datasets, designing interventions, and However, the specific focus on conservation and
mobilizing finance for meaningful Blue Carbon restoration of coastal wetlands as a means to combat
action. Multilateral frameworks have facilitated the crisis of climate change and biodiversity loss
international cooperation and enabled the has been a more recent development. The release
establishment of platforms of collective action and of of dedicated guidance from the Intergovernmental
innovative finance. Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2013, the Wetlands
Supplement (IPCC 2014), the adoption of the Paris
The two key conventions, the United Nations Agreement in 2015, and the ubiquitous use of the
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) mechanism that sits at its heart (Nationally Determined
and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Contributions) added particular momentum to Blue
have been in existence since 1992, while others, Carbon action.
Development
(PILLAR 2)
2.1
United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate
The attention given to coastal wetlands within the IPCC “Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Inventories.”
UNFCCC was initially mixed. From 1992 onward, it The latter provides a comprehensive set of methods
adopted a decidedly holistic view on sources of GHG for inventorying greenhouse gas emissions GHGs
emissions (sources) and removals (sinks), noting the and removals caused by human activities in all
role of “biomass, forests and oceans as well as other sectors—from industry and waste management to
terrestrial, coastal and marine ecosystems” (Article agriculture and forestry.
4.1.d). The Paris Agreement has similarly explicitly
encouraged countries to conserve and enhance coastal The guidance provides countries with default values
ecosystems (Article 5.1), including the coastal and (known as Tier 1 values) with which to calculate their
marine ecosystem referenced in Article 4.1.d of the GHG inventory data. In principle, countries where
UNFCCC. Nevertheless, technical rules to track GHG wetlands are a major source of national emissions
stock changes in wetlands were not available before must go beyond Tier 1 and conduct more sophisticated
the release of the 2013 Wetlands Supplement. inventories, using more precise, location-specific
datasets. (These are Tier 2 and Tier 3 values, with the
The hiatus between 1992 and 2013 (when 2013 Wetlands Supplement also providing input data
accounting guidance for coastal wetlands was for these values.) If a country lacks the capacity to
finally released) can be partially explained by the complete its inventory using Tier 2 and Tier 3 values,
Kyoto Protocol of 1997. That multilateral agreement, however, the application of Tier 1 provides a good
adopted in 1994 and enforced in 2005, had set highly starting point. Countries still need to generate robust
restrictive accounting and carbon crediting rules for activity data—that is to say, data on the magnitude of
land use. While reporting obligations under the UNFCCC a human activity resulting in emissions or removals
were not directly affected by these restrictions, in taking place during a given period. However—at least
practice international reporting of GHG emissions for mangroves—these datasets mostly exist. Moreover,
and removals from land—specifically from wetlands— their application to the tier values from the 2013
remained weak. Supplement (since updated with the so called “2019
Refinement”) is straightforward.
Since the release of the Wetlands Supplement
in 2013, the tide has been turning. The Wetlands
Supplement is an addendum to the “Agriculture,
Forestry and Land Use” (AFOLU) volume of the 2006
Development
(PILLAR 2)
2.2
Commitments under
the Paris Agreement
About 50 countries have committed to protect Across NDCs dedicated to coastal and marine
and restore BCEs in their NDCs, and another 20 solutions, linkages are made to benefits beyond
or so have put forward action goals on coastal climate mitigation and adaptation (“co-benefits”),
14
zone management and marine protected areas. both economic and social. This includes SDG 1 (no
Signatory countries of the Paris Agreement agreed poverty); SDG 2 (no hunger); SDG 4 (quality education);
to periodically communicate their NDCs, outlining SDG 5 (gender equality); SDG 13 (climate action); SDG
each country’s efforts to reduce their national GHGs. 14 (life below water); and SDG 15 (life on land). Certain
NDCs are both political and implementation-focused social groups (for example, African Americans, youth,
documents, and they set the tone for international women, and indigenous communities) are identified
cooperation. The fact that Blue Carbon is prominently as vulnerable with respect to coastal and marine
addressed by a great many small island developing exposure, and NDCs highlight the need to engage these
states (SIDS), as well as some of the countries with the groups in active climate action.
highest Blue Carbon stocks in the world, is significant.
2.2.1 Nationally determined

commitments and inventories
While the value of BCEs for these countries lies The ability for a country to make such quantification
primarily in their co-benefits (specifically for and to include a given sector (here, Blue Carbon) in
adaptation and disaster risk reduction—see Box 7), a its NDC climate mitigation commitment, depends on
growing number of countries specifically recognizes whether the sector is covered in the country’s GHG
the role of BCEs as a carbon sink. That recognition inventory. As part of their NDC, very few countries have
carries more complexities than might initially appear, formally committed to the use of the 2013 Wetlands
at least if a country seeks to quantify the respective Supplement. However, since 2016 (when Australia
mitigation output. was the only country making such a commitment) the
pace has been picking up, with Australia, Canada, Fiji,
Jamaica, Norway, Panama, Lebanon, Korea, Singapore,
and UK formally committing to its use.
14 Lopez 2022 and observations of the authors.

Development
(PILLAR 2)
BOX
7 Blue Carbon ecosystems and adaptation measures:

Global NDC practice
There is growing attention worldwide other communications or documents,
71
Countries included
to ocean-related measures in including an NDC. Adaptation coastal and marine
climate strategies. This has led measures are crucial to protect NbS in their new or
updated NDCs
the international community and goods, people, and ecosystems
national governments to advance their from increasing climate risks and
climate mitigation and adaptation vulnerability15.
assessments and to include coastal
45
and marine ecosystems as mitigation When Lecerf et al. examined the
or adaptation measures. Adopting submissions until 2021, 71 countries
and scaling-up coastal and marine included coastal and marine Nature-
BOTH
conservation and restoration based Solutions for adaptation in their
measures in new or updated new or updated NDCs. Three types
Nationally Determined Contributions of solutions for adaptation have been
(NDCs) can, for some countries, act as incorporated in NDCs, including: a)
1 25
a multi-purpose solution for climate protecting and restoring coastal and
mitigation and adaptation. marine ecosystems; b) coastal zone
management and protected areas; and
countries countries
Under Article 7.11 of the Paris c) climate-ready fisheries and fishing
included coastal included coastal
Agreement, it is stated that adaptation communities.
and marine and marine
communication can be submitted as a NoS for only NUS for only
component of, or in conjunction with, MITIGATION ADAPTATION
15 Lecerf, M. et al. 2021. “Coastal and marine ecosystems as Nature-based Solutions in new or updated Nationally Determined Contributions.” Ocean
& Climate Platform, Conservation International, IUCN, GIZ, Rare, The Nature Conservancy, Wetlands International and WWF.
Despite the policy priority on adaptation, risk commitments, through biennial reporting (as
reduction, and perhaps other co-benefits, the required under the Paris Agreement). If GHG
capacity to use the 2013 Wetlands Supplement for emissions and removals from coastal wetlands are
NDC accounting is rightly se en as a key touchstone not covered in the GHG inventories, there is no way to
for global cooperation on Blue Carbon as such rigorously monitor and report whether or to what extent
(Thomas et al. 2020). While commitments do not commitments are achieved.
necessarily need to cover climate-change mitigation
and adaptation, the dual focus adds precision and While some countries include targets to conserve
provides a measure for comparing climate targets. and enhance natural carbon sinks in their NDCs,
support in making targets fully operational is
A Blue Carbon mitigation commitment built on still needed. Notably, NDCs sometimes include
comprehensive GHG inventory reporting also ambiguous or conditional language. They are also not
allows countries to track progress against their always realistic when it comes to land-use and the
Development
(PILLAR 2)
complexities of land tenure. As the 2022 Land Gap Connections and complementarities between
Report points out (Dooley et al. 2022), the total area of mitigation and adaptation measures;
land needed to meet climate mitigation commitments Links to the GBF and the SDGs; and
through natural carbon sinks is almost 1.2 billion Programs, plans, and other implementation details
hectares, which is equivalent to the total area of global (von Unger, Herr & Castillo, 2020).
cropland. Furthermore, countries’ climate pledges rely
on unrealistic amounts of land-based carbon removal. Restoring degraded land and ecosystems accounts
More than half of the total land area pledged for carbon for 551 million hectares pledged (all natural
removal—633 million hectares—involves reforestation, landscapes). It is not surprising that many countries
putting potential pressure on ecosystems, food struggle to adopt NDC implementation plans that
security, and indigenous peoples’ rights. Support to spell out concrete measures to meet the NDC targets.
operationalize NDCs can—and should—focus on: However, there are encouraging examples, such as
the implementation plan from Costa Rica. The country
Well-designed targets, with clear outlines of has been applauded for its wider NDC implementation
relevant habitats and ecosystems; strategy, manifested in its Decarbonization Plan and
Mitigation values (carbon sink credentials and the addition of a Blue Carbon Strategy to its toolbox
quantities; GHG mitigation benefits); of implementation. The country recognizes the
Information on assumptions and methodological extraordinary opportunities presented by Blue Carbon,
approaches regarding how climate action is which provides optimal mitigation potential in terms of
tracked, including GHG mitigation benefits; (per hectare) density and highly effective adaptation
Outlines of adaptation and resilience values for and resilience benefits (see Box 8).
vulnerable communities;
Mitigation targets, adaptation actions
and milestones;
BOX
8 NDC implementation: Costa Rica’s 2023 Blue Carbon Strategy
On World Wetland Day (2 February plans, and expand innovative effective Blue Carbon ecosystems
2023), the Government of Costa conservation finance mechanisms. The management. The strategy also
Rica released its first Blue Carbon strategy not only promotes traditional plans to call for Costa Rica’s Central
Strategy16. The fresh focus on Blue wetland protection measures; it Bank to develop and standardize,
Carbon is in line with Costa Rica’s NDC also calls for Costa Rica to establish by 2030, a methodology for the
commitment to protect 100 percent of official guidance and criteria for the economic evaluation of the benefits
the country’s coastal wetlands, restore registration of Blue Carbon projects provided by Blue Carbon ecosystems—
priority coastal wetland areas, develop by 2025—and at the same time to including but not limited to carbon
wetland management and monitoring establish financial mechanisms for sequestration.
16 https://drive.google.com/file/d/111dSMS1TBtEL_TN-UErUc3899-GXk-Uw/view.
Development
(PILLAR 2)
2.2.2 Blue Carbon and REDD+

Blue Carbon also indirectly benefits from the Paris articles (Article 5.2), the treaty specifically encourages
Agreement’s close attention to the global policy Parties to take actions on “results-based payments”
framework for reducing emissions from deforestation in relation to REDD+, as established under the UNFCCC
and forest degradation (REDD+). In one of its main (see Box 9).
BOX
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest

9
degradation (REDD+)
At COP 19 in Warsaw (2013), the There is considerable guidance— There are rules both for national
Conference of the Parties (COP) based on increasing practice—on REDD+ implementation as well as
endorsed the Warsaw Framework the calculation of forest (emission) for sub-national (“jurisdictional”)
for REDD+. The framework is based reference levels (FRL and FREL). approaches. Strong bilateral and
on Article 5 of the Paris Agreement, These are benchmarks or baseline multilateral activities have supported
encouraging governments at a national values that are established to measure the REDD+ development in recent
level to voluntarily reduce human the GHG emissions and removals years, among them the United Nations
pressure on forests that result in from forest-related activities such as Collaborative Initiative on Reducing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The deforestation, forest degradation, and Emissions from Deforestation and
framework acknowledges that each afforestation. A distinct body of work Forest Degradation (UN REDD) and
country’s effort will vary according to Is dedicated to REDD+ safeguards, the World-Bank-managed Forest
their capacities and capabilities. including with respect to governance Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF).
roles and participation rights of Some 50 (mostly tropical) countries
Plenty of work has gone into local communities. have started building country-wide
developing different features and REDD+ implementation frameworks,
aspects of REDD+ to help make the with financial support from
instrument operational for countries. developed countries.
REDD+ and Blue Carbon share a wide range of benefit from. The concept of “results-based” (or
characteristics. In most countries, mangroves are “performance-based”) support is particularly helpful
considered forestland. Governments increasingly for both the promotion of transparent impact evaluation
design REDD+ projects and toolkits for coastal (based on measuring-reporting-verification or MRV
environments, in general, and mangrove forests, guidelines) and the installation of community-focused
in particular (Fortuna 2020; Bhomia et al. 2021; benefit systems (carbon benefits as well as non-
FAO 2020). carbon benefits). REDD+ policy development has also
advanced land-tenure discussions and participatory
REDD+ has also produced a blueprint for ecosystem engagement actions (including recourse mechanisms),
interventions that Blue Carbon interventions benefiting indigenous populations (Halverson 2019).
Development
(PILLAR 2)
The global REDD+ infrastructure provides rich of an issue for seagrass beds and salt marshes, since
models and templates for intervention that are they do not qualify as forests in national regulatory
helpful for the planning and design of Blue Carbon systems and clearly fall outside the scope of
interventions. This includes stepwise guidance on REDD+. For mangroves, however, there is potentially
preparation of a financing plan, with a focus on the contentious overlap.
organization of data on costs, revenues, and sources
of financing; measures to address any funding gaps; First, while many REDD+ countries follow a broad
process for conducting financial and economic analysis REDD+ forest scope that includes mangroves
and sensitivity analysis of variables influencing program in their REDD+ scope, they restrict their REDD+
finance; and arrangements for flow of funds to ensure accounting framework to above-ground biomass,
that the financing plan is robust in supporting emission leaving the enormous below-ground carbon sink
17
reduction program implementation. in limbo. For other countries, the REDD+ treatment
of mangroves remains altogether unclear. This not
This said, REDD+ engagement also holds a certain only has repercussions for the correct calculation of
level of ambiguity for Blue Carbon environments—in emission reductions but also jeopardizes analytical
terms of both overlapping scope and conflicting work, stakeholder involvement, and policy planning
administrative responsibilities. This can impede (see Box 10).
action on the ground. Perhaps the ambiguity is less
17 https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/system/files/documents/fcpf_process_guidelines_2021_v5.2.pdf
BOX
10 Improving Blue Carbon accounting through REDD+, Indonesia
Indonesia has built a robust carbon the form of methane. It also included
dataset that includes removals of emissions from soil carbon only for
mangrove forests. When Indonesia deforested or degraded terrestrial
submitted its first forest reference peatlands, not mangroves (for which
emissions levels (FREL) to the United too few data points were available).
Nations Framework Convention However, in its new submission from
18
on Climate Change in 2016, the 202219, Indonesia comprehensively
accounting lacked robustness, with accounts for emissions and removals
various gaps and omissions. It did not of mangrove forests, including with
account for emissions from peatland respect to soil carbon.
fires (which accounted for almost 30
percent of national emissions in 2014)
or for non-CO2 gases from land, in
18 https://ditjenppi.menlhk.go.id/reddplus/images/resources/frell/FREL-Submission-by-Indonesia-2016.pdf.
19 https://redd.unfccc.int/files/2nd_frl_indonesia_final_submit.pdf.
Development
(PILLAR 2)
Second, mangroves are often the subject of inter- frameworks, which in many countries complicates
departmental administrative attention—from forestry coherent REDD+ governance for mangrove ecosystems
departments to water and fisheries departments. (see Box 11).
The latter rarely have institutional links to REDD+
BOX
11 Jurisdictional reach: Delta Blue (Mangrove) Project, Pakistan20
The Delta Blue Project is formally spreads over 350,000 hectares. A activities, and interacts with
a restoration project but follows replication plan is in the making to communities on the ground. The
a jurisdictional script in all but its include the remaining restoration provincial government also acts as a
name. Borne out of a public-private sites in Sindh (Delta Blue II). The focal point for aligning the project with
partnership with the provincial government—in this case—provides central government policies and NDC
government of Sindh, the project the land, oversees restoration integration.
20 https://deltabluecarbon.com.
2.3
Convention on Biological
Diversity’s COP15 and
UNFCCC’s COP27
Parties at COP15 (CBD, Montreal) adopted the conservation and restoration targets. Described as
long-awaited Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity “more inclusive, more comprehensive, more SMART
Framework (GBF). It updates the Aichi targets for (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and
2020 and provides a roadmap towards 2030 and 2050. time-bound),” the GBF raises the ambition level on
The GBF holds momentum for coastal and marine multiple fronts by:
ecosystems—notably BCEs—by vastly increasing the
Development
(PILLAR 2)
Proposing spatial planning to Conserving 30 percent of Ensuring that at least

reduce the losses to areas of terrestrial, inland water, 30 percent of degraded
high biodiversity importance, coastal, and marine areas terrestrial, inland water,
bringing losses close to zero by 2030 through protected coastal, and marine
by 2030; areas and other effective ecosystems are under
area-based conservation effective restoration by 2030
measures (compared to 17 (compared to 15 percent by
percent for terrestrial and 2020, under Aichi);
inland water, and 10 percent
for coastal and marine areas
by 2020, under Aichi);
Ensuring the full integration Eliminating or reforming Increasing the level of

of biodiversity into policies incentives that are “harmful financial resources from
and regulations—including to biodiversity” (such all sources “substantially
environmental impact as subsidies) by 2050, and progressively,” to at
assessments (EIAs)—across progressively reducing them least US$200 billion per
all levels of government and by at least $500 billion per year by 2030. This fresh and
sectors, and progressively year by 2030, and by scaling unprecedented goal would
aligning all public and private up positive incentives for be achieved by, for example,
activities, fiscal and financial biodiversity conservation and increasing transfer from
flows with the GBF; sustainable use; and developed to developing
countries to at least US$20
billion per year by 2025, and
at least US$30 billion per year
by 2030.
In support of the GBF, COP15 requested the Global Partnership, as well as concrete implementation
Environment Facility (GEF) to set up a Special Trust activities in selected countries.
Fund to assist developing countries to achieve their
conservation targets. Then, with finance in mind, During UNFCCC’s COP 27 (UNFCCC, Sharm El
23 countries and organizations—led by Colombia and Sheikh), multiple initiatives were also launched
Germany—launched the Accelerator Partnership. This regarding climate change, land, and ecosystem
is intended to help countries fast-track and upscale degradation, and including BCEs in scope. One
the implementation of their National Biodiversity of them is the Enhancing Nature-based Solutions
Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs). The German (NbS) for Climate Transformation (ENACT) Initiative,
Federal Government will support and kick-start which aims to drive collective action across climate,
the operationalization of the NBSAP Accelerator biodiversity, and desertification, and to help close
Development
(PILLAR 2)
the finance gap for NbS. The initiative will serve as a by the Global Mangrove Alliance (GMA) in collaboration
hub for government and non-state actors in fostering with the UN Climate Change High-level Champion. This
collaboration, accelerating action, facilitating policy initiative represents a science-based, measurable, and
dialogue and bringing global coherence to activities. achievable goal for non-state actors and governments
Focus areas include food security and productivity, to commit on collective action to halt mangrove losses,
adaptation and disaster risk reduction, oceans, restore half of recent mangrove losses, double the
coastal systems, Blue Carbon and the sustainable protection of mangroves globally, and ensure long-
blue economy, and green-grey infrastructure. Another term finance, with an investment level of US$4 billion
initiative is the “Mangrove Breakthrough”, launched by 2030.
2.4
Stacking the Platforms:
Synergies of Climate Action,
GBF, and the Sendai
Framework
Other recent international developments have ecosystems in ways that address societal challenges
tapped into the momentum for Blue Carbon and effectively and adaptively, to provide both human well-
Nature-based Solutions, more generally. They being and biodiversity benefits” (IUCN, 2016). This is
include the adoption of the IUCN Global Standard a concept that strongly resonates with Blue Carbon
for NbS and the resolution from the fifth session of conservation and restoration. It enforces NbS as a
the United Nations Environment Assembly (“UNEA- holistic tool, capable of providing climate mitigation
5”), which recognized the essential role for NbS in benefits and more. The UNEA-5 Resolution, in turn,
achieving SDGs. Under the IUCN Standard, Nature- emphasizes the potential of NbS in delivering co-
based Solutions are defined as “actions to protect, benefits (see Box 12) while addressing social issues
sustainably manage and restore natural and modified (for example, land tenure rights clarification).
Development
(PILLAR 2)
BOX
12 Nature-based solutions
Nature-based solutions are actions

capable of “addressing major
social, economic and environmental
challenges, such as biodiversity loss,
climate change, land degradation,
desertification, food security, disaster
risks, urban development, water
availability, poverty eradication,
inequality, and unemployment, as well
as social development, sustainable
economic development, human health
and a broad range of ecosystem
services” (UNEA, 2022).
Many stakeholders have firmly embraced the Another important synchronization through
new turn towards NbS. They include financial Blue Carbon can happen between climate action
institutions (representing US$ 24.8 trillion in assets (mitigation and adaptation) on the one hand, and
under management) that have spoken on the need the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
to prioritize support for nature conservation and 2015–2030. The Sendai Framework is the first major
restoration and to synchronize the different policy agreement of the post-2015 international development
platforms, specifically on climate and biodiversity— agenda. It provides its member states with concrete
that is to say, NBSAPs and NDCs (UNEP FI et al. actions to protect development gains from the risk
2022). The private sector’s commitment to “contribute of disaster. The Sendai Framework recognizes and
to the protection and restoration of biodiversity and promotes the role of ecosystems and environment as
ecosystems through [their] financing activities and a cross-cutting issue. The framework outlines seven
investments” is linked to a clear GBF mandate for the targets and four priorities for action to prevent new, and
alignment of financial flows, the disclosure of nature- reduce existing, disaster risks:
and climate- related impacts and dependencies,
and the development of a pipeline of nature-positive Understanding disaster risk;
projects and investments. Moreover, BCEs provide a Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage
valuable opportunity to link the UNFCCC and CBD by disaster risk;
contributing to the achievement of the GBF’s terrestrial Investing in disaster reduction for resilience; and
and marine conservation targets, through various Enhancing disaster preparedness to ensure an
sources of funding—including traditional biodiversity effective response and to “Build Back Better” in
funding and climate finance, carbon credits stacked recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction.
with biodiversity benefits, and results-based funding
from REDD+.
Development
(PILLAR 2)
Blue Carbon ecosystems—and the sustainable Sendai Framework, and are therefore critical to
management of their surrounding land and water reducing climate risks in coastal areas.
resources—are pertinent to all four priorities of the
2.4.1 National Delivery Frameworks

While international momentum has been building, protected areas. However, despite these improvements
practice points to the importance of building and over the past two decades, overall government efforts
using suitable policy and institutional frameworks still do not match the threat, especially in countries
at the national level to develop country-specific NbS with the highest rates of degradation, including in
roadmaps—especially, to realize the opportunities Southeast Asia. It is hoped that the new protection
for Blue Carbon. Not all of these frameworks are targets agreed under the GBF will specifically benefit
new. Countries will often have existing structures, coastal systems, and that governments employ
policies, and norms to manage and protect BCEs but community-based management tools for the operation
they are sometimes too broadly or weakly formulated of protected areas.
to have a specific impact, or they lack well-resourced
and effectively-mandated enforcement agencies, and Novel challenges (linking law, governance,
adequate enforcement powers. and finance for NbS interventions) concern the
recognition of carbon rights in the context of land
Recent decades have seen dramatic improvements tenure and the inclusion of local communities,
when it comes to adopting and installing robust legal when setting out monetary and non-monetary
protection regimes. Many countries have introduced arrangements for forest carbon and Blue Carbon
protective bans, such as bans on cutting mangroves investments. The World Bank’s BioCarbon Fund and
(Slobodian and Badoz, eds. 2019) and, less commonly, the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) provide
sanctions on removing or damaging seagrasses invaluable insights into the challenges as well as ready-
(Griffiths et al. 2020) as well as legal frameworks for to-use solution sets for countries to define carbon
community-based mangrove management. There is rights, mandate carbon transactions, and set out
also now specific protection of BCEs through marine principles for benefit-sharing with communities.
2.4.2 Land tenure and carbon rights

Certainty regarding land tenure is essential for and interdependencies, as well as the modern era’s
investments in conservation and restoration of disrespect for customary tenure, on the one hand, and
natural habitats, particularly if private sector collective tenure, on the other.
finance is involved, with its high expectations for
predictability and its low appetite for risk. Land While governments, as a policy priority, should
tenure over Blue Carbon habitats is often problematic formalize land tenure of Indigenous Peoples and
for various reasons, including the natural variability Local Communities (IPLC) where mangroves,
of the inter-tidal zone, multi-layered legal claims, seagrasses and salt marshes are located, Blue
Development
(PILLAR 2)
Carbon engagement can both pioneer and fast-track to the “implications” of the land and resource regime
the effort. The recognition of carbon rights in coastal assessment for the program. Indicator 36.2 aims at the
wetlands can help. Interventions may be modeled alignment between the two: “The emissions reductions
on the FCPF’s work in developing countries across the program entity demonstrates its ability to transfer to
globe. The facility, through the FCPF Methodological the carbon fund title to emissions reductions while
Framework, connects the ability to hold (and transfer) respecting the land and resource tenure rights of the
title to emission reductions with land and resource potential right holders, including indigenous peoples.”
tenure rights. Indicator 28.3 of said framework refers
Title to emissions reductions and removals, in this context, have a triple function. They support:
A reward or
A defensive or An exclusivity
compensation
protective claim claim
claim
Land and resource tenure holders Where emission reductions and Title to emission reductions
must not be restricted in their removals are the result of an effort and removals may be (and
rights and not be integrated in by stakeholders (including, but not often is) shared among various
the emissions reduction program necessarily limited to, land and stakeholders, including land and
outside an existing framework of resource tenure holders), such resource tenure holders. However,
mandatory law or their free (prior, stakeholders acquire a right to the title itself is unique and not
informed) consent; control and share the results and replicable. It gives a single,
the proceeds; and exclusive right to the emission
reductions or removals achieved
through the specific program and
the specific program activities.
2.4.3 Benefit sharing

Blue Carbon ecosystems are increasingly understood Partelow et al. 2018). Integrating communities—
in their role as “social-ecological systems,” specifically fishing communities, and indigenous
providing a range of services to local communities peoples—into the governance framework for Blue
and, depending on the stewardship of their natural Carbon interventions is essential (see Box 13). Equally
tenure holders (fisher-people), acting as a buffer to a important is to have these communities partake in the
multitude of threats. (Dahdoub-Guebas et al. 2021; distribution of investment benefits and proceeds.
Development
(PILLAR 2)
BOX
13 Payment for ecosystem services schemes on mangroves
Ecuador
The Socio Manglar Program in Ecuador

is a successful payment for ecosystem
services (PES) initiative launched
in 2008. It aims to conserve and
restore mangroves—vital ecosystems
that offer services such as carbon
sequestration, coastal protection, and
biodiversity habitat. The program,
supported by the Government, UNDP,
NGOs, and community organizations,
provides economic incentives to local
communities. These incentives come
in the form of direct payments and achieved significant results, including in 2021 by incorporating an additional
support for sustainable livelihood the establishment and management 2,900 hectares of mangrove forest
activities like ecotourism and of over 50 mangrove reserves, into the conservation program. The
artisanal fisheries. To participate, covering more than 20,000 hectares. Socio Manglar Program exemplifies
communities establish and manage It has also generated co-benefits how PES schemes can incentivize the
communal mangrove reserves, such as sustainable livelihoods conservation of coastal ecosystems,
legally recognized by the government and community empowerment. foster sustainable development, and
and monitored for ecological and Recognizing the positive outcomes, empower local communities.
social compliance. The program has the Government took a significant step
Benefit sharing arrangements and plans refer to Negotiating benefit-sharing arrangements prior to
a structure that allows distribution of monetary monetization (such as the sale of credits);
and non-monetary benefits generated from carbon Transparently disclosing the portion of revenues
projects among local communities. To ensure that directly benefits the communities; and
equitability, it is imperative that governments and Clearly indicating how the funds are allocated
investors alike understand the specific role of the among the communities (Meridian et al. 2022).
IPLC. This understanding should encompass the Furthermore, project costs, finance flows,
demography, economic activities, health, employment, and revenue sharing should be described in a
education, and other relevant factors relating to the transparent manner. The transparency of this
communities residing in and around the project area. information empowers individuals to make
well-informed assessments about the project’s
When formulating benefit-sharing agreements, structure and benefits distribution.
investors and developers must adhere to core
principles, and governments should provide relevant
guidance. These principles include:
Development
(PILLAR 2)
To ensure fair distribution of the proceeds generated payment of any charges, taxes or similar fees levied
by a project, various methods can be employed, in by the host country, must directly benefit the Project
terms of both content (setting specific quotas) and Participant(s) and other Local Stakeholders” (Plan Vivo
process (such as establishing a trust, partnering 2022). While details may be missing regarding what is
with local NGOs, or facilitating the formation of considered income and what direct benefits there are
cooperative organizations). The community-oriented to communities, the standard’s programmatic approach
Plan Vivo Standard requires that “[at] least 60% of represents a touchstone for Blue Carbon interventions
income from the sale of Plan Vivo Certificates, after (see Box 14).
CASE STUDY BOX
14 Mikoko Pamoja, Kenya
Mikoko Pamoja is a project that

engages local communities in the
conservation and restoration of
mangrove areas through the sale
of carbon credits. The project was
accredited by Plan Vivo Standard
to operate for a period of twenty
years. Under the coordinating body
of the project, Association of Coastal
Ecosystem Services (ACES), the
credits are sold, and the community
decides where the revenues will be
allocated. To date, the money has
supported local development projects
in water and sanitation, education,
health, and environment conservation.
From the avoidance of deforestation
of a 107-ha Standards to operate
for a period of mangrove forest and
10 ha of plantation, prevention of
forest degradation and new planting
of trees, the project’s carbon
benefits are estimated to be 2,400
CO2 yr -1. The project was awarded
with the UNDP Equator Prize 2017
for being an outstanding example
of a nature-based local solution to
sustainable development.
MOBILIZING FINANCE FOR BLUE CARBON
Development
(PILLAR 3) 47
CHAPTER
3 Mobilizing
Finance for
Blue Carbon
(Pillar 3)
The gap between the financing needed to reverse biodiversity. An estimated US$ 360 million of bilateral
nature’s decline, and current spending, is a major official development assistance (ODA) targets marine
challenge. It is estimated that at least US$ 700 biodiversity each year as a principal or significant
billion annually in financing is missing (World Bank objective—equivalent to 4 percent of total allocable
2022d). CBD-focused international financial flows bilateral biodiversity-related ODA. Multilateral
20
remain unimpressive . As the OECD reported in 2020 ODA targeting marine biodiversity as a principal or
(OECD 2020), the majority of biodiversity-related significant objective, is estimated at US$ 63 million per
development finance targets terrestrial and freshwater year, which is approximately 9 percent of multilateral
biodiversity; only a small fraction is allocated to the biodiversity-related ODA reported.
conservation and sustainable use of marine (ocean)
20 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23168-y.
Development
(PILLAR 3) 48
The picture is not much different for climate finance of that amount, or US$ 160 million (CPI 2022). In
leveraged in the context of the UNFCCC. While annual contrast, unsustainable fishing receives subsidies that
financial flows for forest, agricultural, land use, and lead to overcapacity and overfishing. The International
fisheries have exceeded US$16 billion, fisheries (the Monetary Fund estimates that US$ 22 billion is allotted
category traced by the Climate Policy Institute that to fishing subsidies each year (Sumaila et al. 2021).
comes closest to BCE) have received only 1 percent
3.1
Multilateral Funding
At the level of financial support, Blue Carbon is National Cyclone Risk Mitigation Program–II, which
on the way to receiving increasing attention by received a US$ 308 million loan in 2015. It seeks to
multilateral funds and multilateral banks. Multilateral minimize vulnerability in the cyclone hazard-prone
banks have a role to play in helping bring Blue Carbon states and aims to make people and infrastructure
into development policy and bridging financial gaps. more disaster-resilient. Through the PROBLUE Trust
Mainstreaming Blue Carbon into the development Fund, the World Bank has been strengthening the
process requires scale and speed. protection and restoration of marine ecosystems
by supporting policy development and strategic
The World Bank Group is the largest multilateral investments. With a portfolio of technical assistance
financier of climate action in developing countries. that amounts to US$ 134 million in 81 countries,
Our climate financing and technical support reached a PROBLUE has played a catalytic role in accelerating the
21
record of nearly US$ 32 billion in fiscal 2022 alone . adoption of ecosystem-based approaches in ocean-
The institution has become a key investor in coastal related sectors, including Blue Carbon interventions.
protection, restoration, resilience, and the Blue PROBLUE has been instrumental in supporting the
Economy. The World Bank Group recently approved for expansion of the World Bank Group’s blue portfolio,
funding the Mangroves for Coastal Resilience project, which exceeds US$ 7 billion through core IBRD and
which invests US$ 420 million as a concessional loan IDA financing. For a non-exhaustive funding overview,
to enhance the management of mangroves and the see Appendix 2.
livelihoods of local communities in Indonesia. The
World Bank Group also recently approved a US$350 At the level of financial support, BCEs are attracting
million loan to help Morocco launch its Blue Economy increasing attention from multilateral funds and
Program for Results, aiming to improve job creation and multilateral banks. Since 2010, the Adaptation
economic growth, as well as the resilience of natural Fund (AF) has invested around US$ 120.4 million in
resources and food security. Another example is India’s coastal-related adaptation measures, with US$82.3
21 World Bank Press Release. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/09/07/world-bank-group-delivers-record-31-7-billion-in-climate-

finance-in-fiscal-year-2022.
Development
(PILLAR 3) 49
million currently invested in projects approved equity for the Global Fund for Coral Reefs, which
or under implementation. The AF has invested serves as a blended-funding vehicle using grants,
most in flood defense and resilience. For example, debt, and other financial instruments to facilitate
US$ 14 million is being invested in climate change private, return-oriented investments in coral reef
adaptation in vulnerable coastal towns and ecosystems conservation and resilience.
of the Uruguay River, and another US$ 14 million in
reducing climate vulnerability and flood risk in coastal
urban and semi-urban areas in cities in Latin America
(Chile, Ecuador).
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) currently has

about US$ 208 million invested in about 40 blue or
coastal projects (not all of them targeting Blue Carbon,
however). The global Blue Nature Alliance has received
US$ 22.6 million in grant funding for their efforts at
improving the conservation of 1.25 billion hectares of
ocean ecosystems. The PROCARIBE+ Project received
grant funding of US$ 15.4 million. This project aims
at protecting and restoring the ocean’s natural capital
and building resilience in the Caribbean. Another US$
15 million grant has been approved for the Pacific I2I
Regional Project: Ocean Health for Ocean Wealth—
The Voyage to a Blue Economy for the Blue Pacific
Continent. Approximately US$ 24 million is currently
being invested in nine mangrove projects (protection,
conversion, and management). Between 2016 and
2021, the GEF (in partnership with UNEP), also funded
the Blue Forests Project (at US$ 4.5 million), an
initiative to improve the management of coastal carbon
and ecosystem services to build climate-resilient and
sustainable communities.
The Green Climate Fund (GCF) has spent US $374

million in grants for projects that include coastal
resilience, coastal protection/coastal communities,
or flood protection. US$ 57.7 million has been raised
to make Samo’s capital climate-resilient, and to
strengthen adaptive capacity and reduce exposure
to climate risks. US$ 30.4 million also partially
funds, for example, the Blue Action Fund, which
aims to improve the protection of the world’s oceans
and coasts. In addition, there is US$ 125 million
Development
(PILLAR 3) 50
3.2
Results-Based Carbon
Finance
Results-based carbon finance (RBCF) refers to a Importantly, REDD+-based RBCF does not involve
financing mechanism that rewards the achievement emissions-trading in the sense that host countries
of predetermined results, rather than the delivery would have to debit the units funded from their
of inputs or outputs. In the context of REDD+ (see NDC accounting frameworks. That means that host
above, section 2.2.2), RBCF is used to incentivize country governments can use the units paid for under
developing countries to reduce their GHG emissions an RBCF scheme for their own NDC targets (on the
from deforestation and forest degradation, and to debiting or “Corresponding Adjustments”22). The
conserve and enhance forest carbon stocks. Under allocation is important for both the host country’s
REDD+, developing countries can receive payments for capability of meeting its NDC targets and the wider
the verified reduction of GFG emissions that result from discussion of double counting of emissions reductions
deforestation and forest degradation. These payments or carbon credits. It is noted in this context that most
are made based on the results achieved, rather than the experts agree that RBCF does not give rise to double
inputs provided or the activities carried out. This means counting, as long as the purchaser makes no offset
that the countries are rewarded for reducing their claim and the use towards the host country’s NDC is
emissions, rather than simply for carrying out activities transparently communicated.
that may or may not lead to emission reductions.
The amount of funding provided for REDD+ through
The RBCF approach in REDD+ is typically structured RBCF varies depending on the source of the funding
as a performance-based payment system, where and the time period being considered. However,
payments are linked to the achievement of specific according to the latest available data from the REDD+
targets or milestones. For example, a country may Resource Database, by the end of 2021, a total of US$
receive payments for reducing its deforestation rate 2.2 billion had been committed or disbursed for REDD+
below a certain threshold, or for increasing the area of through RBCF. This funding has been provided by a
forest under protection. range of sources, including governments, multilateral
institutions, and private sector actors. Some of the
largest sources of RBCF funding for REDD+ include the
World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF),
the Green Climate Fund (GCF), and the Norwegian
International Climate and Forest Initiative (NICFI).
22 This mechanism subtracts the GHG emissions reductions from the host country’s account and adds them to the importing country’s account.
Development
(PILLAR 3) 51
Several RBCF funding schemes included mangrove between US$ 5 and US$ 10 per tCO2 (FCPF and LEAF,
interventions, although data is not available on the respectively). In the future, REDD+ and Blue Carbon
RBCF share that went specifically into mangroves. may be unified under the World Bank’s Scaling Climate
Overall REDD+ RBCF pricing has been mostly stable Action by Lowering Emissions (SCALE) Partnership
over the past year, if at a relatively low level of Crediting Framework (see Box 15).
BOX
15 Scaling climate action by lowering emissions

partnership crediting framework
As part of COP27, hosted in Sharm

El-Sheikh, the World Bank presented
the Scaling Climate Action by
Lowering Emissions (SCALE). SCALE
is a multi-partnered trust fund that
seeks to catalyze transformative
climate action by deploying Results-
Based Climate Finance (RBCF) in
developing countries, where countries
receive grant payments for achieving
pre-agreed, verifiable results, to
accelerate the fulfillment of their
National Determined Contributions of marginalized communities and • Sustainable infrastructure
(NDCs). (The World Bank 2021f) indigenous peoples through the design solutions. SCALE incentivizes
of benefit-sharing arrangements. the building and operation of
SCALE supports countries to sustainable infrastructure—
build a track record of generating SCALE supports just and inclusive including energy, industry, buildings,
verified emissions reductions that transition towards reduced transport, urban water and
they can apply towards their NDC greenhouse gas emissions in three waste management— delivering
commitments, and yielding excess major pillars: direct emissions reductions
credits that can be made available while improving public services,
for carbon markets. To support the • Natural climate solutions. SCALE productivity, and resilience.
achievement of its outcomes, SCALE supports the implementation of • Fiscal and financial solutions.
also deploys targeted funding for mitigation actions conducive to SCALE supports green fiscal policy
technical assistance activities such reducing emissions and enhancing reform, including harmful subsidy
as knowledge generation, capacity removals under REDD+, Blue removal, energy pricing reform,
building, development of tools and Carbon, Climate Smart Agriculture carbon pricing, and green financial
modeling, and program preparation. (CSA), and landscape-scale sector interventions such as
agriculture, forest, and other climate- smart public co-financing,
Social inclusion is a central element of land-use (AFOLU) programs; incentivization of portfolio shifts
all SCALE programs. Enhancing Access and delivering outcomes such as with commercial banks, and
to Benefits while Lowering Emissions enhanced agricultural productivity, climate-risk- reflecting financial
(EnABLE) is an associated trust ecosystem conservation, and regulation and monetary policy.
fund that will enhance the inclusion resilient marine economies.
Development
(PILLAR 3) 52
3.3
Carbon Markets
Setting incentives for communities, fishers, farmers, Some of the GHG accounting procedures for Blue
and other landowners and land-users (including Carbon interventions are quite similar to those for
governments) to conserve pristine coastal wetlands the more established category of forestry projects—
and restore those that are drained or degraded, is for example, assessing baseline scenarios, carbon
a key challenge in achieving the goals of the Paris stocks in biomass, leakage emissions from activity
Agreement. Emissions trading (carbon markets) can shifting, as well as permanence. But specific
play an important part in this incentivizing. While components are distinctly different when assessing
carbon markets have long been used for terrestrial other dynamics, such as the effects of sea-level rise
forest interventions, they have recently been tapped for (as the tidal zone may shift landward), ecological
Blue Carbon interventions. leakage (changes to adjacent areas due to hydrological
connectivity), carbon stocks in tidal wetland soils,
and methane emissions. (For conceptual details,
see Appendix 3.)
3.3.1 Clean Development Mechanism

Most of the existing carbon markets are government- largest emissions trading scheme at the time—the
backed. They are confined to domestic marketplaces European Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), which
(emissions trading in China, Australia, North America, drove most of the demand for CDM credits for many
the EU, and so on), and they work based on a years—never opened up to land-based projects. To
mandatory emissions reduction target to be met (hence reduce the non-permanence risk, buffer approaches,
“compliance markets”). They are also primarily focused such as those piloted under FCPF and ISFL, could be
on industrial emissions, rather than natural solutions. developed where a certain amount of verified ERs is
set aside in a buffer mechanism to insure against any
This said, the Clean Development Mechanism potential future reversal event under the BCEs project
(CDM), the project-based mechanism for the and renders Blue Carbon ERs a more permanent—
creation of officially recognized carbon credits in thereby more attractive— carbon asset.
the era of the Kyoto Protocol (2008-2020), had a
window for land-based interventions, including on Nevertheless, for all its limitations, the CDM
mangrove restoration. However, the credits generated triggered the development of more than 10
were defined as temporary (in need of continuous ecosystem-based accounting methodologies. These
replacement), which put them at the periphery of include one on Afforestation and Reforestation of
investor interest. It is also one of the reasons why the Degraded Mangroves (UNFCCC 2013), and some
Development
(PILLAR 3) 53
50 projects worldwide—among them Protection of Low-Income Community-Based Mangrove Afforestation

Cameroon Estuary Mangroves through Improved Project on Tidal Flats (UNFCCC 2010b) in Riau Island
Smoke Houses (UNFCCC 2010a) and Small-Scale and Province, Indonesia.
3.3.2 Voluntary carbon markets

A small but growing market is built by and for non- Standard (VCS) and the Gold Standard—are available
state actors (see Table 4). These privately organized, across countries, and carbon credits can be traded
non-regulated (non-compliance) initiatives, or across borders. The other two—the American Carbon
“voluntary carbon markets,” fill two significant gaps. Registry (ACR) and the Climate Action Reserve (CAR)—
First, they have an important transnational segment. are available in the Americas.
Two of the big four standards—the Verified Carbon
Table 4 Comparison of the size of compliance and voluntary carbon markets.
Compliance Carbon Market Voluntary Carbon Market
Total
market Total Market Value $272 billion USD (2020)23 Total Market Value $1 billion (2021)24
value
Source: World Bank’s GFDRR 2023 (forthcoming)
Second, voluntary carbon markets have moved into based solutions/natural climate solutions) account for
the sectors left out by most compliance markets: much of the (strong) growth of the voluntary carbon
agriculture, forestry, and other land use (AFOLU). markets, accounting for a trade volume of 37 million
The World Bank and BeZero Carbon identified that tCO2e in 2019, 58 million in 2020 and, in a huge leap,
of all voluntary carbon market credits issued, 48.85 227 million tCO2e in 2021 (Forest Trends 2022, Forest
percent are categorized as nature-based solutions Trends 2021).
(Figure 9). These nature-based projects (nature-
23 REFINITIV, Carbon Market Year in Review 2020, 2021, https://www.refinitiv.com/content/dam/marketing/en_us/documents/gated/reports/carbon-

market-year-in-review-2020.pdf.
24 EM Insights Team, Voluntary Carbon Markets Top $1 Billion in 2021 with Newly Reported Trades: A Special Ecosystem Marketplace COP26 Bulletin, n.d.,
https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/voluntary-carbon-markets-top-1-billion-in-2021-with-newly-reported-trades-special-ecosystem-
marketplace-cop26-bulletin/.
Development
(PILLAR 3) 54
Figure 9 Voluntary Carbon Market credits issued by activity type (2022).
37% 40%
Renewable energy NBS
9% 1%
Waste Coal mine methane
7% 4% 2%
Industrial gases Fuel switch Energy efficiency
Source: World Bank GFDRR, 2023 (forthcoming).
Voluntary carbon standards operate as “baseline- trades happen over-the-counter—that is, away from
and-credit” instruments. They define methodologies centralized platforms or brokers.
to calculate in detail “baseline” (or business-as-usual)
GHG emissions (from land conversion, drainage of The end-buyers are companies (and also individual
peatlands, degradation, and other) and issue credits consumers) committed to either offsetting part or
when and after the project verifies that GHG benefits all of their GHG emission (carbon neutrality), or
have been achieved compared to the baseline. Each contributing to climate change mitigation without
credit stands for one ton of CO2e avoided, reduced, or claiming carbon neutrality as a result. Offsetting,
removed (sequestered). in this constellation, is a voluntary action by the
end users. They are not under obligation from their
The credits are issued into a registry account, where government, and also the offsetting action does not
they can be freely traded. While the registries follow show in a compliance registry—in particular, not in the
all credit movements from issuance to retirement (each accounting/registry system under development at the
credit has a unique serial number linking it to a specific level of the United Nations Framework Convention on
project and a specific “vintage” or generation year), Climate Change (UNFCCC).
there is no single marketplace for traders. Most of the
Development
(PILLAR 3) 55
3.3.4 Voluntary carbon market approaches

to Blue Carbon
Carbon project interventions in Blue Carbon attempt to capitalize on the increasing interest in Blue
ecosystems (BCEs) account for both GHG removals Carbon methodologies and lessons learned from years
(for instance, through restoration practices) and of both restoration and conservation practices. The
reduced GHG emissions (for example, through updated VM0033 will adopt the new REDD baseline
conservation of coastal ecosystems). The Verified principles and procedures in the all-new VCS ARR
Carbon Standard (VCS, managed by Verra), is by far the methodology (currently under validation). The new
largest standard in the AFOLU sector, with the most methodology (VM0033 v3) is expected to be available
projects registered, the most carbon credits issued, at the end of 2023, with tidal wetlands procedures
and the most comprehensive coverage of conservation, removed from VM0007.
restoration, and management practices across
landscape and land-use types, including Blue Carbon In addition, certain countries or jurisdictions, from
ecosystems. It is not the only standard available for the US (Louisiana), to Japan and Australia, have
BCE, however (see Table 5). their local GHG accounting methodologies for
BCEs. Australia has included BCEs in its national GHG
The VCS has two global methodologies: VM0033 accounts. The Australian Government’s Emissions
(Methodology for tidal wetland and seagrass Reduction Fund has developed comprehensive
restoration) and VM0007 (REDD+ Methodology guidelines for that purpose (Kelleway et al. 2017). In
Framework), which connect with tidal wetlands Japan, guidance documents describing measurement
modules. The latter covers all functionality of VM0033, methods for seagrass meadows, tidal flats,
which focuses on restoration activities, as well as embayments, and port facilities have been prepared
activities for conservation. Under VM0033, additionality (Tokoro et al. 2015).
is addressed using a standardized method, involving a
so-called “positive list.” The methodology implies that As shown in Appendix 3, most currently registered
projects that implement activities to the positive list mangrove restoration projects have previously
are automatically deemed as additional, meaning that applied the CDM methodology AR-AM0014
projects automatically qualify for crediting. Classes of (Afforestation and Reforestation of Degraded Mangrove
project activities that have low levels of adoption in Habitats). In 2022, Verra set a December 2022
the marketplace, that are not the least-cost option or deadline for new projects using the CDM afforestation/
that have no revenue streams besides carbon finance, reforestation methodologies (including AR-AM0014).
can be predetermined as additionalities. Following an Since then, all projects must apply VM0033.
attempt from Verra to harmonize baseline accounting
procedures across all their REDD+ methodologies, the A small standard—Plan Vivo, which targets
baseline accounting procedure of the VM0007 will be community-led projects that involve rural
subject to changes after expert revisions. smallholders and communities dependent on
natural resources for their livelihoods—has
Verra has chosen to make VM0033 the all- recently become a favorite of many (potential)
encompassing Blue Carbon methodology, in a further Blue Carbon developers. It currently has three
Development
(PILLAR 3) 56
“approved approaches” for issuing certificates. by the project developer—will soon be replaced
The current process—whereby Plan Vivo assesses by a more regulated approach, with predefined
any methodological approach to measuring “Methodology Requirements”.
carbon and other climate benefits suggested
Carbon standards and methodologies for Blue Carbon credits in the

Table 5 voluntary market.
Carbon Standard body Methodology / Version
AM0014 (available until 2022)
Verra VM0033 Methodology for Tidal Wetland and Seagrass Restoration, Version 2.0
VM007 REDD+ Methodology Framework (REDD+MF), Version 1.6
Plan Vivo Project-specific
The Restoration of California Deltaic and Coastal Wetlands, Version 1.1

American Carbon Registry (ACR)
Restoration of Pocosin Wetlands, Version 1.0
Climate Action Reserve (CAR) Mexico Forest Protocol, Version 1.5
Source: Silvestrum Climate Associates (2023)
3.3.5 Blue Carbon pricing

There have been too few credit issuances and at an average of US$28) due to their extraordinary
purchases to establish clear trends as to how these capacity to deliver on carbon and on a multitude of co-
credits are used and by whom. There are several benefits, such as food security and climate adaptation.
indicators, however, that Blue Carbon credits are not This said, there is no clear pricing methodology for Blue
commodity- and trade-driven in the same way as other Carbon in place, other than that that the credit price
project categories. While average voluntary carbon is negotiated for each project anew. However, there
market credits have been sold below US$5 for years, may be a trend toward higher prices for credits stacked
credits from across NbS sectors— including agriculture with co-benefits (see Box 16) and for models under
and forestry—now consistently trade above US$5, and which credit returns are transparently shared between
Blue Carbon credits are at the top end (trading in 2022 communities and habitat protection.
Development
(PILLAR 3) 57
BOX
16 Stacking co-benefits
Verra houses not only the VCS but VCS receives a CCB label. SD VISta only), Blue-Carbon-specific
also, among others, the Climate, also provides for a label mechanism methodologies that focus on co-
Community and Biodiversity (CCB) but allows SD VISta Claims Statement benefits are being tested within these
Standard and the Sustainable and SD VISta credits. standards and beyond.
Development Verified Impact
Standard (SD VISta). Blue Carbon The Gold Standard (the other big Verra has released a draft
projects that register under the international voluntary carbon methodology for measuring coastal-
VCS can choose to go through a standard) does not yet have Blue- resilience benefits from restoration
secondary screening by the CCB Carbon-specific methodologies in and protection of tidal wetlands. It
Standard, which examines a project place. It is working on a mangrove seeks to lay out verifiable metrics
for its specific social (community) restoration (not conservation) for gauging protection levels from
and ecosystem (namely biodiversity) methodology, however. Once enhanced Blue Carbon ecosystems
benefits, or SD VISta, which enables approved, the standard may offer and naturally raised shorelines for
projects to measure their social and a solid alternative certification communities. The insurer Axa, one of
environmental impacts and link them procedure. The Gold Standard offers the funders of the initiative, explains
to the United Nations Sustainable projects certification for multiple that resilience credits—envisaged
Development Goals (SDGs). CCB ecosystem services (including water to be purchased in tandem with
applies to land-use projects only; SD benefits, gender benefits, as well as Blue Carbon (climate mitigation)
VISta is not restricted to any sector. impacts to reduce short-lived climate credits or as a stand-alone—would
Its current project list is strongest pollutants) within the Gold Standard then be issued on the back of the
on cookstove, water-access, and for the Global Goals (GS4GG). quantification of risk-reduction
rice-farming projects. benefits derived from preserving
While these co-benefit standards these natural flood barriers, and
If successfully verified under both VCS are generic and apply to all project from conserving and restoring
and CCB, any credit issued by Verra/ categories (CCB applies to AFOLU coastal ecosystems.
An interesting VCS model is the Vida Manglar project to fund Vida Manglar’s conservation management
in Cispatá, Colombia (Conservation International plan. Revenues from future issuances are expected to
2022). The mangrove conservation project, which keep the distribution benchmark of above 90 percent
uses VM007 for its carbon credit accounting and is (communities) and below 10 percent (transaction
also registered under Verra’s Climate, Community costs). The project serves as a good model for funding
& Biodiversity Standard, has been developed by a approaches that mix classic philanthropy funds with
coalition of local stakeholders and communities. This Blue Carbon credit proceeds.
has been facilitated by Conservation International,
with philanthropy funding from Apple. The project’s Low price-predictability and the orientation at
first credits were marketed close to or after credit standard market prices in practice (even accounting
issuance to corporate buyers. While the price per for higher prices in ‘niche’ segments), on the other
tCO2 has not been disclosed, it is expected to be hand, risk missing the target. Therefore, leading not-
above US$20 and perhaps as high as US$30. A full 92 for-profit organizations—such as WWF (WWF 2021b)—
percent of the proceeds flow back to the communities have suggested turning the traditional approach to
Development
(PILLAR 3) 58
carbon pricing (reflecting the price of the offset) into For Blue Carbon interventions, such an approach
reverse. This would mean that corporate investors ensures that investors are not simply going for
calculate in detail their own (transitory and residual) the low-hanging fruits (interventions payable
emissions and make a financial commitment for with offset prices of US$10 or US$20 a credit) but
nature based on the cost of the emissions. The tackle the full scale of investment needs. These
calculation may use generic figures on the social and include research, capacity-building, community
environmental cost of emissions or, alternatively, development, and high-integrity restoration. However,
calculate implicit carbon prices at the corporate level, this boutique-style approach may struggle when
or against the collective effort to reach the 1.5-degree applied to larger, potentially jurisdictional interventions,
Celsius goal. in which price elasticity will be less pronounced
and government-backed re-investment models
less discretionary.
3.3.6 Future opportunities: Emissions

trading under the Paris Agreement
The Paris Agreement’s crediting mechanisms also be used in the future for Blue Carbon actions
under Article 6 (recently finalized, in principle) may (see Box 17).
BOX
17 Crediting approaches under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement
The instrument on cooperative The mechanism established Article 6.2 activities are bilaterally
approaches (Art. 6.2 of the Paris under Article 6.4 of the Paris (and sometimes unilaterally, by the
Agreement) covers internationally Agreement resembles the Clean host country) defined and developed.
transferred mitigation outcomes Development Mechanism (CDM) of Article 6.4 activities are developed
and enables parties to the Paris the Kyoto Protocol, in being the more under rules and methodologies that
Agreement to engage in emissions centralized instrument governed are a priori the same for all countries.
trading in a decentralized, bilateral, or by a Supervisory Board responsible These rules include provisions on
multilateral manner. for the accreditation of validation set-asides (quotas of each issuance)
and verification entities (Designated that are cancelled or transferred to
Operational Entities or DOEs); the benefit overall mitigation efforts and
approval of methodologies; the adaptation purposes.
registration of activities; and the
operation of a centralized registry.
Development
(PILLAR 3) 59
Both instruments allow for the trade when accounting for its NDC. This balanced non-market approaches”
in “emission reductions” as well means that an emission reduction to enable voluntary cooperation
as “emission removals”, provided traded under Article 6.2 must not among Parties in implementing their
these are “real” (not hypothetical), be considered towards the host NDCs, to allow for higher ambition
“verified” (independently confirmed) country’s own emission reduction in their mitigation and adaptation
and additional (generated because (NDC) target. actions. The framework—currently
of the incentive offered by emissions under development (a work program
trading). Tradable credits are those Article 6.4 approvals do not require has been adopted)—will likely
generated in 2021 or later. The Article a Corresponding Adjustment per se. widen its scope to include, not only
6.4 decision also provides for the use However, in practice, if a host country GHG reductions and removals,
of some pre-2021 units issued under seeks to trade Article 6.4 emission but ecosystem services across
the CDM between 2013 and 2020, for reductions/removals to another the spectrum of both mitigation
use towards the first NDC period. country, the authorization procedure and adaptation, including flood
of Article 6.2 applies as well (that protection. The Glasgow Climate Pact
Article 6 instruments imply a form is, the host country must approve specifically referred to “Blue Carbon”
of “approval” and/or “authorization” under Article 6.4 and authorize under as a programmatic item for the
of crediting activities by the host Article 6.2). framework, however.
country. For Article 6.2 authorizations,
this means that the host country A third instrument under Article 6 is
will need to make a “Corresponding provided by the framework for non-
Adjustment”—that is, neutralize the market approaches to sustainable
amount of traded emission reductions development (Article 6.8 and 6.9).
or removals from its balance sheet It targets “integrated, holistic and
In a radical departure from the Kyoto Protocol markets. The authorization entails an obligation
and CDM precedents, the new mechanisms do not for the host country to undertake a “corresponding
come with a priori sectoral exclusions. Land-use adjustment” in its books, even if the crediting
interventions (including Blue Carbon projects and permitted is for voluntary carbon markets only. The
programs) qualify for credit generation and emissions government authorization, together with the promise
trading under these instruments, just like any project or of a corresponding adjustment, may consolidate
program from another sector. the standing of voluntary carbon markets, which are
currently going through a rough spell. Commentators
Furthermore, the Paris rules also allow for the and sustainability standards—notably the Science-
creation of hybrid markets. Governments can issue Based Target Initiative (SBTI)—are questioning the
letters of authorization to interventions specifying motivation behind corporate carbon credit investment
how credits can be used: for use towards an NDC (“greenwashing”) and discouraging the concept of
(by another government); for “other international “offsetting” for climate neutrality purposes.
purposes” (a code term associated with crediting
under the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme At COP27, there was a noticeable, multi-level
for International Aviation (CORSIA), an instrument convergence of official (traditionally referred to
set up by a specialized United Nations agency called as “compliance”) voluntary carbon markets, and
the International Civil Aviation Organization or ICAO); results-based finance.
and for other purposes, including for voluntary carbon
Development
(PILLAR 3) 60
Africa Carbon Markets Initiative LEAF Inks Agreements
Multiple African nations, including Kenya, Malawi, A total of six new agreements with forest nations and
Gabon, Nigeria, and Togo; global and regional states were announced by the Lowering Emissions by
initiatives; and private sector representatives Accelerating Forest (LEAF) finance Coalition, whose
announced the Africa Carbon Markets Initiative goal is to halt deforestation by financing large-scale
(ACMI), which aims to dramatically expand Africa’s tropical forest protection on an RBCF basis. Amapá,
role in voluntary carbon markets. ACMI seeks to Amazonas, Mato Grosso, and Pará have become the
generate 300 million credits annually by 2030 and 1.5 first Brazilian states to sign Letters of Intent (LOI)
billion credits by 2050. This level of production would with Emergent, the coordinator of The LEAF Coalition.
by 2030 unlock US$6 billion in income and support 30 These LOIs demonstrate the commitment of all parties
million jobs, and by 2050 unlock over US$120 billion to progress negotiations towards binding agreements
in income and support over 110 million jobs. to supply emissions reductions to LEAF Coalition
participants and signal significant progress for LEAF in
Brazil. LEAF also announced that Costa Rica and Nepal
have signed memoranda of agreement (MOAs) with
Emergent. These agreements, for countries who have
High-Quality Blue Carbon
already signed LOIs, outline the next steps and put in
Principles and Guidance
place a clear roadmap and timetable for the signing
of binding Emissions Reduction Purchase Agreements
Conservation International, the World Economic (ERPAs) by the end of April 2023. Costa Rica and
Forum’s Friends of Ocean Action, The Nature Nepal join Ecuador, which at COP27 was announced as
Conservancy, Ocean Risk and Resilience Action the first country to sign an MOA.
Alliance, and Salesforce, with the support of the
Meridian Institute, announced the High-Quality Blue
Carbon Principles and Guidance, a framework that VCMI and We Mean Business Join
provides a consistent approach to ensuring that Forces
Blue Carbon credits optimize outcomes for people,
biodiversity, and the climate. The guidance is set out
in five key principles, “each of equal importance” Through a new partnership, the Voluntary Carbon
(Meridian 2022a; Meridian 2022b): Market Integrity (VCMI) Initiative and the We Mean
Business (WMB) Coalition will deepen engagement
• Safeguard nature; and feedback from companies in the VCMI process.
• Empower people; WMB will support companies to follow VCMI’s claims
• Employ the best information and carbon code. This is a set of principles and rules designed
accounting principles; by VCMI to specify to what extent carbon market
• Operate contextually and locally; and investors can claim the GHG benefits the purchased
credits represent within their value chain and towards
• Mobilize high-integrity capital.
a net-zero trajectory. These principles and rules help
ensure that voluntary carbon crediting will strengthen,
rather than undermine, global action towards
achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement.
Development
(PILLAR 3) 61
3.4
Emerging Financing
Approaches
Emerging funding alternatives are gaining time, they effectively drive sustainable action through
importance as an alternative to political obstacles tax incentives and positive subsidies for conservation
and limited government resources. Governments, and habitat restoration. However, in practice, phasing
in theory, dispose of their wide set of classic fiscal out long-granted subsidies is politically difficult,
policies and instruments to create disincentives for and government funding is limited. Policy makers
non-sustainable habitat management (think of the therefore keep a lookout for opportunities for private
phase-out of harmful subsidies to industrial fishing and sector investments, while considering a range of novel
non-sustainable, area-extensive farming). At the same funding approaches.
3.4.1 Financing
facilities and
impact funds Blue Carbon Accelerator Fund (BCAF) and Blue
Natural Capital Financing Facility (BNCFF)
Recent years have seen increasing

The IUCN, through its Global Marine and Polar Program,
recognition of the economic value of coastal
operates both funds to advance financially viable coastal
ecosystems and the need for investment climate-resilience projects with clear ecosystem-services
in their protection and restoration. This benefits. The aim is to integrate Nature-based Solutions
has led to the emergence of a number of (restoration of coastal wetlands, including mangroves) with
innovative financing mechanisms that seek modern data systems and marine technology, as well as small
to leverage private sector finance for coastal renewable energy and clean water solutions, to strengthen the
investment case for integral coastal-resilience management.
conservation and restoration. Active facilities
The facility is intended to operate for projects in developing
and impact funds include:
countries, especially small island developing states. BCAF is
funded by the Government of Australia, and BNCFF is funded
by the Government of Luxembourg.
Development
(PILLAR 3) 62
Global Innovation
Ocean Innovation Green Ocean
Lab for Climate
Challenge Fund
Finance
is a platform that incubates and is a global funding program that is a funding mechanism
develops innovative financial supports innovative projects established by the South Korean
instruments to support climate aimed at addressing ocean- government, which provides
change mitigation and adaptation related challenges, including the financing for marine conservation
efforts, including Blue Carbon conservation and restoration of and restoration projects,
initiatives. coastal and marine ecosystems including BCEs
that support Blue Carbon. These
are just a few more examples of
programs, funds, and facilities that
Natural Capital Ocean 14 Capital
NCFF provide funding for Blue Carbon
Financing Facility conservation or restoration action Impact Fund
is a joint initiative of the European is a partnership between the

Investment Bank and the Ocean Fund and founders of Vedra Partners Ltd.,
European Commission, which Pontos Aqua Ltd., and Blue
ReOcean Fund
provides financing for projects Marine Foundation. Blue Marine
(Prince Albert
that promote the conservation Foundation is an investment
II of Monaco
and sustainable use of natural advisory to Ocean 14 Capital Fund
Foundation)
capital, including coastal and 1, a Private Equity fund focused
marine ecosystems on the United Nations’ Sustainable
are funding mechanisms
Development Goal 14, Life
established by the Prince Albert II
Below Water.
of Monaco Foundation to support
ocean conservation projects,
Althelia
including the restoration of BCEs.
Biodiversity Fund
Blue Forest
Conservation
is a private equity fund that
invests in sustainable land use Aqua-Spark
and conservation projects around is a private equity fund that
the world, with a particular focus invests in the conservation and
on the conservation of marine and restoration of coastal and marine
is a venture capital fund that
coastal ecosystems. ecosystems, including mangroves,
invests in sustainable aquaculture
projects that promote healthy seagrasses, and coral reefs.
oceans, enhance food security,
and create economic opportunities
for coastal communities.
Development
(PILLAR 3) 63
Encourage NatureVest
Meloy Fund
Capital Blue Ocean
is a private equity fund that is a private equity fund that is a conservation finance initiative
invests in sustainable fisheries, invests in sustainable small-scale of The Nature Conservancy, which
aquaculture, and marine fisheries and coastal enterprises focuses on investing in sustainable
conservation projects that deliver in Indonesia and the Philippines, fisheries, coastal resilience, and
environmental and social benefits. with a focus on improving marine conservation projects.
livelihoods and conserving
marine ecosystems.
3.4.2 Emerging government-led

financing approaches
There are multiple income streams to support long-
term sustainability for Blue Carbon conservation and
restoration actions. They include habitat and fisheries- Public
sensitive public procurement standards; public-private procurement
partnerships; payment for ecosystem services (PES)
schemes; as well as new financing tools (including Blue
Bonds, debt swap agreements, impact insurance, as Governments can use public procurement
well as project finance for permanence (PFP)). policies to encourage the use of sustainable
practices in construction and infrastructure
The overall numbers are still modest. According projects that impact coastal habitats. This
to Convergence, which tracks blended finance can include requirements for the use of
transactions against their alignment with the sustainable materials and the incorporation of
Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), in the period habitat restoration measures in project design.
2018 to 2020 only 2 percent of transactions supported Priority can also be given to suppliers that
SDG 14 (Life below Water), mobilizing US$130 demonstrate strong supply chain rules in their
million (out of US$31 billion in SDG funding overall) own procurement.
(Convergence 2021). Yet, the number of transactions

based on innovative and “blended” funding tools
(linking public and private finance) is growing. The
list includes:
Development
(PILLAR 3) 64
Public-private partnerships (PPPs)
Governments can collaborate projects. PPPs can leverage private provide important incentives and
with private sector companies sector investment and expertise support for the conservation and
and organizations to finance to achieve conservation and restoration of coastal habitats,
and implement coastal habitat restoration goals. Overall, fiscal helping to protect and restore these
conservation and restoration policies and instruments can critical ecosystems.
Payment for ecosystem services (PES) schemes
PES schemes are mechanisms outcomes, such as the maintenance been implemented in various
that aim to create financial or restoration of a particular contexts (including agriculture,
incentives for landowners and habitat, or the provision of clean forestry, water management,
other stakeholders (in the case of water to downstream users. PES and mangrove conservation) and
Blue Carbon habitats, primarily schemes can take various forms, they are at the basis of REDD+
fishing communities) to protect or such as direct payments, subsidies, results-based finance frameworks
enhance the provision of ecosystem tax incentives, or tradeable credits. and carbon crediting (see Box 18).
services. In a PES scheme, a They are often used to address They are often used in developing
buyer or group of buyers (such market failures that result in the countries, where ecosystems
as a government, NGO, or private under-provision of ecosystem are particularly valuable but also
company) pays a provider (such as services, such as the inability of vulnerable to degradation, and
a landowner or community) for the landowners to capture the full where rural communities depend
delivery of a specified ecosystem value of their ecosystem services, heavily on ecosystem services for
service. The payment is typically or the negative externalities their livelihoods.
based on the achievement of generated by activities that harm
pre-defined ecological and social ecosystems. PES schemes have
Development
(PILLAR 3) 65
BOX
18 Examples of payments for ecosystem services schemes on

mangroves
The Socio Manglar program in Ecuador is a payment for ecosystem services (PES)
program that targets mangrove conservation and restoration in the country. The
program was launched in 2008 by the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of
Finance, with the support of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and
various non-governmental (NGO) and community organizations. The program provides
economic incentives to local communities to conserve and restore mangroves,
which are important ecosystems that provide a range of services, including carbon
sequestration, coastal protection, and habitat for biodiversity. The incentives take the
form of direct payments to communities, as well as support for sustainable livelihood
activities such as ecotourism and artisanal fisheries. To participate in the program,
Ecuador communities must establish and manage communal mangrove reserves, which are
legally recognized by the government. These reserves are monitored and evaluated
to ensure that they meet the program’s ecological and social standards. The Socio
Manglar program has been successful in promoting mangrove conservation and
restoration in Ecuador. As of 2021, the program had supported the establishment and
management of over 50 communal mangrove reserves, covering more than 20,000
hectares of mangroves. The program has also generated important co-benefits,
including the promotion of sustainable livelihoods and the empowerment of local
communities in natural-resource management. Overall, the Socio Manglar program
is a good example of how PES schemes can provide economic incentives for the
conservation and restoration of important coastal ecosystems, while also promoting
sustainable development and community empowerment.
The program in Sulawesi, Indonesia, pays local fishers to restore and maintain
Indonesia mangrove forests, in exchange for access to fishponds that are integrated into the
mangrove ecosystem.
Mexico’s Payments for Hydrological Services Program is a program that provides

payments to landowners who maintain and restore forests—including mangroves—
Mexico that help protect water quality and quantity in critical watersheds. The program
is administered by the National Forestry Commission and is supported by various
government agencies and NGOs.
Blue Carbon Initiative in Vietnam pays local communities to restore and protect
Vietnam mangroves in exchange for carbon credits that are sold on the voluntary carbon
market. The program is supported by the International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN), the Vietnamese government, and various NGOs.
Development
(PILLAR 3) 66
Blue Bonds
Blue Bonds offer tremendous same way as traditional bonds, the Guidelines for Blue Finance:
business opportunities and with investors purchasing bonds Guidance for Financing the Blue
address pressing challenges such from the issuer, who then uses Economy, Building on the Green
as climate change, biodiversity the proceeds to fund projects. The Bond Principles and the Green
loss, and pollution, all of which issuer typically agrees to repay the Loan Principles.25 This identifies
affect BCEs. Blue Bonds are a bondholders at a predetermined eligible blue project categories to
variant of Socially Responsible interest rate over a specified time guide IFC’s investments to support
and Impact (SRI) Bonds, which period. Blue Bonds can be issued the Blue Economy, in line with the
enable investors to deliver positive by a variety of entities, including Green Bond Principles and Green
societal impact, while generating governments, development banks, Loan Principles. The market has
long-term, competitive financial and private sector organizations. been seeking guidance on project
returns. Proceeds raised finance For example, the Republic of eligibility criteria, translating
climate-friendly projects for Seychelles issued the world’s first general Blue Economy Financing
preserving the Blue Economy and Blue Bond in 2018, while the World Principles, such as the Sustainable
increasing clean water resources. Bank and the European Investment Blue Economy Principles and the
These projects can include initiatives Bank have also issued Blue Bonds Sustainable Ocean Principles, into
to protect marine ecosystems, to finance ocean conservation guidelines for Blue Bond issuances
mitigate climate-change impacts on projects. In 2022, the International and blue lending.
oceans, and promote sustainable Finance Corporation (IFC), from
fisheries. Blue Bonds work in the the World Bank Group, released
Project finance for permanence (PFP)
PFP combines results-based finance goals are adequately funded. (The goals, and to deliver the money
approaches (known from REDD+) PFP in Belize is currently in the once all the key financial and legal
as well as carbon project finance design phase, with an initial focus preconditions required from the
models with classic philanthropic on the sustainable financing of government are met. Finally, the
funding. PFP approaches are MPAs, then expanding into coastal government will progressively
also currently pioneered by the ecosystems like mangroves and increase its level of spending
Government of Belize, in partnership seagrasses, fisheries, and upstream until it fully assumes the costs of
with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). ridge-to-reef areas.) Following this, conservation.
A PFP program begins with the the program will need to find donors
design of conservation goals and a willing to commit the initial funds
financial plan to ensure that these required to achieve the conservation
25 IFC. 2022. Guidelines on Blue Finance. https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/industry_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/financial+institutions/

resources/guidelines-for-blue-finance.
Development
(PILLAR 3) 67
BOX
Emerging blue financing tools:

19
Bonds and debt-for-nature swaps
Various novel funding instruments have been proposed in recent years, and some of them have been
tested (Finance Earth 2022).
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) provided support to the Seychelles in the past to
design and issue the world’s first Blue Bond. Conceptually based on the model of a Green
Bond, a Blue Bond earmarks the use of the proceeds to finance coastal, marine, and
ocean-based projects (Roth et al. 2019). The Seychelles Blue Bond was a US$15 million
sovereign bond sold in a private placement to three US-based impact investors: Nuveen,
Seychelles the asset management arm of TIAA (which will include the bond in the TIAA-CREF Social
Choice Bond Fund), Prudential Financial, and Calvert Impact Capital. Each bought US$5
million of the notes. The bond has a maturity of 10 years and a “coupon” (that is, an annual
interest payment value) of 6.5 percent. The bond was secured with the GEF providing a
coupon guarantee and the WB a repayment-guarantee of US$5 million, covering a third
of the principle.
Another debt instrument of sorts are debt-swap agreements, in which concessional (“blue”)
loans are used to help a developing country convert its outstanding debt at a discount
(“haircut”) and use the savings to invest in ocean conservation. Debt-swap arrangements
are of specific interest after the COVID-19 pandemic, which created havoc for the balance
sheets of many developing countries. A recent example is provided by the Government of
Belize, which announced the conversion of US$ 553 million of its debt (about 10 percent
of the total) with the help of a “blue loan” (a loan raised through a corporate Blue Bond
arranged by Credit Suisse) from The Nature Conservancy. Creditors accepted a haircut of
Belize 45 percent so that the actual cost of the conversion was US$ 364 million. The reduction
in principle brought savings amounting to US$189, which the Government of Belize
committed to funding protection of 30 percent of its exclusive economic zone (TNC 2021).
More broadly, the Belize debt-swap arrangement also points to a new trend of seeking
out financial opportunities for private sector investors from public finance instruments
or (as in the case of Belize) philanthropic funds. Under blended-finance structures,
donors—governments, multilateral development banks, and philanthropy—create credit
enhancement and other risk-reduction and/or revenue-boosting incentives to crowd in
private capital.
Development
CHAPTER ToC EX.S 1 2 3 4 5 AP SCALING BLUE CARBON OPPORTUNITIES 68
CH APTER
4 Scaling
Blue Carbon
Opportunities:
Creating a Blue Carbon Readiness Framework
Over the past decade, there has been impressive blue carbon—stands at 2.4 billion tCO2e per year
progress on placing blue carbon at the center of (calculated for the period 2030 onwards), the current
international policymaking, and there is a growing annual output is 22 million tCO2e (number of retired
set of funds and tools tailored to blue carbon credits in 2021). In Africa and elsewhere, there are
investments. Yet, the gap between action and technical reasons for today’s dismal carbon-finance
investment potential and reality, could hardly be performance outside the control of governments,
more pronounced. Let us take the example of the including slow methodological uptake and below-
African continent. As the Africa Carbon Market Initiative cost carbon prices. Yet, there are important enabling
(ACMI) pointed out in the report accompanying its conditions that governments can control and that may
launch at COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, while Africa’s enhance blue carbon habitats, while catalyzing carbon
carbon credit potential—across sectors and including market activities.
Development
The creation of a bespoke Blue Carbon Readiness change. Integrated land and seascape management—
Framework—bringing together data and analytics, including MSP, ICZM and REDD+—should become the
regulatory and institutional aspects on the one hand, cornerstones of NDC implementation, facilitating both
and financial and investment aspects on the other— better legal protection and financial opportunities.
will put conservation and restoration of Blue Carbon Figure 10 provides countries with an overview and
ecosystems at the center of a country’s sustainable a stepwise approach to building their Blue Carbon
Blue Economy transformation, and rapidly scale Blue Readiness Frameworks. The checklist (in Appendix 1 of
Carbon investments. The framework can, and should, this report) provides further guidance for execution of
be built into the NDC architecture as today’s guiding Blue Carbon readiness.
and most comprehensive plan for combatting climate
Development
Figure 10 Blue Carbon Readiness Framework
Blue Carbon Readiness

Framework
Welcome to the Blue Carbon Readiness Framework - a decision tree approach to assessing
and identifying steps in pursuing blue carbon readiness within your country. Starting with
Pillar 1, move your way through the tree using the below legend as a guide. Pay special
attention to ‘Checklists’ which may correspond to a specific action/step. Checklists
provide in-depth descriptions of steps to continue along your journey to readiness (refer to
Appendix 1.) complementary actions can be completed in tandem with moving
onto the next section of the tree.
PILLAR PILLAR PILLAR
1 2 3
DATA & ANALYTICS POLICY & INSTITUTIONS FINANCE
NDC COMMITMENTS LEVERAGE BLUE
A B & IMPLEMENTATION CARBON FINANCE
EVALUATE ASSESS GHG
BLUE CARBON INVENTORIES
ACTIONS
CO₂
Development
SECTION COMPLEMENTARY REDD+ PRIVATE NO ACTIONS/ PILLAR

PATHWAY ACTIONS/ STEPS COMPLETE ACTIONS COUNTRIES SECTOR STEPS
1
A B
2
3
1
PILLAR
DATA & ANALYTICS

A EVALUATE BLUE CARBON ACTIONS
NO
Does your country currently have

any of the following blue carbon
ecosystems (BCEs)? Use the links in Checklist 1
to determine if any of the Has your country previously had
NOT SURE
listed BCEs are present within any of the established BCEs?
your country.
YES NO
EMERGING BCEs ESTABLISHED BCEs
Macroalgae | Benthic Mangroves | Salt Marshes |
Sediments | Mudflats Seagrasses
NO BLUE CARBON ACTIONS
YES YES AVAILABLE
1 1. Follow Checklist 2 for GHG inventories

SCALE – The scale of greenhouse gas Does your country have
PERFORM the following data for the
steps to gather the necessary data and;
removals or emissions is significant;
ACTIONABILITY established BCE(s):
2. Check if relevant data can be
ASSESSMENT NO extrapolated from existing policy and/
2 LONGEVITY – The ecosystems can store • BCE extent/ area (maps, or knowledge frameworks, such as
Mangroves, salt the CO2 sequestered long-term; spatial data) the Ramsar Convention or National
marshes, and • Human activity data Adaptation Plan
seagrass beds are
3 THREAT – Anthropogenic impacts on
considered the
the ecosystems are leading to CO2 YES
established or
emissions;
“actionable” Blue
Carbon ecosystems.
Some emerging Blue VIABILITY – It is practically viable to
4 RECOMMENDED Conduct economic
Carbon ecosystems manage the ecosystems concerned
NO valuation using global
may be on their way sustainably and reduce CO2 emissions
Economic valuation of BCEs regional or local data
to actionability if they or enhance existing carbon stock;
meet all the following
requirements: 5 KNOWLEDGE – The science behind
these findings is sufficiently robust.
• Leverage collaborations – inter-

USE RESULTS FROM agency as well as the private sector
COMPLETED ACTION/ – to further development of robust
STEPS TO: and relevant datasets on BCE’s for
YOU CAN
your country
• Build up your country’s capacity to MOVE ON TO CO₂
• Pilot or encourage non-state-actors
collect blue carbon data by funding PILLAR 1-B
to pilot Blue Carbon projects by
and/or collaborating with technical
providing access to site and data
and scientific organizations
Development
PILLAR
1
A B
2
3
1
PILLAR
CO₂
DATA & ANALYTICS
B ASSESS GHG INVENTORIES
PATHWAY
ACTIONS/ STEPS
Are BCEs included in your country’s NO
Use the Wetland Supplement and Tier 1 default
GHG inventory? values (or Tier 2/3 depending on available
data) to determine carbon stock values for your
country’s BCE(s). Refer to Checklist 3 for steps
YES and guidelines.
CO₂
COMPLETE
SECTION
Improve your GHG Inventory via integration of
WS13/R19
1 GHG • Identify where bottleneck(s) are – e.g., soil
INVENTORIES Does your country apply the carbon data
2013 Wetlands Supplement NO • Review Checklist 3 for ways to improve your
(WS13)/2019 Refinement (R19)? existing inventory
ACTIONS
COMPLEMENTARY
If you are engaging YES
in REDD+
• Consider developing a REDD+ FRL/FREL
COUNTRIES
REDD+
with Blue Carbon integration
• Decide to build a separate blue carbon
framework (using synergies)
Has your country submitted a
NO
Forest Reference Level (FRL)/
Forest Reference Emission Levels YES • Review Checklist 4
(FREL)?
2 REDD+ • Confirm and iterate consistency between
FOREST your Forest Reference Levels (FRL)/ Forest
SECTOR
PRIVATE
REFERENCE Reference Emission Levels (FREL) and your
LEVELS GHG inventory
STEPS
NO ACTIONS/
• Strengthen calculated carbon stocks

USE RESULTS FROM by substituting regional/ local values
COMPLETED ACTION/ in place of Tier 1 default values GHG
STEPS TO: • Compare calculated carbon stock INVENTORY
values to existing activity data, and IS DONE!
use results to improve your GHG
YOU CAN MOVE
inventory
ON TO PILLAR 2
• Integrate calculated carbon stocks
into your FRL/FREL while improving
inventory capacities
Development
2
PILLAR
CONSIDER | • Turning this procedural
Extending the scope of milestone into a target,
POLICY & INSTITUTIONS your NDC to account for e.g., by [Year] or when
BCE(s) submitting the second
NDC COMMITMENTS & Biennial Transparency
• Make sure your GHG Report, [Country] will use
IMPLEMENTATION 1 inventory can accurately the WS13 and account for all
report emissions and anthropogenic carbon stock
removals from BCE(s). If your changes in [BC Habitat] and
country cannot yet do this, [BC Habitat 2].
PATHWAY
you can still acknowledge
the mitigation impact of BC
1 Are emissions and interventions → Move to Box
removals from 2 below.
IDENTIFY BCE(s) included in
COMMITMENTS your country’s NDC?
FOCUS ON | • Halt and reverse all
ACTIONS/ STEPS
YES
Acknowledging degradation in [BC Habitat]
YES NO
mitigation impact • Restore [#] hectares of
2
of BC interventions [BC Habitat]
Formulating stand-alone
FOCUS ON | 1. Consider inclusion
(action) targets:
Accounting for Emissions in economy-wide or
Reduction/Removals sector-wide (AFOLU) targets
[Review Checklists 5 and 6] and/or
2. Include action-specific target
COMPLETE
SECTION
Does your county FOR REDD+ COUNTRIES such as “restore x hectares of
have a REDD+
Build reference levels for mangroves by [date]”.
framework that
conservation aligned with Synchronize and refine with existing policy instruments beyond
integrates BCE(s)?
REDD+ targets, and define mitigation (and/or climate change), notably National Adaptation
sequestration targets Plans NBSAPs
for restoration
ACTIONS
COMPLEMENTARY
If you are engaging
in REDD+ Review integration of BCE(s) in your REDD+ policy framework
2
IMPLEMENT NEXT STEPS 2. Develop a bespoke Blue 7. create a benefit sharing

YOUR NDC Carbon Strategy arrangements
3. Work through MSP and ICZM 8. Policy reforms for BCEs
1. Where feasible, prepare a
4. Focus on land tenure and conservation, restoration, or
COUNTRIES
REDD+
cost-benefit analysis for
community involvement sustainable management (NBS).
conservation and restoration
5. Tackle bottlenecks to
NO options (use CWON and other Refer to Checklist 7 for a detailed
Do you have an NDC datasets for valuation)
implementation
6. Design the plan with Section 4 list of next steps
Implementation Plan? NO
(Financing) in mind
YES
Set out investment parameters Promote private sector initiatives
ADDRESS THE
and clear guidance for the private and create institutional structures
PRIVATE SECTOR:
SECTOR
PRIVATE
sector engagement (cf. Section 4: for private sector and community
Financing, see below) involvement (planning, decision
making, implementation
FOCUS ON | Design 1. Identifying and using or • Technical governance (task force /

of Bespoke Governance synchronizing with parallel technical unit) for FRL calculation,
Framework governance frameworks on MRV, and other
Does your plan adaptation/resilience, private • Institutions & policy governance
STEPS
NO ACTIONS/
[Review Checklist 8]
incorporate appropriate sector initiatives, technology • Financial governance (receiving
NO
institutional/governance FOR REDD+ COUNTRIES transfer, and more. and distributing funding in line
frameworks? Checking if your REDD+ framework 2. Developing an institutional/ with benefit sharing arrangements)
provides key structures (to be governance framework: • Community governance models to
adjusted as needed) drive implementation
YES
• Use input data to inform biennial • Seek synergies with policy

USE RESULTS NDC reporting and accounting actions across the board YOU CAN
FROM COMPLETED • Design commitments for (SDG focus) MOVE ON TO
ACTION/ STEPS TO: subsequent rounds of NDCs PILLAR 3
and long-term plans
Development
PILLAR
1
A B
2
3
3
PILLAR FOCUS ON | Developing a
framework that integrates with
FINANCE the implementation plan
LEVERAGE BLUE CARBON FINANCE 1. Scrutinizing existing funding flows

to benefit/disadvantage Blue
PATHWAY
Carbon investments
2. Conduct Stock-take of financing
approaches (including the use of
mechanisms such as Article 6 and
jurisdictional REDD+/RBCF) and
sources/instruments (concessional
and non-concessional, considering
Does your country innovative business models, see
ACTIONS/ STEPS
have a blue further below)
carbon finance 3. Set out stable investment
and investment parameters for the private sector,
framework in place? including with respect to carbon
finance: Define and allocate carbon
YES NO rights, create mandates for carbon
trading, and present models for
community involvement and
COMPLETE
SECTION
benefit sharing
FOCUS ON | Accessing Grant CONSIDER | Operationalizing

Funding in line with survey above –
Have you
leverage tools such as:
operationalized NO
Accessing grant funding for capacity-building specific funding tools?
ACTIONS
COMPLEMENTARY
• Concessional instruments, including
and related needs, namely: blended finance instruments
• Design and operationalize the governance and philanthropy
YES
framework
• Inventory work • Dedicated sovereign and/or corporate
• BCEs mapping, carbon stock assessments debt finance instruments (blue loans,
• Preparation of a pipeline of shovel-ready blue bonds)
projects
• Blue infrastructure /NBS finance
• Conceptualization of blue infrastructure
COUNTRIES
REDD+
finance • Business models that stack multiple
revenue streams
Does your country • Results Based Carbon Finance (RBCF)

intend to use carbon
• Blue carbon project finance
markets as a means of (carbon markets)
investment?
SECTOR
PRIVATE
Review Checklist 9 for examples and
YES NO guidelines on leveraging investment.
1
B
STEPS
NO ACTIONS/
CONSIDER |
• Using Article 6 of the Paris
Climate Agreement; 1 A 2
• Allowing Voluntary Carbon
Markets with corresponding
adjustments YOU ARE READY TO ACCESS
CLIMATE & CARBON
FINANCE!
3
Development
4.1
Blue Carbon Data
Requirements for
Pillar One: Data and Analytics
Nationally Determined
Contributions
Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) have are increasingly likely to check a country’s NDC, and
gained importance as they reflect a country’s how a specific measure fits into the wider context of
climate mitigation vision, as well as its technical country targets and policies and measures, before
and sustainability plans. NDCs were first designed making a funding decision. It is important to note
as a technical tool for countries to formulate their that Blue Carbon ecosystems have multiple and
GHG mitigation targets (or “commitments”). Yet, they deep exposures to NDCs —including for their climate
quickly evolved as both comprehensive high-level mitigation density. Their close integration into NDCs
visions for short-term and long-term action on climate and the definition of clear and ambitious, but realistic
and sustainable development, and as technical— and implementation-ready, targets is essential.
sometimes extremely detailed—implementation
plans. As such, NDCs have become gatekeepers for As described in Figure 10, the Blue Carbon
formulation of high-level policies; provision of technical Readiness Framework should focus on Blue Carbon
capacity and expertise; and international investment integration in NDCs and, in the process, follow
in climate action, including Nature-based Solutions. four steps:
Donor governments and private-sector funders alike
Determine actionable Technically assess a Define tailored Blue Carbon Design financial
Blue Carbon habitats, country’s inventory and targets and provide an mechanisms to
extent, condition, and REDD+ reference level; NDC implementation leverage finance.
economic value of goods plan that outlines both
and services; a Blue Carbon strategy
(in line with a country’s
REDD+ framework,
where available) and an
institutional (governance)
framework to lead
on technical, policy,
financial, and community
aspects; and
Development
4.1.1 Determine actionable Blue Carbon

ecosystems and their economic value
Coastal countries should determine their actionable Governments are also advised to develop a holistic
BCEs in accordance with available data. When assessment of the value of their blue natural capital
preparing their GHG reporting (GHG inventories), and the specific natural capital value of their coastal
formulating NDC updates (specifying the scope, wetlands to 1) inform planning efforts (e.g. MSP
accounting rules, and actual targets and actions), and ICZM) in general, and environmental impact
and accounting for NDCs, governments should take assessments in particular; 2) better understand
stock of the existing science on BCEs along their costs and benefits of managing BCEs; and 3) direct
coastline and their exclusive economic zones (EEZ). policymaking (see Box 20). Valuation will help frame the
Then, if datasets such as the World Bank Technical case for conservation and restoration differently: less as
Report Estimating Global Carbon Storage In Mangrove an opportunity cost, and more as an opportunity value.
Ecosystem from the CWON 2.0 (forthcoming), Ocean+, It will also allow governments to identify value hotspots
and others presented in this Blue Economy Data and and priorities for action that ultimately enhance, not
1
Tools Guidance Note are available, they should map hamper, the Blue Economy. Finally, it will promote
the different Blue Carbon habitats and determine which investments in BCE protection and restoration that yield
are considered actionable (see Chapter 1) and offer the greatest returns in enhanced ecosystem services
mitigation opportunities. At present, actionable Blue (including carbon storage and sequestration) as well as
Carbon habitats are limited to mangroves, seagrass tourism, fisheries, coastal risk-reduction, and more.
beds, and salt marshes.
BOX
20 Valuating blue ecosystem services
Belize seagrass beds. The quantification of protected status and where prioritizing
carbon storage and sequestration, and Blue Carbon strategies would provide
For the past two decades Belize of optimized co-benefits, permitted the greatest delivery of co-benefits to
has pursued efforts for innovative, the discussion of realistic, high- communities. These findings informed
evidence-based target setting for value, time-bound targets and the Belize’s updated NDCs (submitted to
coastal zoning and management identification of priority locations for the UNFCCC in fall 2021) to include
purposes, by accounting for and mangrove protection and restoration. an additional 12,000 ha of mangrove
valuating the multiple benefits of protection and 4,000 ha of mangrove
its coastal ecosystems, specifically As part of the assessment, locations restoration, respectively, by 2034.
mangroves and—more recently— were mapped that at the time lacked
1 World Bank. 2022. Blue Economy Data and Tools. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099610006152282116/pdf/

P1750970004c390c60b64707db29cb15a4c.pdf.
Development
4.1.2 Technical assessment of inventories

and REDD+ reference levels
Governments are advised to test the completeness In addition, governments will need to have robust
and accuracy of their inventories of actionable BCEs institutional systems in place for data management,
and—if available—of their REDD+ reference levels. It quality control, and reporting, to ensure that their
is important to verify whether the (previous or current) estimates are accurate and transparent. Building
NDC has yet made a commitment to use the IPCC’s this capacity can be a complex and resource-intensive
2013 Wetland Supplement. The guidelines for wetlands process; but it is essential for improving a country’s
provide a standardized framework for estimating and inventory, allowing governments to formulate precise
reporting GHG emissions and removals from wetlands, mitigation targets for these ecosystems, and tracking
including Blue Carbon. While the tool is generally action in the long run.
considered to be user-friendly and, importantly, offers
a wide range of default emission factors for countries At the level of REDD+ accounting, it is important to
to use, governments that commit to reporting on first check the scope of coverage. Many systems will
Blue Carbon emissions and removals in line with the cover emissions and removals from mangroves, but
guidance will need to have the capacity to collect, other BCEs are likely left out. Then, the attention should
analyze, and apply data on Blue Carbon stocks and shift to the extent to which all relevant carbon pools for
fluxes. This requires technical expertise in areas such mangroves are addressed. Often, REDD+ reference levels
as remote sensing, GIS, and carbon accounting, as still exclude soil carbon in mangrove forests or generally.
well as the ability to collect field data on Blue Carbon Reference level documents are outspoken about the
ecosystem characteristics and carbon stocks. exclusions, so there is little room for ambiguity.
4.1.3 Defining country-tailored Blue

Carbon targets
Each (coastal) country has an interest in formulating “the inventory holds at present no [robust] [complete]
Blue Carbon-specific commitments and actions, data on emissions and removals from coastal
and each country can put forward a commitment to wetlands. Relevant data will be gathered by [add
action, not only on adaptation but also on mitigation. year] and the NDC scope and accounting approach
In other words, no country should refrain from putting will include coastal wetlands and the 2013 Wetland
forward a Blue Carbon-specific initiative. If a country Supplement by [add year]” (see Box 21).
has no reliable data on the existence or distribution of
BCEs, or if a country lacks the capacity to use the 2013
Wetland Supplement, all these items should become
accountable action items. When noting the scope
of emissions and the reporting guidelines used, the
country concerned should specify that
Development
BOX
21 Planning for the 2013 Wetlands Supplement
Seychelles and waste sectors. However, it made to measure the rate at which coastal
an important concession on future and marine ecosystems sequester and
For the past years, Seychelles has been steps, with the following statement: store carbon. Through the application
mapping the seagrass beds spread of cutting-edge technologies in
across its exclusive economic zone “Seychelles is committed to partnerships specifically designed
(EEZ). When the country submitted recognizing within its climate goals to strengthen local, scientific,
its NDC update in 2021, consolidated the interlinked climate, ecosystem methodological and governance
data was not yet available, and the and biodiversity benefits provided capacities, Seychelles intends to
Government assessed that it was not by its mangrove and seagrass map the full extent of seagrass and
yet able to apply the 2013 Wetlands ecosystems, including fully mapping mangroves (Blue Carbon) habitats
Supplement for its inventory reporting. their extent and assessing their within Seychelles’ territorial sea
carbon stock capacity. The 2013 and EEZ and assess carbon storage
As a result, Seychelles kept the NDC IPCC Wetlands Supplement provides capacity within these ecosystems.”
scope restricted to energy, industry, a framework that allows countries
A similar approach should apply to REDD+ reference

BOX
levels and—more broadly—the integration of Blue
Carbon in a country’s REDD+ framework (see also 22 Action-specific Blue
below, Section 4.3). If sufficient data (for instance, Carbon targets
on the coverage of soil carbon) is not available, the
constructive solution is to make a commitment
Belize
concerning coverage and integration by a specific year,
or for the next iteration of the NDC. Since first mentioning coastal wetlands in its intended
NDC in 2015, delving into the topic of its NDC in 2016,
On content, similarly, a country may not have sufficient and an update in 2021, Belize has extended the
coverage of Blue Carbon emissions and removals and
data confidence or may hold structural reservations
has built on the list of interventions planned. Among the
about integrating Blue Carbon targets into an economy- list of action items, the latest NDC iteration includes the
wide or land-use sector target. That does not mean that following commitment:
Blue Carbon should be ignored for the formulation of
“Restore at least 2,000 hectares of mangroves,
(mitigation) targets. Countries can always set action-
including within local communities, by 2025, with an
specific targets: for example,
additional 2,000 hectares by 2030…”
(from Belize’s NDC 2021).
“Halt [all] [net] seagrass loss by a specific date or
restore a specific area or an area size of mangroves
by the NDC’s target date” (see Box 22).
Development
4.1.4 Nationally Determined Contributions’

references on finance
In their NDCs, countries can reflect the financial information on its high-level vision for international
and non-financial support they need for specific finance and the use of specific tools and
actions. For actions with Blue Carbon relevance, a mechanisms. If a country wishes to add more detail,
country can outline, for instance, what type of support the approach to carbon finance would particularly
it needs to implement the application of the 2013 benefit. As countries are piloting transactions under
Wetland Supplement for its inventory. With such Article 62 of the Paris Agreement, no country has yet
specific requests of support, governments can navigate committed to a transaction based on a Blue Carbon
international donors and grant facilities to establish intervention. Clarifying at the NDC level that Blue
technical assistance programs, including the one Carbon is a priority for an Article 6 transaction, would
offered under NOAA’s Blue Carbon Inventory Program. provide a powerful signal to partner and/or other
Apart from technical assistance needs, governments donor countries.
can use the NDCs to outline their financing approaches
for specific interventions. Belize, for instance, included For (project-based) carbon finance, countries are
a section in its latest (2021) NDC that reads as follows: advised to clarify:
“Explore alongside Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, • Whether and how they see Blue Carbon projects
new financing options to support forest protection integrated into their REDD+ efforts (for example,
and restoration, including REDD+ performance- through “nesting”)
based payments, multilateral and bilateral funds, • How they see carbon finance as part of their targets
insurance products, debt-for-nature swaps, private (for instance, carbon finance accounts towards
investment, carbon credits and bonds, and other conditional NDC targets, which are set subject to
innovative conservation financing mechanisms…” international funding)
• Whether they foresee a domestic regulatory
While this is not very detailed or specific, the framework to accompany voluntary carbon
commitment provides other governments as well as standards (for example, on corresponding
private investors with basic—yet extremely useful— adjustments), or not.
2 Article 6 of the Paris Agreement allows countries to voluntarily cooperate with each other to achieve emission reduction targets set out in their NDCs.
Development
4.2
Institutional and
Legal Framework for
Pillar Two: Policies and Blue Carbon
Institutions
Governments and regulators play a crucial role 1.1.1 These past decades have seen dramatic
in establishing the enabling environment for improvements when it comes to adopting
Blue Carbon development through policies and and installing legal protection regimes.
regulations that level the playing field. For the Many countries have introduced protective
sustainable management of BCEs and for channeling bans, such as the ban on cutting mangroves
investments into their enhancement, it is crucial to (Slobodian and Badoz, eds. 2019) and—less
work within a robust institutional framework, with frequently—a ban on cutting or deteriorating
a clear legal basis, and to have all stakeholders seagrasses (Griffiths et al. 2020). Aside from
participate and co-design the effort. Public law bans, many countries have specific protection
(command-and-control), community-based, and through MPAs and legal frameworks for
individual (private law) protection measures are community-based mangrove management.
critical and often lacking. Successful planning can help While governments have made improvements
overcome isolated zoning, permitting, and policymaking throughout the past two decades, overall
more broadly. The baseline often is non-integration. efforts still do not match the threat, especially
Holistic planning can also help overcome overlapping, in countries with the highest rates of
if not dysfunctional, administrative responsibilities. degradation, including Southeast Asia. It is
For this to happen, it is important that governments hoped that the new protection targets agreed
choose hard legal and institutional frameworks, with under the GBF will specifically benefit coastal
a permanent design, combined, as appropriate in systems, and that governments employ
the country context, with soft law or project-based community-based management tools for the
approaches. Within these frameworks, it is crucial to operation of protected areas.
establish clear and specific targets for Blue Carbon
conservation, restoration, and management—including
in terms of monitoring and tracking.
Development
4.2.1 Blue Carbon and integrated spatial

planning
Policy makers often struggle to formulate monitoring of management actions. Lastly, OECMs are
comprehensive regulatory frameworks beyond gaining attention in international policy discussions
the demarcation of protected areas. Planning laws as new conservation approaches, that go well beyond
(including on infrastructure planning); agricultural the established protected areas such as MPAs. OECMs
policies; water and waste regulation all yield a massive are distinguished from protected area management
regulatory imprint for natural habitats, including coastal by not having a primary conservation objective, while
habitats. Yet, these laws, regulations, and policies are at the same time being capable of delivering in-situ
rarely harmonized with the specific aim of boosting conservation of biodiversity (IUCN, 2019). Owing to
conservation and restoration. their importance, they have also been included in the
GBF as means to reduce biodiversity threats.
Several integrated planning tools—including marine
spatial planning (MSP), integrated coastal zone MSP and ICZM are used to inform new policies
management (ICZM) and other effective area-based and regulations for, among others, the sustainable
conservation measures (OECMs)—help governments use of marine resources (including BCEs), and to
regulate the coastal and marine space through more support future investments that promote growth,
holistic and collaborative approaches. The Blue generate jobs, and support local communities
Carbon Readiness Framework should use them. (see Figure 11). OECMs can be additional tools
MSP refers to the process that helps to guide the use for promoting biodiversity conservation, while
and management of ocean and coastal resources regulating BCE preservation and other sectors (for
in a coordinated and sustainable manner. It is a example, water and waste). Integrated marine spatial
tool for balancing competing uses of marine space, planning and management de-risks the wide range of
including coastal development; (commercial) fishing; economic sectors for future investments and has the
shipping; energy production; as well as conservation potential to mobilize additional financial resources,
and restoration, taking into account economic, social, including through the private sector. Overall, MSP and
and ecological considerations. ICZM, on the other ICZM can provide a valuable tool for the conservation
hand, refers to the management of the coastal zone and restoration of BCEs, which are important for
with respect to the marine environment, as well mitigating climate change and supporting biodiversity
as economic usages of land and water. It aims to and ecosystem services. By integrating Blue Carbon
achieve sustainable development by integrating the considerations into marine-planning processes, MSP
management of coastal and marine habitats with can help ensure that these ecosystems are effectively
economic activities, across sectors, from agriculture protected and managed for future generations. On the
to urban planning and tourism. Similar to MSP, ICZM other hand, OECMs, materialized through government
seeks to balance environmental, economic, and social actions that have biodiversity conservation benefits
objectives, and to promote stakeholder participation as secondary objectives (such as policies to protect
and collaboration. It typically involves the identification or sustainably manage water bodies, for example) can
of coastal issues and problems, the development contribute to enforcing the ecological connectivity
of management plans, and the implementation and between protected areas or other areas of high
Development
biodiversity, adding to the viability of preserving by combining co-benefits of BCEs and biodiversity
these. In other words, OECMs can be used to increase conservation with adaptation activities, such as the
synergies between mitigation and adaptation actions, sustainable management of water resources.
MSP and ICZM informing new policies and regulations for the sustainable use of
Figure 11 marine resources, and job generation
Coastal
Biodiversity construction
No fishing setback
hotspots
Source: World Bank 2022
The World Bank, supported by PROBLUE, produced the This toolkit closes some of the knowledge gaps and
Marine Spatial Planning for a Resilient and Inclusive highlights countries’ opportunities to take advantage
Blue Economy Toolkit, comprising a series of guidance of planning and investment options to improve food
notes and factsheets related to the different MSP security and livelihoods, and to strengthen community
phases, and the data and tools to inform these efforts. resilience to natural and economic shocks.
Development
4.2.2 MSP and ICZM process and use

The legal nature of MSPs and ICZM—and their legal ensure that these areas are protected and managed
implications—can differ considerably. While the effectively, contributing also to the GBF and its
process as such often has a mandatory legal character, fresh 2030 targets.
and while there are often preset institutional linkages • Integration of conservation and restoration goals
(executive or advisory boards with heads of various in broader national strategies: MSP and ICZM
agencies as pre-set members), the MSP/ICZM outputs can facilitate the integration of conservation and
may be binding for government agencies or have restoration goals into broader marine management
indirect legal value (for instance, to guide administrative strategies. This can help ensure that Blue Carbon
discretion or the interpretation of law), or they may habitats are not overlooked in marine planning
merely be recommendations. Whatever the legal processes and that management efforts are
structure, MSP and ICZM can provide considerable coordinated across different sectors and jurisdictions.
opportunities for the conservation and restoration of • Improved monitoring and research: MSP and
Blue Carbon habitats, while generating a wide array ICZM can provide a framework for monitoring
of positive effects for users of coastal environments, and research to better understand the ecological
benefitting the blue economy at large (see Box 23). functioning and carbon storage capacity of BCEs.
This information can help inform management
In the MSP Guidance Note, the World Bank makes decisions and conservation efforts.
recommendations on the strategic use of MSP/ICZM • Support for ecosystem-based management:
for BCEs conservation and restoration, including: MSP and ICZM can facilitate the implementation of
ecosystem-based management approaches, which
• Identification of important Blue Carbon areas: aim to protect and restore the ecological integrity
MSP and ICZM can help identify and prioritize of marine ecosystems. This can help promote the
BCEs, including those that are particularly resistant health and resilience of Blue Carbon habitats and
to global sea-level rise or that can easily migrate the services they provide, such as carbon storage,
inland as a result of sea-level rise. This can help erosion control, and support for fisheries.
Development
BOX
23 Marine spatial planning and Blue Carbon:

Examples from Indonesia and Mozambique
Indonesia manage marine and coastal areas for for the development and management
various uses, including conservation, of Mozambique’s national marine
Following years in which Indonesia’s fisheries, aquaculture, shipping, space, as defined under the United
government agencies moved without and tourism, among others. The Nations Convention on the Law of the
a clear legal framework on marine MSP framework is also designed Sea, considering both current and
spatial planning (resulting in ad to enhance coordination among potential marine uses. The POEM
hoc engagement, long delays, and various sectors and stakeholders was developed through a broad
a reluctance to design specific (including government agencies, participatory process led by the
targets and plans), Indonesia local communities, and the private Ministry of Sea, Inland Waters and
adopted its Marine Spatial Planning sector) to ensure the sustainable Fisheries, involving the engagement
(MSP) framework in 2017. The MSP development of Indonesia’s marine of more than 15 ministries at
framework, adopted through the and coastal resources. national and subnational level,
Indonesian National Ocean Policy and consultations with dozens of
by the Ministry of Marine Affairs Mozambique organizations from the private sector,
and Fisheries in collaboration with civil society, and academia. The
other government agencies and Mozambique has developed an POEM spatially defined priority areas
stakeholders, aims to promote MSP framework, which goes under for considering the establishment of
sustainable use and management the name of POEM, to promote additional marine protected areas, in
of Indonesia’s marine and coastal sustainable use and management line with the High Ambition Coalition
resources, through a spatial planning of its marine and coastal resources. for Nature and People’s goal of
approach. The MSP process is Approved in November 2021, the achieving the protection of 30 percent
ongoing and aims to identify and POEM set out a vision and guidelines of the world’s oceans by 2030.
4.2.3 Marine protected areas and

Blue Carbon
Blue Carbon should be considered in Marine MSP must respect existing MPAs, and may provide
Protected Areas (MPAs) designation and for future MPAs, but in the sense that MPAs can be
management. MPAs are areas in the ocean that used in combination with other measures (such as
are set aside and managed for the protection and zoning, fisheries management, and ecosystem-based
conservation of marine ecosystems, species, and approaches) to achieve multiple objectives, balance
habitats. They represent a key benchmark for competing demands for ocean space and resources,
measuring the success of coastal countries against and create synergies. For example, strict conservation
the 30 percent protection target agreed under the MPAs can be used to restore depleted fish stocks for
Global Biodiversity Framework. They are also a key areas outside the MPAs and reinvigorate the local
MSP component. This is not only in the sense that fishing industry. The integration of MPAs into MSP
Development
requires careful consideration of ecological, social, and to ensure effective implementation and management
economic factors, and engagement with stakeholders (see Box 24).
BOX
24 Designing and managing marine protected areas
Belize cruise ships) and more targeted EAFM-based (Ecosystems Approach

eco-tourism (“sea safaris”). It also to Fisheries Management) network
The Turneffe Atoll Sustainability includes a carbon finance element to of MPAs that cover over 1.4 million
Association (TASA), a local not- support TASA’s long-term financial hectares of coastal and marine
for-profit entity, has since 2012 sustainability. The MPA-specific habitats. These MPAs are managed
co-managed the Turneffe Atoll initiative speaks to broader marine by local communities, with support
Marine Reserve (TAMR), a marine spatial planning (MSP) objectives from the government and non-
protected area (MPA), under a power- and can serve as blueprint for MPA governmental organizations. In
sharing agreement with the Belize engagement through MSP. addition to MPAs, the Philippines
Government. TASA has recently has also implemented a system of
secured “blended” funding (grants Philippines fisheries management that includes
and loans) to pursue a strategy that the establishment of closed seasons,
combines classic MPA management Under the auspices of the Department size limits, and gear restrictions, as
with wider sustainable economic of Environment and Natural Resources well as the promotion of alternative
activities in the region. and using broad powers provided livelihoods to reduce fishing pressure.
by the Philippine Fisheries Code One of the key factors contributing to
The strategy covers surveillance, of 1998, the National Integrated the success of MSP in the Philippines
monitoring, and enforcement, while Protected Areas System Act of 1992, has been the active involvement of
addressing the wider context of and the Clean Water Act of 2004, local communities in the planning and
classic tourism (mostly visits from the Philippines has developed an management process.
Development
CO₂
4.3
Blue Carbon and REDD+
Within the Blue Carbon Readiness Framework, This is not a contradiction but rather the foundation for
governments should focus on both the integration using the policy tools in the most synergetic and even
of Blue Carbon into their REDD+ frameworks and synchronized way.
the design of a separate Blue Carbon strategy.
4.3.1 Technical REDD+ integration

Many coastal countries have gone through years of protocols (including redress mechanisms). These
REDD+ preparations (REDD+ readiness), building procedures and protocols can and should be used
everything from governance tools to REDD+ and refined to include mangroves—and perhaps salt
reference levels, from forest monitoring systems to marshes, seagrass beds, and even kelp forests (should
community engagement modes, and from business the latter become actionable BCEs).
plans for alternative land use to safeguards
4.3.2 Institutional REDD+ integration

Over the past two decades, REDD+ has dramatically These structures can be used to define a Blue
changed forest governance in many developing Carbon governance framework either by integrating
countries. Technical units were created at central Blue Carbon into the existing structures, or by
government level, and sometimes at regional level, to replicating institutional templates that have proved
gather data, establish monitoring systems, and oversee successful in the REDD+ context. Navigating Blue
implementation. Cross-ministerial REDD+ policymaking Carbon responsibilities among core ministries— namely
bodies emerged to set out strategies and steer forestry, fisheries and water—should receive specific
through the REDD+ readiness process. Administrative attention. Hierarchies for technical and policy units
responsibilities were re-assigned in line with REDD+ should be clear and, while these bodies must act with
needs, including with respect to results-based finance broad buy-in from across government levels, functional
responsibilities. Many REDD+ systems have given rise coherence and efficiency remains the goal. The
to multilayered institutional “nesting” arrangements creation of a new, independent agency—reporting to
(Lee 2018). A growing number of countries has chosen the prime minister or the president—may be a suitable
to define a bespoke REDD+ funding and benefit- way forward for many countries.
sharing architecture (see Box 25). Platforms for PPP
engagements within REDD+ frameworks can be found
across countries.
Development
BOX
25 Mangroves REDD+ frameworks
Madagascar forests. The program has a strong frameworks for community-based

emphasis on securing land tenure for mangrove management, such as the
Madagascar is a biodiversity hotspot local communities, and on promoting national policy on community-based
with significant areas of mangroves, community-based natural resource forest management, which recognizes
seagrass beds, and other coastal management. The national REDD+ the rights of local communities to
forests. As in many other coastal program in Madagascar includes a manage and benefit from mangrove
areas around the world, these habitats range of activities related to mangrove forests. Overall, Madagascar’s REDD+
have been threatened by a range conservation and restoration, such as program for mangrove conservation
of factors, including deforestation, the development of community-based and restoration has been recognized
overfishing, and climate change. To management plans, the establishment as a successful example of integrating
address these challenges, Madagascar of community-based monitoring climate-change mitigation and
has developed a national REDD+ systems, and the implementation adaptation with community-based
program that includes a focus of sustainable livelihood activities natural resource management. It has
on mangrove conservation and for local communities. To support the potential to contribute significantly
restoration, as well as conservation these activities, the Madagascar to global efforts to address
and restoration of other coastal Government has also established legal climate change.
4.3.3 International REDD+ support

While overall REDD+ financial flows may remain The development of benefit-sharing schemes, such
modest, there is a strong network of international as the ones developed under the Enhancing Access
partnerships on capacity-building and bilateral to Benefits while Lowering Emissions (EnABLE)
and multilateral funding frameworks, including multi-donor trust fund from the World Bank, are
the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility critical for social equity, and long-term sustainability
(FCPF). They should be used to offer windows for Blue of carbon investments. These efforts enhance
Carbon interventions. Many existing REDD+ programs the inclusion of marginalized communities and
will provide the framework for jurisdictional Blue disadvantaged groups as beneficiaries in Emission
Carbon interventions, securing size and reducing the Reductions Programs (ERPs) under the different carbon
risk of leakage. The mitigation density of Blue Carbon finance trust funds, to maximize their carbon and
interventions should help navigate more funding per non-carbon benefits. Achievement of this objective
area for Blue Carbon habitats than terrestrial habitats. is expected to contribute to broader outcomes,
Credits may also be stacked with unique co-benefits, including improvement in the resilience of livelihoods,
which raise the level of interest from donors, and local biodiversity conservation, and climate change
communities that may benefit from them. mitigation (see Box 26).
Development
BOX
26 Community participation, and land and marine tenure
It is estimated that communities habitat outcomes (Viet 2021). REDD+ support frameworks
hold as much as 65 percent of the Ecosystems held by IPLCs with secure also offer community-based
world’s land area through customary, land rights are generally associated management approaches that focus
community-based tenure systems, with lower rates of deforestation, on the recognition of land tenure and
even though only some 10 percent reduced greenhouse gas emissions, equitable benefit-sharing. The EnABLE
of land ownership by indigenous better biodiversity protection, and program,4 for instance, set up in
peoples and local communities improved livelihoods. December 2020 with a EUR 20 million
(IPLCs) is formally recognized (Rights grant from Germany, aims to mobilize
and Resource Initiative 2015). Simplified tracks for legal recognition up to US$200 million for commitment
In coastal zones, small-scale fishers of IPLCs, and the design of community and disbursement between 2021
play a significant role in the global governance tools, can help address and 2030, including US$100 million
fisheries sector. They represent about these gaps, and provide a strong basis earmarked to support inclusion in
90 percent of the world’s nearly for the sustainable management of Forest Carbon Partnership Facility
51 million capture fishers, of whom critical coastal Blue Carbon habitats. (FCPF) REDD+ programs. EnABLE-
about half are women. Small-scale MSP and ICZM frameworks are funded activities are guided by the
fishers produce half of all global fish particularly suitable for ensuring notion that:
catch and supply two thirds of the fish social inclusion. Building on smart,
consumed by people (USAID N.D.). disaggregated data (providing • REDD+ programs must contain
information according to sex, age, strong benefit-sharing plans that
Despite their social and economic specific groups, and so on) and recognize community tenure and
relevance, land and coastal habitats integrating culturally sensitive stakeholder efforts, while being
suffer from a low rate of (customary) consultation and respect for existing socially inclusive
tenure recognition. This also cooperatives, they also unlock the • The design and execution of the
has ramifications for the state of potential of women and marginalized programs and benefit-sharing
(sustainable) habitat management. groups as employees, leaders, and plans are stakeholder- and
3
Community ownership not only decision-makers (World Bank 2021). community-driven.
correlates with, but leads to, positive
3 World Bank 2021, “Gender, Marginalized People and Marine Spatial Planning,” at https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/
en/924011636704855990/pdf/PROBLUE-Gender-Marginalized-People-and-Marine-Spatial-Planning-Improve-Livelihoods-Empower-
Marginalized-Groups-Bridge-the-Inequality-Gap.pdf.
4 https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange/brief/enable-enhancing-access-to-benefits-while-lowering-emission.
Development
4.3.4 Blue Carbon stand-alone approaches

There are two main areas for independent Blue As they may not be easily integrated into REDD+
Carbon development. One concerns habitats that fall strategies and governance models, specific policy
outside the scope of a country’s REDD+ framework; frameworks are needed to access and convert
this will often be the case for seagrass beds and salt degraded lands, mitigate the risk of conflicting use,
marshes. The other concerns the importance of Blue manage leakage, and much more.
Carbon restoration. A multitude of factors make BCE
restoration a global priority: Therefore, stand-alone Blue Carbon approaches are
needed. As in the case of forest landscape restoration
High degradation trends (past and present); (Sapkota and Hoang 2020), these approaches
High economic value of BCEs, including the should be designed to closely resemble existing
resilience value for coastal communities faced REDD+ frameworks but with their own strategy and
with sea-level rise and coastal erosion; governance, as well as their own technical framework.
High mitigation density of BCEs; and Potential conflicts from overlapping policy frameworks
Simplicity of mangrove restoration (as in the case of mangroves, which may be covered
(Ellison et al. 2020). a priori by both REDD+ and a bespoke Blue Carbon
framework) should be solved through nesting models.
4.4
Financing Approaches
Pillar Three: Finance
As stated above, in order to position BCEs at the to be recognition of the economic value of blue natural
heart of the Blue Economy and accelerate the capital and scaling up of available financing.
implementation of Blue Carbon strategies, there needs
4.4.1 Scaling up Blue Carbon finance

Leveraging Blue Carbon finance, which includes to finance, fostering sustainable private investment,
investing in conservation and restoration-focused and providing an enabling environment for investors.
Nature-based Solutions in the most effective and A national Blue Carbon framework should prioritize the
efficient way, requires scaling up of available following on the finance front:
funding. This can be achieved by simplifying access
Development
• Regularly analyze existing fiscal allocations and Carbon development. The financial analysis should
financial flows in the Blue Economy, to better consider positive funding, such as funding for the
spend the resources available and thereby development and management of MPAs, NbS,
achieve results focused on sustainability and sustainable supply-chain development, and law
integration. The World Bank developed the enforcement. It should also identify and withdraw
Blue Public Expenditure Review to guide countries direct and indirect funding of key drivers of national
in their assessment of how public expenditures degradation of BCEs (such as environmentally
address issues related to coastal and marine harmful subsidies) or other traditional financial
resources, environmental degradation, and support for aquaculture and agriculture that does
development aspirations that depend on these not effectively mitigate degradation risks.
blue resources and environments—including Blue
Figure 12 Figure representing budgetary allocations for the Blue Economy development
Source: World Bank 2022. “Blue PER Factsheet”.
• Conduct a stock-take of complementary climate and nature commitments); as well as

funding mechanisms and specific financial jurisdictional (regional or state-level) mechanisms
instruments that induce sustainable funding like Blue Carbon-focused jurisdictional REDD+.
for BCEs. This includes policy; debt and non- Multilateral development banks play an important
debt instruments such as taxes and fees; Blue role in bringing together multiple actors, building
Bonds (e.g. commercial or multilateral banks); technical capacity, and mobilizing finance through
multilateral development banks’ concessional/ non-concessional and concessional instruments
non-concessional loans; grants (e.g. trust (for example, PROBLUE, PROGREEN, Global
funds, philanthropy), private sector investments Partnership on Sustainability, Global Environment
(e.g. corporate social responsibility, or corporate Facility, and so on) (See Box 27). Non-state-actor-
Development
driven sustainable business models and initiatives and energy infrastructure linked to mangrove
that monetize ecosystem services by “stacking” restoration, sustainable shellfish-farming, tourism-
multiple revenue streams from ecosystem- funded MPA management in public-private
generated goods and services should also be partnership, climate-resilient seaweed cultivation,
considered. Examples include initiatives on waste among others.
BOX
27 Strategic deployment of concessional resources: PROBLUE
In 2018, the World Bank announced PROBLUE focuses on four main • Helping governments build capacity
PROBLUE, a Multi-Donor Trust Fund themes: to manage their marine and coastal
that supports the sustainable and resources in an integrated fashion
integrated development of marine and • Sustainably managing fisheries and (including the development of Blue
coastal resources in healthy oceans. aquaculture; Carbon as a Nature-based Solution
PROBLUE supports SDG 14 (Life Under • Addressing and preventing the to climate change), to deliver
Water) and is aligned with the Bank’s threats posed to ocean health by more and longer-lasting benefits
twin goals to end extreme poverty marine pollution; to their respective countries
and increase income and welfare • Supporting a sustainable economy, and communities.
in a sustainable way, by providing with a focus on tourism, shipping,
financial support, advisory services, and offshore renewable energy; and
and technical expertise across all
ocean sectors.
• Develop blended finance mechanisms to or high-net-worth individuals) and are used in a

make Blue Carbon investments attractive. way that removes uncertainty or risk (IFC 2023).5
When traditional finance is insufficient to attract (see Box 28).
investment for nascent projects, blended finance • Identify large-scale Blue Carbon opportunities
can come into play. Blended finance is a model to attract investments. Larger-scale opportunities
that allows investment of different types of are the main draw for asset owners and managers
capital alongside each other—such as grants and to increase their exposure to natural capital
concessional finance (for example, low-interest investments. Aggregating several projects, and
loans and price guarantees). These funds come pooling services and expenses, would help lower
from governments, multilateral development banks, costs and increase the overall ticket size of
private sector, and philanthropic elements within the investments.
civil society (such as not-for-profit organizations
5 International Finance Corporation. 2023. Deep Blue—Opportunities for Blue Carbon Finance in Coastal Ecosystems.
Development
BOX
28 Blue Carbon opportunities for financial institutions:

International Finance Corporation
There are opportunities for generally high (three-star) impacts frameworks to evaluate the use of
financial institutions to support the for mitigation and adaptation; relevant proceeds; and
development of the Blue Carbon • Supporting insurers in developing • Revising definitions and metrics
markets, including: markets (through financial for climate-related activities to
assistance and advisory services) to define direct and nested coastal
• Revising existing guidelines for tailor flood-risk policies to wetland wetland conservation and
blue finance to add red (No-Go) enhancement interventions; restoration activities.
and green (Go) lists for the blue • Building on experience with
finance areas, ensuring that no issuing Green Bonds, designing (Source: International Finance
new deforestation or degradation “blue” bond products to focus on Corporation 2023. Deep
of coastal wetlands happens and coastal wetland conservation and Blue—Opportunities for Blue Carbon
clarifying that coastal wetland restoration activities, and defining Finance in Coastal Ecosystems.)
ecosystem interventions have workable metrics and impact
Development
Blue Carbon interventions depend on key building regulatory and investment frameworks can learn from
blocks to ensure their effectiveness. Blue Carbon decades of REDD+ experience (Table 6).
Table 6 REDD+ building blocks and reference resources
Element Description Resource
Legal and Legal and institutional frameworks are The FCPF’s Readiness Fund has created a normative
institutional required to enable access to results- framework for REDD+, formulating core elements which can
framework based climate finance and carbon be used, mutatis mutandis, for establishing Blue Carbon
finance. These include frameworks for frameworks:
institutionalization of measurement, https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/resources
reporting, and verification system (MRV). Useful literature sources on legal and institutional readiness
include the Little Book of Legal Frameworks for REDD+:
https://globalcanopy.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2020/12/
LittleBookofLegalFrameworksforREDD_EN.pdf
The WB’s REDD+ Nesting Manual provides guidance for
the design and implementation of accounting systems,
which may include integration of project-level activities
into national accounting frameworks (also known as
“nesting”). This manual provides guidance on multiple
dimensions including institutional frameworks and legal
frameworks, benefit sharing, safeguards, registries, which
could be applicable to BCE. It includes a decision-support
tool to help decision-makers in defining the most suitable
nesting framework.
MRV system Measurement, Reporting and Verification The Global Forest Observation Initiative (GFOI) has
system that is able to report verified developed different guidance materials for REDD+ countries,
Emission Reductions in accordance with but it could also be applicable to Mangroves and other BCE:
a defined standard. • Methodology and Guidance Document (MGD) which
provides guidance for MRV design and implementation,
including definition of institutional arrangements:
https://www.reddcompass.org/mgd
• Open MRV which provides practical learning modules for
estimating the Activity Data with different operational
tools: https://openmrv.org/home/measurement/
activitydata
Development
Land tenure and Land tenure represents one of the most There are various sources available to help navigate land
carbon rights significant challenges for successfully tenure and carbon right claims, including from the World
implementing integrated land use Bank’s BioCarbon Fund: https://biocarbonfund-isfl.org/
initiatives. The identification of carbon integrated-land-use/land-tenure.
rights promotes the recognition of The FCPF has issued a useful “guidance note” on the ability
customary tenure and the active of program entities to transfer title to emission reductions:
stewardship role of communities for https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/
natural habitats. files/2019/July/FCPF%20Guidance%20Note%20on%20
the%20Ability%20of%20Program%20Entity%20to%20
Transfer%20Title%20to%20Emission%20Reductions_2018.
pdf.
For the FCPF’s legal documents on transfer of title, see
https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/standards-and-
management.
Benefit Sharing Equitable sharing of carbon and non- The World Bank’s FCFP and ISFL have developed some
Arrangements carbon benefits is important to provide resources for the design of benefit-sharing arrangements
rewards to sustainable and expansion of for REDD+ and integrated-landscape programs, including
mitigation actions. guidance documentation and collection of lessons learned.
https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/bio-carbon/en/
index.html
Safeguards In the planning and implementation of REDD+ countries have developed a number of systems to
mitigation actions, countries require that manage safeguards including:
safeguards be put in place to ensure • Safeguard Information Systems for providing publicly
that mitigation activities take into available information on how safeguards are being
account a range of policies and rights, addressed and respected in REDD+ Readiness and
including those related to conservation, implementation activities.
stakeholders, and their access to
• A Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA)
sustainable livelihoods.
helps to ensure compliance with relevant safeguards by
integrating key environmental and social considerations
covered by the relevant safeguard policies and
procedures at the earliest stage of decision making.
Feedback and grievance redress mechanism (GRM)
needs to be effectively available, and if necessary
strengthened, as part of the country’s REDD+ institutional
arrangements.
The World Bank developed the Environmental and Social
Framework to support the sustainable development vision
of the countries’ projects: https://thedocs.worldbank.org/
en/doc/837721522762050108-0290022018/original/
ESFFramework.pdf
More information may be found at
https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/topics and
https://www.un-redd.org/work-areas/safeguards-multiple-
benefits.
Development
Registries An emissions trading registry is an online The World Bank’s Partnership of Market Readiness
database that issues, records, and tracks (PMR) and the FCPF developed guidance on regulation,
the carbon units that are exchanged development and administration of emission trading
within market mechanisms or financed registries: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/
through Results-Based Climate Finance publication/02603f21-25b1-538a-af49-01ab11ed51cd
(RBCF) programs. The Partnership for Market Implementation (PMI) developed
an open Measurement, Reporting, and Verification system
that supports capturing emissions, emission reductions and
finance received by each mitigation activity, and tracks these
at individual project, sector, and national level:
https://pmiclimate.org/.
Development
CHAPTER ToC EX.S 1 2 3 4 5 AP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION 96
CH APTER
5 Recommendations
for Action
Propelling Blue Carbon to its full potential Adopting such a comprehensive response will help
requires governments to undertake a harmonized countries shift to a more productive and resilient
response that combines technical, institutional, Blue Economy that gives stability to natural habitats
regulatory, and financial aspects. This is to tap into and predictability to the private sector. Practical and
the many opportunities presented by Blue Carbon actionable recommendations for governments are
development—for climate mitigation as well as for the proposed to improve readiness and to help accelerate
rich portfolio of ecosystem services beyond carbon. Blue Carbon investments.
Development
Pillar One:
Data and Analytics
considerable technical and institutional capacity. Yet,

Recommendation 1 practical guidelines (chiefly in the form of the 2013
Wetlands Supplement) are available, and governments
Strengthen country enabling can access various technical assistance programs for
environment to develop GHG capacity-building purposes. Ideally, governments add
inventories for above and a training program for the existing GHG inventory team,
below-ground carbon. prepare a gap analysis for available data points on GHG
emissions and removals from coastal BCEs (focusing
GHG inventories are the backbone of all climate on coastal BCE mapping and human activity data), and
mitigation actions, yet emissions and removals use the timeframe until the next major NDC update
from coastal wetlands that include above and in 2025 to build or complete the inventory section on
below-ground carbon, are often omitted from them. coastal BCEs.
Integrating coastal Blue Carbon ecosystems requires
to engage with sovereigns in an effort to manage

Recommendation 2 BCEs more sustainably. These ecosystem valuation
assessments can include a true price mechanism for
Promote the Use of Ecosystem Blue Carbon credits linked to the degree of permanence
Valuation in Decision Making. achieved and co-benefits such as ecosystem services,
gender, indigenous peoples, and local communities.
Developing and implementing natural capital and Such assessments—which can draw from the ongoing
ecosystem valuation is a critical step to shedding light Changing Wealth of Nations (CWON) work, the Global
on the significance of nature at the macroeconomic Ocean Accounts Partnership, or other tools presented
policy level and engaging economic decision-makers in the Blue Economy Data and Tools Catalogue—
(including ministers of finance and planning) in the will be important features to allow stakeholders to
global response to the climate change and biodiversity identify win-win investment opportunities. These are
crises. The availability of such data would also opportunities that promote Blue Carbon protection and
greatly benefit the private sector, helping to inform restoration, while creating sustainable returns from
the decisions of firms and financial institutions at fisheries, tourism, coastal risk-reduction, and more.
the project and portfolio levels, and assisting them
Development
Pillar Two:
Policies and Institutions
to engage in Blue Carbon (project) development,

Recommendation 3 and the design of legal tools that recognize title to
emission reductions and removals, link such title to
Strengthen existing national the participation of local communities in decision
institutional structures, and design making, and trace any transfers and monetization
specific policies that facilitate actions in transparent and publicly accessible
the implementation of Blue registries. Community stewardship arrangements
Carbon commitments. should include formats and institutional structures
for rewarding individuals and communities for efforts
Activities should include legal screenings and option to enhance BCEs, including through the development
assessments for better and smarter protection, of benefit-sharing plans (e.g. for example, EnABLE).
including through community governance formats, Other measures could be on re-purposing subsidies to
fit-for-purpose assessments of enforcement agencies, prevent BCE degradation, or implementing tax/policy
legal mandates for governments (local, state, national) reforms for deforestation-free products.
Marine Spatial Plans (MSPs) and Integrated Coastal

Recommendation 4 Zone Management (ICZM) plans. Such tools will
inform policies and regulations that are key to leveling
Adopt integrated planning and the playing field for Blue Carbon investments and to
Blue Carbon Strategy to enhance incubating a pipeline of bankable projects. In terms of
local benefits. institutional strengthening, leadership on technical,
policy, and finance matters requires that operational
Plans for Blue Carbon interventions must address units are defined and clear responsibilities carved
the cross-sectoral nature of BCEs and must be out. In this process, the preparation of a Blue Carbon
underpinned by effective benefit-sharing mechanisms, strategy that takes into account integrated planning
and unified with livelihoods development. It is would provide a roadmap to support Blue Carbon
important to integrate Blue Carbon considerations investments at the national level and leverage the many
into the broader context of national policy planning, co-benefits of these investments.
for example by using governance tools such as
Development
biodiversity crises have not only a local dimension, but

Recommendation 5 also regional and global public goods dimensions. As
a result, a broad stakeholder engagement is required
Leverage partnerships between to provide ambitious solutions for a swift response to
governments, private sector, climate change and biodiversity loss. Consensus needs
international financing institutions, to be built around bold yet realistic targets, a systemic
and philanthropies. response, and appropriate support mechanisms that
harness sufficient technical and financial resources for
This could help address the systemic risks stemming implementation. An effective and coordinated response
from BCE loss and influence global agendas. Multiple requires active engagement of the UN system,
economic and financial sector initiatives focused multilateral development banks, bilateral donors,
on climate change and sustainability have emerged and philanthropies. There are also opportunities to
in recent years and have convinced economic and strengthen dialogue with financial institutions and
financial policy makers of the need to integrate regulators on Blue Carbon and biodiversity, and the role
climate into their respective agendas. The climate and of trade policy as a means to curb BCE degradation.
Pillar Three:
Finance
Blending public and private funds, including private

Recommendation 6 sector, and philanthropic funds, offers opportunities for
alleviating and repurposing public debt towards actual
Adopt a holistic approach to Blue Carbon investments. Blended finance can support
mobilizing finance. the development of proof-of-concept business models
and make the risk- return profile of the private sector
A combination of suitable innovative or emerging more competitive, allowing for expansion to other
funding mechanisms, including “blended” finance, locations. A phased approach can be considered that
concessional resources, and infrastructure finance blends concessional and commercial capital and uses
are critical to scale up Blue Carbon investments. The innovative funding mechanisms to enhance coastal
financial gap analysis (for instance, the Blue Public resilience for communities and put countries on a net-
Expenditure Review) should inform the opportunities zero emissions path.
for mobilizing finance for Blue Carbon development.
Development
be used for capacity-building at the government level;

Recommendation 7 inventory work; technical infrastructure for mapping;
carbon stock assessments; and monitoring of GHG
Access international funding for fluxes (emissions and removals). This institutional
Blue Carbon readiness. infrastructure can be built together with weather
information and warning systems (sea-level rise
International grant-based support, which is and extreme drought and/or flooding) to inform
available under many bilateral (for example, UK Blue policymakers and directly enhance coastal resilience
Planet Fund, Norway’s Oceans for Development), for communities. Funding should also be used to
international (for example, PROBLUE, PROGREEN, prepare a pipeline of shovel-ready projects and ready-
Global Partnership on Sustainability, GEF, and so on), to-use platforms for community-governance formats,
and philanthropic programs, as well as private sector on the one hand, and public-private partnerships
finance (corporate climate and nature commitments, on coastal management and investment, on
and corporate social responsibility programs) should the other hand.
Recommendation 8
Promote public-private
partnerships (PPPs)
for Blue Carbon
market development.
Through these partnerships, additional

funding can be mobilized for the
capacity building and science needed
to scale the supply of high-quality Blue
Carbon credits to the market. PPPs
could help overcome key policy barriers
to scaling private investment in Blue
Carbon ecosystems in an equitable and
transparent manner.
Development
CHAPTER ToC EX.S 1 2 3 4 5 AP APPENDICES 101
A P P E N DIC E S
Appendix 1: Checklist
(Blue Carbon Readiness Framework)
Checklist
Framework
PILLAR 1
CO₂
DATA & ANALYTICS

EVALUATING BLUE CARBON ACTIONS
CHECKLIST 1
Identifying Established Blue Carbon Ecosystems Within Your Country
The first step in the process of evaluating blue carbon actions is identifying if your country
currently has, or has had, any of the following blue carbon ecosystems (BCEs). BCEs fall into one
of two categories: Established or Emerging.
ESTABLISHED BLUE CARBON ECOSYSTEMS –

Mangroves, seagrass beds, and salt marshes are recognized as falling into an established
inventory category of wetlands. These ecosystems are considered “actionable” because
they are eligible for Blue Carbon crediting instruments.
Salt Marshes – explore the Seagrasses - explore the UNEP Mangroves – Global Mangrove
UNEP Global Distribution of Salt Global Distribution of Seagrass Watch (GMW) provides a
Marshes map located at the link map located at the link below. variety of data on the global
below. From the link you can From here, you can zoom to distribution of mangroves at
download spatial data on the your country to view salt marsh yearly intervals going back
baseline inventory containing distribution or download spatial to 1996. Using their online
global seagrass distribution. data to view distribution across mapping portal, you can view
Data used to develop this a customizable area. Data used the distribution of mangroves
map covers studies from to develop this map covers within your country, as well as
1973 – 2015. studies from 1934 – 2015. a variety of different data layers
https://data.unep-wcmc.org/ https://www.unep.org/ on carbon storage, mangrove
datasets/43 resources/publication/global- type, and mangrove area
distribution-seagrasses change over time.
www.GlobalMangroveWatch.org
EMERGING BLUE CARBON ECOSYSTEMS –

The following BCEs are considered emerging as they are “likely” actionable, meaning
they meet some of the actionability criteria. In the future, these ecosystems may be
eligible for Blue Carbon crediting instruments. Currently, there is limited data on the
global extent of emerging BCEs, and as such, there are few resources available for
countries looking to assess national extent/area of these ecosystems.
Development
Checklist
Framework
CHECKLIST 2
Resources for Gathering Required Data for GHG Inventories
References: The Blue Carbon Initiative’s BC & NDC Location and Extent of BCEs – For inventory
Guidelines on Enhanced Action, Landsat data reporting purposes, maps, or spatial data on the
available from the U.S. Geological Survey distribution of BCEs within your country is critical.
This data can be used to calculate all required
There are several datasets required for the carbon stocks (above and belowground biomass
development of an effective GHG inventory. The and soil organic carbon (SOC)) and change in
requirements fall into two general categories: carbon stocks over time using default values from
Location and extent of BCEs, and activity data. No the IPCC Wetlands Supplement. This information
matter your level of capacity, the prevalence of is also valuable in determining carbon stock
global datasets and methodologies – such as the gains and losses over time when paired with land
IPCC Wetlands Supplement – mean there are still use and land use change (LULUCF) data, and for
actions your country can take to improve existing identifying a baseline for BCE location and extent.
inventories and work towards policy and financing With knowledge of location and extent of BCE(s)
actions for your BCE(s). within your country, you can then estimate the
amount of carbon stored, sequestered and/or
released from the BCE(s) based on land conversion
or change.
a. Landsat (and similar satellites) supply free, open-source imagery at a

global scale, and across various timeframes – check the link below for
1. Determine the current, and
further information:
historic location and extent of
BCE(s) – Satellite imagery is an https://landsat.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/where-to-get-data/
effective solution for this step.
Note: Your country may already b. Map the location and extent of all BCEs present within your country
account for mangroves as part of Refer to Checklist 1 for resources on location of established BCEs
their National Forest Inventory.
c. Incorporate data from new technologies, such as drones, as they
become available
a. Identify the earliest year the Landsat imagery covers for your nation,
2. Determine the baseline year for
ensuring this coverage includes any present BCEs
assessing location and extent your
b. This year will serve as your baseline year – e.g, 2005 is the first year
country’s BCEs
where you can clearly identify BCE within your country
3. Calculate changes in BCE location and extent over time

Development
Checklist
Framework
ACTIVITY DATA –
Activity data refers to rates of carbon accumulation and loss based on uses of, and impacts upon, BCEs.
Specifically, activity data refers to the magnitude of human activities or actions which result in emissions or
removals during a designated timer period. As a result, activity data is highly country specific.
1. Obtain spatial layers on land use and land use change (LULUCF) for regions of your country where BCE(s)
are present
a. Established BCEs are included within the Wetlands Supplement in the

2. Follow guidance laid out in
“Coastal Wetlands” category. Emissions factors and methodologies
Chapter 4 of the Wetland
are provided for various categories of BCE use/ impacts upon BCEs
Supplement to estimate
such as mangrove management practices, revegetation, aquaculture,
activity data
and drainage.
CHECKLIST 3
Applying the IPCC Tier 1 Default Values
References: The Blue Carbon Initiative’s BC & NDC Guidelines on Enhanced Action
TIER 1 DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS – TIER 2/3 DEFAULT EMISSION FACTORS –

Chapter 4 of the IPCC Wetlands Supplement provides global When available, country specific emission factors can provide
default emission factors for designated activities within more accurate estimates of national BCE carbon stocks.
established BCEs: mangroves, salt marshes and seagrasses.
These global default values are referred to as Tier 1 estimates.
Tier 1 emission factors can be used in conjunction with data on
BCE extent and change in extent over time to estimate carbon
stock values at a national level. Tier 1 factors as especially
important when it comes to estimates of SOC stocks or changes
in stocks, as lack of data on SOC is a common bottleneck
country run into.
Development
Checklist
Framework
CHECKLIST 4
Updating & Improving GHG Inventories
Accurate reporting and accounting of emissions and removals of coastal wetlands must be complete before
a country can incorporate coastal wetlands within the mitigation section of their NDCs. Development
and continued maintenance of GHG Inventories is an important tool in meeting evidence-based climate
mitigation policy requirements.
1. Determine the location and extent

of the BCE(s) habitat within a. Calculate the approximate area of the habitat
your country
a. Identify a baseline year – commonly the earliest year with complete

2. Map the distribution and change data on ecosystem extent – and compare extent from subsequent years
of the BCE habitat coverage to this baseline.
over time b. Quantifying change over time is important for inventory and reporting
purposes.
3. Estimate the BCE’s existing carbon

a. Gather data on the relevant carbon pools pertaining to the BCE(s) (ex:
stock – now that we know the
aboveground biomass, soil organic carbon (SOC), standing deadwood,
habitat extent and change over
etc.).
time, it is important to understand
b. Utilize the calculated area of the BCE(s) to estimate a carbon
the amount of carbon sequestered
stock value
and stored by the BCE(s).
4. Estimate the BCE’s emissions rates
5. Estimate the rate of carbon a. Pay attention to potential changes in land use, and how this will affect
accumulation and loss over time existing and future carbon stocks
Development
Checklist
Framework
PILLAR2
POLICY & INSTITUTIONS
NDC COMMITMENTS & IMPLEMENTATION
CHECKLIST 5
Accounting for BCE in NDCs
References: NDC Guidelines on Enhanced Action; NDC Partnership: Opportunities for

Ocean-Based Climate Action
There are various options for countries to include BCE in their NDC accounting framework.
Depending on the state of the GHG inventory and the capacity to report emissions and
removals in line with the 2013 Wetlands Supplement, countries may include BCE within their
economy-wide target or not. In the latter case, countries can still present stand-alone, action-
based targets for BCE. They can and should also set out a timeframe for when they will be able
to report GHG emissions and removals from coastal wetlands in their inventory and, hence,
when they will be able to account for emissions and removals from BCE under their NDC.
a. Does your country have a central agency for coordinating ocean/coastal

and BCE management
b. Is there a clear division of roles and responsibilities regarding BCE
management and protection among relevant government entities and
1. Check Government Roles and
other stakeholders
Responsibilities over BCEs
c. Are there comprehensive laws and regulations, at various levels, that
specifically protect or conserve BCEs?
d. Which agency(ies) are responsible for enforcing such laws and
regulations, and are they adequately resourced and mandated to do so?
a. Refer to explicit language (“all sectors” include in scope, as well as

“2013 Supplement”).
1. Check if BCE are (already)
b. In case all sectors fall within the abstract scope, but IPCC guidance
included in a country’s NDC
is not referenced beyond the 2006 Guidance, there is a good chance
accounting scope.
that the de facto accounting framework ignores GHG emissions and
removals from wetlands.
2. Confirm that BCE are included or clarify that they will be by a certain date, referencing the capacity to use the
2013 Supplement.
3. Check if BCE habitats are covered in your REDD+ framework (and target setting), if applicable (see
below, Checklist 6).
Development
Checklist
Framework
a. If full BCE inventory reporting occurs, a mitigation target may be included in a

country’s cross-economic or cross-sector target.
i. Consider a commitment to a complete

halt of deforestation (mangroves) and/or
4. Describe the type
degradation (all BCE).
of BCE-related
b. If full BCE inventory reporting ii. Alternatively, consider a commitment to
(mitigation) target,
does not occur or if a country net-zero deforestation of degradation, or
applying principles of
wants to highlight a specific BCE-positive conservation.
clarity, unambiguity,
target for BCE, check which iii. In addition, set restoration targets
and ambition.
action-based targets you can for BCE habitats (ideally, expressed
set out: in hectares)
iv. In addition, make a commitment
for BCE area coverage under
sustainable management.
CHECKLIST 6
Accounting for BCEs in your NDCs as a REDD+ Country
REDD+ countries are well placed to expand their NDCs to include BCEs. The following steps can
be taken when considering how to account for BCEs in existing and upcoming NDCs
a. Review your National Forest Definition – are mangroves referenced

or included?
b. Is the project area included in the RAMSAR list of wetlands of
international importance?
1. Determine if mangrove forests are
c. Does the Forest Reference Layer incorporate all relevant mangrove
accounted for in existing NDCs and
carbon pools, including soil carbon? Are there separate measures
as part of your country’s REDD+
specifically for soil carbon stocks that can be included within the NDC?
program using the following
questions as a guide: Note: Often REDD+ reference levels will exclude soil carbon pools
d. Are there MRV/FREL or alternative GHG accounting methodologies used

within the REDD+ program for my country that can be applied?
Development
Checklist
Framework
a. which governmental department(s) oversee forests and coastal

ecosystems and GHG reporting to ensure streamlined action for
including this data within new/existing NDCs
2. Identify the following: b. relevant legal/policy governance involving BCE(s)
c. clear division of roles and responsibilities among BCE entities
and stakeholders
d. BCE agencies are adequately resource
3. Determine how to effectively keep data on GHG emissions/ removals relevant – source new data as it becomes
available, identify ways to improve existing data sources so they account for all carbon pools, especially soil
organic carbon.
CHECKLIST 7
NDC Implementation
Implementing your NDC targets for BCE usually requires concise and multi-layered planning
and the creation of an inducive regulatory and institutional (governance) framework. Please
take into consideration the time-frame required to strengthen the legal and governance
systems. Relevant steps include:
a. Often, mangroves are included in REDD+ approaches, and it is

important to clarify to what extent BCE-specific targets on conservation
1. Review the integration of BCE and restoration are compatible with REDD+ targets and whether
in your REDD+ framework reference level calculations include BCE (or mangroves) in full.
(if applicable). b. Often, soil carbon accounting is excluded from REDD+ forest reference
levels. Make sure that are included and specify dates by when this
will happen.
a. The strategy should come with a list of (priority) interventions and

project-sites.
b. It should clarify administrative responsibilities and mandates, including
for engaging in RBCF and/or blue carbon project finance, if applicable.
2. Develop a bespoke Blue Carbon c. It should set out predictable investment parameters for the private
strategy that includes a list of sector, which include clarity on land-based carbon rights and the
actions as well as financing authority to transfer emission reductions/removals and the underlying
opportunities (see below carbon rights, as well as clarity on land tenure, community involvement,
Checklist 9). and benefit sharing.
d. It should address structural drivers of degradation and conflicting land
use. And
e. It should present a template for how to use the Blue Carbon investment
framework (see Checklist 9 below).
3. BCE needs to be valuated for the ecosystem services they provide. That includes GHG mitigation services but
covers adaptation-focused services as well as other services to coastal communities and others. CWON 2.0 has
made a strong start with valuating mangroves. It should be extended to cover other BCE in the future.
Development
Checklist
Framework
4. Key planning tools are marine

spatial planning (MSP) and a. Check if your country or its regions have MSP/ICZM procedures and
integrated coastal zone capacity in place.
management (ICZM). b. Check to what extent BCE conservation, restoration and management
It is recommended to use the are part of these procedures and enshrined as decisive planning and
Marine Spatial Planning Toolkit: management objectives.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/ c. Check what role valuation plays for MSP/ICZM.
programs/problue/publication/ d. Check what level of regulatory compliance MSP/ICZM gives rise to
marine-spatial-planning-for- and how compliance for BCE conservation and restoration targets can
a-resilient-and-inclusive-blue- be improved.
economy-toolkit
5. The recognition of land tenure and a. Check how land tenure over BCE is defined in your country.
community tenure is essential b. Check what role fishing and other coastal communities have for
for the success of many planned BCE use and management.
BC interventions. c. Check community governance and stewardship options.
a. Lack of planning capacity and funding are often systemic and should be
tackled as a priority (see this Checklist 7 and Checklist 8).
b. Uncertain and limited legal protection – including with respect to
6. Establish a comprehensive list
special protection regimes (marine protected areas or “MPAs” and
of bottlenecks and concerns
community governance – represent another frequent bottleneck of
and keep the list updated
structural nature.
through implementation.
c. So do gaps in knowledge (of BCE maps, drivers and magnitude
of degradation, economic value), and so do limitations in
comprehensive monitoring.
CHECKLIST 8
Developing and Incorporating Governance Models
Successful governance models will commonly incorporate the following:
1 TECHNICAL GOVERNANCE – 2 POLICY GOVERNANCE– 3 FINANCIAL

It is important to employ a team to This team will guide implementation, focus GOVERNANCE–
handle all necessary data, such as on creating a functional decision-making Focus on distributing
carbon stock values or spatial data on process and will help ensure inter-magisterial funding in line with
ecosystem extent. This team is integral cooperation and participation. Effective appropriate benefits
to ensuring Section 1 of the decision communication with all magisterial groups sharing arrangements.
tree is fully built out. This unit will managing or working nearby coastal wetlands
handle: FRL/ FRLE calculations, MRV, will be critical to ensuring permanence of carbon
and other activities. stocks in restoration or conservation projects, as
one example.
Development
Checklist
Framework
4 PRIVATE SECTOR ENGAGEMENT– 5 COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE –
It is paramount to set out investment parameters and the governance Community involvement, input and engagement
framework for engaging the private sector (establishing the “rules are crucial, and identifying a community role
and the structures of the game”) defining involvement in planning and within any project is important to ensure the
decision making and address key aspects, notably carbon rights, the permanence of carbon stocks, especially when
authority to, and the terms for (including in terms of taxes), transfer(ing) restoration or conservation is involved.
emission reductions/removals and the underlying carbon rights, and that
define models for the involvement of communities and benefit sharing.
PILLAR3
FINANCE
LEVERAGE BLUE CARBON INVESTMENT
CHECKLIST 9
Developing a Carbon Finance and Investment Framework
Any such framework should start with an assessment of how existing funding flows (including
government, and private funded ones) benefit or disadvantage BCE. It is recommended to
apply the Blue Public Expenditure Review: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/
en/789491639977748921/pdf/Blue-Public-Expenditure-Review-Guidance-Note.pdf
a. MPA design and management

b. Law enforcement
1. Check for positive flows:
c. Capacity-building
d. Sustainable supply chain investment, and more
2. Check for negative flows:

a. Subsidies into industrial fishing
recommended publication as
b. Subsidies for non-sustainable aquaculture
guidance https://openknowledge.
c. Agricultural subsidies that incentivize the extension of farmland
worldbank.org/entities/
d. Agricultural subsidies that incentivize the overuse of fertilizers
publication/4217c71d-6cbc-
e. Other.
46b6-942c-3e4651900d29
Development
Checklist
Framework
3. Then, survey financing approaches

and sources/instruments
a. Existing, planed, or potential investments in restoration, conservation,
Recommended literature
or sustainable management of BCEs.
as guidance: https://
Note: Promote private sector initiatives and create institutional
thedocs.worldbank.org/en/
structures for private sector and community involvement. Use of
doc/916781601304630850-
mechanisms such as Article 6
0120022020/original
b. Jurisdictional REDD+/RBCF
FinanceforNature28Se
c. Concessional instruments (including blended finance models)
pwebversion.pdf
d. Non-concessional models (including payment for ecosystem services
https://documents1.
and innovative business)
worldbank.org/curated/
en/099060123121542587/pdf/
a. Carbon finance and the use of markets

b. Taxes, fees, charges
c. Definition and allocation of carbon rights
d. Government mandate for carbon trading (especially for government
4. Set out stable investment
owned coastal lands)
parameters for the private sector
e. Models for community involvement and benefit sharing for Benefit
sharing arrangements please visit https://www.worldbank.org/en/
topic/climatechange/brief/enable-enhancing-access-to-benefits-
while-lowering-emission
a. Are there plans to use blended finance, i.e., funding that combines public and
private funds?
b. Can private finance be mobilized for blue carbon project development? (consider
private sector engagement for operational costs, restoration, management, etc)
Recommended IFC report: Deep Blue: Opportunities for blue carbon finance in
5. The actual coastal ecosystems https://climatefocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/
implementation and DeepBlue-OpportunitiesforBlueCarbonFinanceinCoastalEcosystems-
scale-up will be linked Optimized.pdf
to the deployment
of actual financing i. Is a regulatory framework in place for
b. Are structures and templates
tools: government- public-private partnerships?
available to guide the design
driven and private ii. Can you use MDB-funded programs to
and implementation of blended
sector-focused. promote blended finance opportunities
finance opportunities?
for BCE?
c. Are independent debt finance solutions being drawn up, or can they been drawn
up? Blue bonds and debt-for-nature swap agreements with a focus on BCE would
be prominent examples.
Development
Checklist
Framework
i. Can the current legal and regulatory

framework accommodate Article 6
transactions, and is this desirable?
ii. What needs to be put in place to
create enabling environment for
Article 6 transactions?
iii. Should rules be adopted regarding
approval of programs, monitoring,
reporting and verification (MRV) of blue
a. Consider prioritizing BCE for
carbon ERs, authorization of ITMOs,
Article 6 Paris Agreement
registries, corresponding adjustments for
programs Consider prioritizing
Article 6 activities?
BCE for Article 6 Paris
iv. Is there a comprehensive legal and
Agreement programs and
regulatory framework that specifies
transactions. and transactions.
who owns blue carbon ERs, and how
6. Does your country
related property rights and interests
plan to use carbon
can be transferred domestically
markets for BCE
and/or internationally?
interventions?
v. Does the relevant agency have the
capacity to access blue carbon ER
markets, engage with potential buyers
or brokers, and negotiate agreements for
their sale?
b. Consider incentivizing the i. Earmarking government-owned land for

development of voluntary carbon market integration
carbon projects through ii. Creating administrative powers and
responsibilities to engage in voluntary
carbon markets
iii. Consider the adoption of a BCE project
recognition procedure that provides
developers with a guarantee to perform
corresponding adjustments.
MORE INFORMATION
[email protected] worldbank.org/problue
Development
A P P E N DIC E S
Appendix 2: Blue Carbon Habitats
A.
Established Blue Carbon systems
Mangroves
Mangroves are a group of trees that grow in coastal in 2012, with Indonesia, Brazil, Malaysia, and Papua
saltwater zones in at least 124 tropical and subtropical New Guinea accounting for 50 percent of the stock.
countries around the globe (Spalding et al. 2010; Giri et More recently, Kauffman et al. (2020) estimated that
al. 2011). They are the only trees in the world that can mangroves globally store about 11.7 Pg C, based on
tolerate salt water and excrete the excess salt through soil profiles greater than 1 meter in depth. Globally,
their leaves. Often located at the boundary between 20 to 35 percent of mangroves were lost between
land and sea, mangroves are among the most carbon- 1980 and 2000 (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
rich tropical forests and cover an approximate global 2005; Polidoro et al. 2010), although deforestation
extent of 14,735,900 hectares (ha) (Bunting et al. trends seem to have decreased since the turn of the
2022). Estimates suggest that mangroves can store twentieth century: from a mighty 2 percent or more in
on average between 6 and 8 Mg Coe ha annually—
−1
global annual losses to a (still substantial) 0.4 percent.
about two to four times as much as mature tropical The main causes of loss include conversion to
forests. Because of threats in tropical regions, and agriculture; development of industrial and urban areas;
because of the potential overlap with REDD+ programs, conversion to fish and shrimp ponds; logging for wood
mangroves have received particular attention as a and charcoal; and conversion to open water due to
Blue Carbon mitigation opportunity. Fifteen countries climate change (Servino et al. 2018; Sippo et al. 2018).
contain 75 percent of all mangrove areas globally (Fries Most of today’s emissions occur in Southeast Asia
et al. 2019). A global study by Hamilton and Fries (0.18 percent per year; Richards and Friess 2016),
(2018) estimated mangrove carbon stock (assuming though hotspots in deforestation rates can be traced
1 meter soil depth) over the period 2000 to 2012. They also in Latin America and Africa.
estimated global mangrove carbon stocks of 4.19 Pg C
Development
Tidal salt marshes
Tidal salt marshes are formed by an accumulation (Colombano et al. 2021; Gilby et al. 2021). Emissions
of mineral sediments and organic material, which is from converted tidal salt marshes on organic soils can
then flooded with salty tidal waters. These marshes be prolonged, with examples from locations such as the
accumulate almost all of their carbon in their soils drained agricultural soils of Sacramento-San Joaquin
(which can be several meters deep) at a rate up to Delta continuing for over a century (Deverel and
55 times faster than tropical rainforests, and—under Leighton 2010). Emissions patterns resemble those
optimal conditions—can store it for thousands of from peat forests, with emissions continuing decades—
years (McLeod et al. 2011). Tidal marshes have if not centuries—after initial conversion to agriculture.
not systematically been mapped globally, though
technology exists to do so. A total estimated tidal salt In most industrialized countries, tidal marshes are
marsh extent of 5,495,089 ha is provided by McOwen heavily degraded. The installation of levees, train
et al. (2017), of which 4,548,200 ha are non-arctic tracks, and roads has severed the connection to the
tidal salt marshes (Greenberg 2006). Tidal marshes are sea and altered the hydrology. Apart from draining and
largely found outside of the tropics, with those in the filling, tidal marshes are diked, grazed, harvested for
United States (1,723,410 ha), Canada (111,274 ha), fodder, and otherwise used for agriculture. The loss of
Europe (356,947 ha), and Australia (1,325,854 ha) tidal marsh habitats resulting from these disturbances
enjoying a relatively high level of regulatory protection. can result in Blue Carbon loss through greenhouse gas
For these countries, inventories of change exist. (GHG) emissions back into the atmosphere (Beckett
Argentina (118,870 ha), Mexico (272,527 ha), and et al. 2016; Himes-Cornell et al. 2018).
Russia (700,719 ha) host major extents of tidal salt
marshes with lesser degrees of protection. Southern While there is comprehensive data on human-induced
Brazil and Uruguay (37,858 ha) hold extents of marshes habitat losses, including the impact on carbon stocks,
within estuaries. for a number of estuaries, jurisdiction-wide information
and information on global degradation (ongoing
The sustainability of tidal salt marshes as a carbon annual losses and carbon flux changes) is less readily
sink is continuously threatened by environmental available. While protecting and maintaining tidal salt
disturbances, linked to both human-driven changes in marshes to avoid GHG emissions is a high priority for
land use and global climate change (Gilby et al. 2021). climate change mitigation efforts, quantification of their
Land-use changes affect the supply of freshwater, carbon stocks and flux changes is equally as important
nutrients, and sediments from coastal watersheds to minimize carbon loss.
to tidal salt marshes, influencing carbon cycling
Development
Seagrasses
Seagrasses are slender, green, underwater flowering At the global scale, seagrasses are estimated to
plants that form extensive meadows in shallow coastal annually sequester 4.2 to 19.9 Pg C (Fourqurean et
waters worldwide and accumulate carbon—almost all al. 2012). However, seagrasses still represent the
of which is stored in soils measuring, in some species, largest source of uncertainty in global Blue Carbon
up to four meters. As a coastal ecosystem, seagrass stocks and inventories owing to incomplete and
plays a significant role in purifying ocean water; poorly resolved maps of seagrass extent and changes
battling disease; supporting food security; protecting in extent (Chmura et al. 2016; Oreska et al. 2018).
coastlines; and storing carbon (United Nations There is a lack of detailed baseline information on
Environment Programme (UNEP) 2020). Seagrass former coverage extent, and mapping is challenged
meadows are often largest in estuaries and bays where by the submerged nature of seagrasses. Carbon-
harbors and cities are conjoined. It is estimated that stock data is globally patchy and shows a high degree
seagrasses globally store 140 Mg organic carbon of regional heterogeneity (Fourqurean et al. 2012).
per hectare in the top meter of soils, accumulated With that caveat in mind, seagrass loss is believed to
over centennial-millennial time-scales, and that be significant (29 percent global loss since 1980s),
the seagrass beds are up to 40 times more efficient resulting in emissions of potentially 0.65 Gt CO2 per
at capturing organic carbon than land forests’ soils year, according to Hoegh-Guldberg et al. (2018).
(Serrano et al. 2021). This is roughly equivalent to the annual emissions
of the entire global shipping industry (UNEP 2020).
Seagrass habitats represent a significant carbon With 40 percent of the world’s population living in
sink in the global carbon cycle, with meadows found coastal areas (Seas and Plans 2011), the magnitude
from subpolar to tropical climatic zones (Duarte of human pressure on seagrasses is increasing.
et al. 2005). Meadows cover an estimated area of Exacerbated by global climate change, this means that
between 16,000,000 and 60,000,000 ha (Oreska seagrasses continue to be lost at a rate of 1.4 percent
et al. 2020; McKenzie et al. 2020), though modeling per year (Short et al. 2011).
studies of potential seagrass area hint that this may
be a substantial underestimation (Jayathilake and The 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement (IPCC, 2014)
Costello 2018). Australia has the most extensive allows reporting of GHG emissions or sequestration
areas (8,301,300 ha), representing 31 percent of from seagrass conversion and restoration in country
global known seagrass area, followed by Indonesia national inventories, and carbon standards have
(3,000,000 ha), and the Gulf of Mexico (1,934,900 ha) been developed as well so that restoration projects
(Green et al. 2003; McKenzie et al. 2020). Seagrasses can benefit from carbon credits (for example, the
are spread across 209 countries and territories located Verified Carbon Standard since 2015). However, there
within global seagrass bioregions, including along the are mainly gaps in data, regulations, and incentives
Mediterranean and East African coast, and elsewhere that prevent their implementation. Notably, no
(McKenzie et al. 2020). emissions reduction projects for seagrasses have been
carried out to date.
Development
B.
Emerging Blue Carbon systems
Seaweeds
Seaweeds, another macro algae, are plant-like the deep ocean for extended time periods, seaweeds
organisms that generally live attached to rocks or are globally relevant contributors to oceanic carbon
other hard substrates in coastal areas. Seaweeds sinks and can help combat the local impacts of ocean
capture a significant amount of CO2 from the marine acidification (Duarte and Krause-Jensen 2022; Yong
environment and provide various ecosystem services, et al. 2022). With these new findings about seaweeds’
including bioremediation of coastal pollutants, involvement in carbon storage, seaweed is now
coastal protection, food security and carbon storage. emerging as a nature-based climate-change- mitigation
Despite all these benefits, seaweeds have not been strategy, because seaweeds are incredibly efficient at
incorporated into Blue Carbon strategies or seriously absorbing CO2: they pull more GHG from the water than
evaluated as a permanent carbon sink because seagrasses, mangroves, and salt marshes combined,
of the preconception that seaweed decomposes based on biomass (Krause-Jensen and Duarte 2016).
completely in the ocean and does not store carbon. Seaweed farming has a potential carbon sequestration
However, several studies (Krause-Jensen and Duarte intensity of about 1500 tCO2/km2/year (Duarte and
2016; Duarte and Cebrian 2017; Barron and Duarte Krause-Jensen, 2017), highlighting its role as a major
2015) have suggested that, since a considerable player in climate- change mitigation (with challenges,
part of seaweed production gets exported outside however, on securing permanence).
its natural habitat and remains as shelf sediments in
Kelp forests
Kelp forests are extensive underwater habitats much as 80 percent of their production (Krumhansl and
dominated by large algae and they cover a narrow strip Scheibling 2012), much of which leaves the nearshore
along 26 percent of the world’s coasts (Wernberg and and gets stored in the deep sea as allochthonous
Filbee-Dexter 2019). They grow in dense groups, much detritus (Ortega et al. 2019). Research has shown
like a forest on land, and provide food and shelter for that Australia’s kelp forests contribute to more than
thousands of fish, invertebrates, and marine mammals. 30 percent of the total Blue Carbon sequestered by
Kelp forests harbor a variety of plants and animals. marshes, mangroves, and seagrass beds; and about
Many organisms use the thick leaves as safe shelter 3 percent of the total blue carbon worldwide (Filbee-
from predators or storms (Steneck and Johnson 2013). Dexter and Wernberg 2020). However, they are treated
It is still unclear to what extent kelp forests act as a as non-accumulating coastal vegetative ecosystems
sink (Johnson 2021), but they can sequester significant and are not considered by the IPCC as Blue Carbon
amounts of carbon. Kelp forests export on average as ecosystems (BCEs) (Macreadie et al. 2019). A key
Development
challenge of including kelp forests in Blue Carbon Similar to other BCEs, kelp forests have been declining
assessments and policy is accounting for carbon that globally, and this decline is projected to continue in the
is mainly stored as allochthonous detritus in the deep coming decades (Wernberg et al. 2019). Degradation
ocean, because it is difficult to trace the source to the does not stop at kelp forests: in the North Atlantic alone,
site of storage. There is a risk of overestimating the ocean warming has caused 85 to 99 percent of kelp
carbon that ends up in other BCEs, and also because biomass to decline over the last 50 years (Filbee-Dexter
sink habitats in the open ocean do not fall within et al. 2016). At least 140,187 ha of Australian kelp
national jurisdictions (Macreadie et al. 2019). forests have been lost due to extreme marine heatwaves,
coastal pollution, and overgrazing by sea urchins and
herbivores (Wernberg et al. 2016; Verges et al. 2016).
Benthic (marine) sediments
If left undisturbed, seafloors hold vast amounts of to bottom trawling and dredging. Even in countries
carbon on geologic timescales: from thousands to with generous marine protected areas (MPAs) bottom
millions of years (Estes et al. 2019). Globally, seafloor trawling and dredging is permitted almost everywhere.
sediments are believed to store between 2239 and The UK, for instance, which protects some 300,000 km2
2391 Pg of carbon (C) in the top meter, or nearly twice of its territorial waters, bans trawling only in about
the carbon stocks in the top meter of terrestrial soils 5 percent of those areas (Marine Conservation Society
(Atwood et al. 2020). The amount of C stored within 2020). Ninety-nine percent of fish caught by bottom
exclusive economic zones (EEZ)—the 200 nautical trawlers is caught in EEZ waters (Steadman, D. et al.
mile area (from the coast) for which coastal nations 2021). Within the EEZ, the average trawling intensity in
hold special rights—is roughly the same as the amount territorial seas is double the average trawling intensity
stored in the high seas (Atwood et al. 2020). in EEZ overall (ibidem).
A likely major cause for disturbance is bottom While significant uncertainties remain concerning
trawling, whereby large, weighted nets are dragged the quantitative atmospheric impact of trawling and
across the ocean floor, clear-cutting a swath of dredging (Pidgeon et al. 2021), tentative assessments
habitat in their wake. When that happens, sediment have been forthcoming. Hutto et al. (2021) estimate
becomes suspended, exposing organic carbon to that emissions are in the range of 36 million tons of
remineralization into the water column. The process carbon, or 132 million tCO2, every year. A feasibility
may also further acidify ocean water and thus reduce assessment—and draft methodology—tracing mitigation
the ocean’s capacity to absorb CO2 (Sala et al. 2021). benefits from avoided trawling is under way.
In terms of protection, there are few legal restrictions
Development
Coastal mud flats
Coastal mud flats (or tidal flats) are tidal habitats that Lee (2022) at 129.8 g C m2 yr−1, with the top-meter
are often adjacent to vegetated coastal wetlands. sediments containing on average 86.3 Mg C ha−1.
Accounting for at least 127,921 km2 across the Globally, the authors find that tidal flats can bury
Americas and Asia, they are areas of intertidal sand 6.8 Tg C (24.9 Tg CO2) per year and can store 0.9 Pg C
or mud accumulation on gently sloping coastlines (3.3 Pg CO2) in the top meter sediment. Assuming
with heavy sediment inflows (Murray et al. 2019). the same rate of tidal flats loss as in the past three
Like their vegetated peers, mud flats provide coastal decades, and assuming that all disturbed sediment
communities with critical ecosystem services, C is re-mineralized, 4.8 Tg C are lost from mud-
including storm and shoreline protection and flat sediments annuallyequivalent to emissions of
food production. Mud flats have generally high C 17.6 Tg CO2 to the water column and atmosphere.
sequestration capacity, similar to that of vegetated The calculations come with several caveats. The
coastal ecosystems—especially in estuaries where current datasets are limited; the knowledge about
the hydrodynamic environment promotes C burial and CO2 and other GHG emissions from lost mud flats is
riverine sediment supply provides large quantities of particularly limited; and the (long-term) temporal
organic matter. Their global average carbon stock and trajectories for carbon storage require more analysis.
accumulation rate has been calculated by Chen and
Development
A P P E N DIC E S
Appendix 3: Examples of
Multilateral Funding for Oceans
Examples of blue/coastal projects from international funding agencies

Table 7 (top five in each case)
Amount
Name Where (US$ million) Type Approved
WORLD BANK
Mangroves for Coastal Resilience Project Indonesia 400 Grant 2022
Blue Economy Program for Results Morocco 350 Loan 2022
National Cyclone Risk Mitigation Program–II India 308 Loan 2015
Sustainable Coastal and Marine Fisheries Bangladesh 240 Loan 2018
West Africa Coastal Areas Resilience Western and 190 120 Loan / 2018
Investment Project Central Africa 70 Grant
GREEN CLIMATE FUND
Global Fund for Coral Reefs Global 125 Equity 2021
Integrated Flood Management to Enhance Samoa 57,7 Grant 2016

Climate Resilience
Enhancing Climate Resilience of India’s India 43,4 Grant 2018

Coastal Communities
Coastal Adaptation Project (TCAP) Tuvalu 36 Grant 2016
Enhancing Climate Change Adaptation in Egypt 31,4 Grant 2018

the North Coast and Nile Delta Regions
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITY
Blue Nature Alliance to Expand and Improve Global 22,6 Grant 2021
Conservation of 1.25 Billion Hectares of
Ocean Ecosystems
Development
Amount
Name Where (US$ million) Type Approved
Protecting and Restoring the Ocean’s Regional / 15,4 Grant 2021

Natural Capital, Building Resilience and Caribbean
Supporting Region-Wide Investments
for Sustainable Blue Socio-Economic
Development (PROCARIBE+)
Pacific I2I Regional Project: Ocean Health Regional 15 Grant 2021

for Ocean Wealth—The Voyage to a Blue
Economy for the Blue Pacific Continent
Mainstreaming Sustainable Marine Fisheries Global 11 Grant 2022

Value Chains into the Blue Economy of the
Canary Current and the Pacific Central
American Coastal Large Marine Ecosystems
Blue Pacific Finance Hub: Investing in Regional 9 Grant 2022

Resilient Pacific SIDS Ecosystems and
Economies
ADAPTATION FUND
Climate Change Adaptation in Vulnerable Argentina, Uruguay 14 Grant 2019

Coastal Cities and Ecosystems of the
Uruguay River
Reducing Climate Vulnerability and Flood Chile, Ecuador 14 Grant 2018

Risk in Coastal Urban and Semi-Urban Areas
in Cities in Latin America
Enhancing the Resilience of the Agricultural Jamaica 10 Grant 2012

Sector and Coastal Areas to Protect
Livelihoods and Improve Food Security
Reducing Vulnerability by Focusing Costa Rica 10 Grant 2014

on Critical Sectors (Agriculture, Water
Resources and Coastlines) in order to
Reduce the Negative Impacts of Climate
Change and Improve the Resilience of
these Sectors
Adaptation to the Impacts of Climate Peru 7 Grant 2016

Change on Peru’s Coastal Marine Ecosystem
and Fisheries
Development
A P P E N DIC E S
Appendix 4: Blue Carbon Projects

(Global)
The following list shows existing wetland carbon projects (registered, under validation, or under development),
structured along the different international standards:
I.
Verified Carbon Standard
The most concentrated project portfolio is provided by the Verified Carbon Standard.
Table 8 Existing wetland carbon projects (Verified Carbon Standard)
Methodology Annual emission

and year of Size reductions /
ID: Project Name Country registration Activities (hectares) removals (tCO2eq)
1318: Livelihoods’ Senegal AR-AM0014 ARR; Mangrove 10,415 30,000

Mangrove (2014) reforestation (228,542 issued in
Restoration Grouped 2021)
Project
1463: India West Bengal AR-AM0014 ARR; Mangrove 4,675 51,249

Sunderbans (India) (2019) reforestation (119,139 issued in
Mangrove 2018)
Restoration
1493: Mangrove Indonesia AR-AM0014 ARR; Mangrove 1,000 124,706

Restoration and (Registered) reforestation (125,391 issued in
Coastal Greenbelt 2019)
Protection in the
East Coast of Aceh
and North Sumatra
Province
Development

1760: The Haidar Senegal AR-AMS0003 ARR; Mangrove 2,000 30,170

el Ali Mangrove (Under reforestation
Initiative (HEAMI) development)
1764: Reforestation Myanmar AR-AM0014 ARR/WRC; 2,100 184,006

and Restoration of (Ayeyarwaddy (2018) Mangrove (59,299 issued in
Degraded Mangrove Division) reforestation 2020)
Lands
2088: Mangrove Myanmar AR-AM0014 ARR/WRC; 2,100 (4,500 403,831

Restoration and (Ayeyarwaddy (Registration Mangrove in PD)
Sustainable Division) requested) reforestation
Development in
Myanmar
2250: Delta Blue Pakistan VM0033 (2021) ARR/WRC; 350,000 2,407,629

Carbon - 1 Mangrove (224,997 in
reforestation PD)
2290: Blue Carbon Colombia VM0007 (2021) Mangrove 7,561 31,310

Project Gulf of conservation
Morrosquillo “Vida
Manglar”
2330: Protection Colombia VM0015 (Under REDD; Mangrove 64,000 460,000

of mangroves validation) conservation
and community
developmental
activities in the
biodiversity hotspot
of Colombia
2343: Zhanjiang China AR-AM0014 ARR; Mangrove 380 4,020

Mangrove (Guangdong (2021) reforestation (6,534 verified in
Afforestation Project Province) 2021)
2360: Virginia Coast Virginia, USA VM0033 (Under WRC; Seagrass 66,452 1349
Reserve Seagrass development) restoration
restoration Project
2395: OKI REDD+ Indonesia AR-AM0014; Mangrove 23,500 181,986

Project (South Sumatra) VM0007; AR- conservation and
ACM0003 (2019) reforestation
2406: Senegal Senegal VM0007 (Under ARR/REDD/ 42 2,547

and West Africa development) WRC; Mangrove
Mangrove restoration and
Programme conservation
Development

2518: Carbon Mexico VM0007 (Under Mangrove 49,387 3,123,836

Sequestration in development) reforestation and
Mangroves of the conservation
South – Central
Coastal Zone of the
State of Sinaloa
2568: Hainan China AR-AM0014 ARR; Mangrove 192 75,796

Lingshui Mangrove (Registration reforestation
Blue Carbon Project requested)
2792: Mangrove Myanmar AR-AM0014 ARR; Mangrove 1,003 77,130

Restoration and (Ayeyarwaddy (Under reforestation
Sustainable Division) development)
Development in
Myanmar
2842: Restoring Mexico VM0033 (Under ARR/WRC; 32,914 868,302

Mangroves in development) Mangrove
Mexico’s Blue reforestation
Carbon ecosystems
2500: Bonos del Yucatan, Mexico VM0033 (Under ARR/WRC; 5,060 48,518
Jaguar Azul development) Mangrove
reforestation
2834: Mangrove Senegal AR-AM0014 ARR/WRC; 7,020 95,470

Restoration Project (Under validation) Mangrove
with Sine Saloum reforestation
and Casamance
Communities
3142: Blue Forest Mozambique VM0007 (Under ARR/REDD; 183,000 2,965,555

and Mozambique: development) Mangrove
Building Africa’s conservation and
Largest Mangrove reforestation
Restoration Project
3357: Climate Sri Lanka AM0014 (Under Mangrove 1,000 65,000

Resilient and development) afforestation
Community
Driven Mangrove
Afforestation Project
Development
II.
Plan Vivo
Plan Vivo, a boutique international standard tailored to focus more heavily on the positive social impact of carbon
projects, as well as to accommodate smaller projects, has three wetland projects in its portfolio.
Table 9 Existing wetland carbon projects (Plan Vivo)

Project Name Country registration Activities (hectares) removals (tCO2eq)
Mikoko Pamoja Kenya Plan Vivo Avoided 125 9,880

(project-specific deforestation and (by 2021)
calculation) forest restoration;
reforestation and
forest protection;
restoration of
eroded beach area
Tahiry Honko Madagascar Plan Vivo Mangrove 1,400 1,375

(project-specific) conservation and (none yet issued)
restoration
Vanga Blue Forest Kenya Plan Vivo 460 5,000

(project-specific) (none yet issued)
Development
III.
American Carbon Registry and Climate
Action Reserve
In North America, both the American Carbon Registry (ACR) and the Climate Action Reserve (CAR) have coastal
wetland projects in their pipeline.
American Carbon Registry
Table 10 Existing wetland carbon projects (American Carbon Registry)

ACR410 United States The Restoration Restoring 693 6,500

of California palustrine
Deltaic and emergent
Coastal Wetlands, wetlands on
Version 1.1 Sherman and
Twitchell Islands,
similar to those
that existed in the
early part of the
last century
ACR430 United States Restoration of Raising water 44,920 16,000

Pocosin Wetlands levels in drained (over 20 years)
wetlands
Three cancelled projects: ACR 364 (Restoration of Coastal Wetland Forest in Louisiana); ACR 397 (Forested Wetland
Assimilation in the Mississippi Delta); and ACR414 (Quimby Island / Western Delta Wetlands Restoration)
Development
Climate Action Reserve
Table 11 Existing wetland carbon projects (Climate Action Reserve)

CAR1428 Mexico Mexico Forest Mangrove 692 6,000

Protocol restoration (mangrove (estimate)
(version 1.5) element)
CAR1429 Mexico Mexico Forest Mangrove 1,200 Not known

Protocol restoration
(version 1.5)
IV.
Blue Carbon credit schemes (Japan)
Table 12 Existing wetland carbon projects (Japan)

Project Name Country registration Activities (hectares) removals (tCO2eq)
Yokahama Blue Japan IPCC and Kuwae Fossil fuel Not known to Not known to
Carbon Project et al. (2019) reduction by authors authors
fishing boats,
management of
eelgrass beds,
wakame kelp
Fukuoka City Japan IPCC and Kuwae Eelgrass beds Not known to Not known to
et al. (2019) authors authors
Offset Crediting Japan IPCC and Kuwae Eelgrass and 10.6 ha.
Demonstration by the et al. (2019) Sargassum beds
Japanese National
Government (J-Blue
Credit): Yokohama Bay
Side Marina
Development
A P P E N DIC E S
Appendix 5: Methodological Details

(Blue Carbon)
Blue Carbon methodologies—notably Verra’s VM0033 methodology (an updated version was released in
and VM007—are not unlike methodologies developed 2021) vastly expanded the scope of Blue Carbon
for forestry projects. They apply the same, or similar, interventions available under the earlier (Clean
considerations for the assessment of baseline scenarios, Development Mechanism-recognized) Blue Carbon
carbon stocks in biomass, and leakage emissions methodology for afforestation and reforestation of
from activity shifting. This includes (for conservation mangroves. With VM0033, a wide set of activities—
projects) the fundamental consideration that a project including removal of tidal barriers to re-wet degraded
developer must demonstrate a real, immediate, and marshlands; improvement of water quality to
site-specific threat of deforestation or degradation. increase seagrass habitats; sustainable use of
For restoration projects, it means that the project must dredged materials; and re-introduction of native plant
be implemented on degraded tidal wetlands, or mud communities in tidal wetlands—have become eligible
flats, or shallow open water, in which establishment of to generate VCUs, thereby generating a new source
wetland ecologic conditions is not expected to occur in of funding.
the absence of the project activity (see Table 2).
VM007 (“REDD+ Methodological Framework”)
However, specific components are distinctly different received an update (1.6) in 2020, expanding its set
when assessing other carbon pools—notably soil— as of modules on the quantification of GHG-emission
well as dynamics such as the effects of sea-level rise reductions and removals to include tidal wetlands at
(as the tidal zone may shift landward), ecological risk of deforestation or degradation. The modules in
leakage (changes to adjacent areas due to hydrological question are:1
connectivity), carbon stocks in tidal wetland soils, and
methane emissions. • VMD0050: Estimation of baseline carbon stock
changes and GHG emissions in tidal wetland
In 2015, the Methodology for Tidal Wetland and restoration and conservation projects
Seagrass Restoration (VM0033) became the first • VMD0051: Methods for monitoring carbon stock
globally applicable greenhouse gas-accounting changes and GHG emissions in tidal wetland
methodology for coastal wetland restoration, allowing restoration and conservation project activities
tidal wetland restoration projects—specifically • VMD0052: Demonstration of additionality of
mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrasses—to generate tidal wetland restoration and conservation
VCS carbon credits (Verified Carbon Units or “VCUs”) project activities.
based on any effective restoration activity. The new
1 Accessible here.
Development
While most Blue Carbon projects to date operate The methodologies address the key technical
2
under the older CDM methodology (AR-AM0014), parameters—including on additionality, permanence,
all projects listed after 2022 must utilize VM0033 and leakage:
or VM007 or—in the future—the consolidated tidal
wetland conservation and restoration methodology
(under development).
BOX
29 Concept of additionality3
A carbon finance concept is the ambition is put in doubt, and any claimed that the additionality in about
principle of additionality. It allows offsetting function really increases 85 percent of CDM projects across a
carbon finance to come in only for the overall emissions balance. range of sectors—excluding the land-
interventions that would not have Second, it addresses the need for use sector—was in doubt (Cames et al
occurred in the absence of carbon efficient resource allocation. Carbon 2016). The study ascribes this to the
market incentives—in other words, finance should be a means to an end. wide availability and cost-efficiency of
that they were not the most likely Allocating it to interventions that relevant low-carbon technologies as
or profitable option and there have no need creates an inefficient an alternative.
were barriers to implementation. windfall for the recipient and leaves
The underlying rationale behind legitimate beneficiaries with less cash The question of additionality becomes
the additionality principle is to distribute. particularly acute—and contentious—
twofold.4 First, it is an expression of when the mitigation activity involves
environmental integrity, specifically While the motivation is clear, the commercial usage such as industrial
in the context of carbon crediting issue in practice is one of the most processes; renewable energy
(offsetting). If an intervention that contentious ones for carbon markets. generation; and energy efficiency
would be realized in the normal A 2016 study for the flagship crediting measures; but, also, sustainable
course of action is accounted for standard of the Kyoto Protocol, the agriculture and sustainable
as a mitigation effort, the latter’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), forest management.
BLUE CARBON RELEVANCE
For interventions on habitat technology, and capacity- building) for forest as much as for wetland
conservation and restoration, the are typically too high to make these restoration. These include that project
risk of non-additionality—if it exists approaches viable without carbon or developers must provide evidence
at all—is much lower. While there other finance. VM0033 and VM007 that land was not cleared to generate
are approaches on the commercial deem conservation and restoration carbon credits. This condition is
and sustainable use of mangrove, activities as additional (positive list) deemed met if clearing happened
salt marsh and seagrass products, (Verra 2021a). Note, however, that 10 years or more before the project
the barriers (on investment/finance, special eligibility criteria apply— start date.
3 Cf. Streck 2020; for ecological leakage cf. VCS Module VMD0044: Estimation of emissions from ecological leakage (LK-ECO).
4 World Bank 2016, “Carbon Credit and Additionality. Past, Present, and Future” (PMR Technical Paper).
2 AR-AM0014: Afforestation and reforestation of degraded mangrove habitats (version 1.0 of 2011; version 2.0 of 2012; and version 3.0 of 2013, at
https://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/DB/KMH6O8T6RL3P5XKNBQE2N359QG7KOE.
Development
BOX
30 Concept of leakage5
Leakage refers to the scenario that intervention leads to a significant commercial degradation agents
an activity within the intervention increase of GHG emissions outside the (commercial agriculture, aquaculture,
boundary triggers greenhouse gas intervention boundaries. or commercial logging). The risk of
(GHG) emissions on lands outside of this form of (“secondary”) leakage is
the intervention boundary. Leakage must be monitored and particularly high where markets for
controlled by mitigating (in lieu of forest land and wetland commodities
Two common forms are activity- simply displacing) the drivers of (for instance, shrimp or palm oil) are
shifting leakage and market-leakage. degradation. With respect to the inelastic, and when compensatory
Activity-shifting leakage occurs when risk of activity-shifting leakage, technology that would allow for
activities inside the project boundary primary (in particular community- sustainable intensification or
(for example, land conversion) driven) degradation calls for both development opportunities is absent.
relocate outside of the boundary. alternative resource strategies
Market leakage occurs when project (such as more efficient cookstoves Jurisdictional programs permit
activities affect an established market or solar energy sourcing to remove improved monitoring and accounting
for goods (such as farmed products) the incentive for the degradation for leakage (throughout the
and cause the substitution or agent to harvest biomass) and subnational region or the whole
replacement of that good elsewhere. close integration of communities in country, though not beyond). They
Land-based projects can also come the project (providing alternative also offer policy-level interventions
with the risk of ecological leakage livelihoods). More complicated are to address market leakage, which
where, due to the hydrological instances where degradation is project-level interventions typically
connectivity with adjacent areas, the market-driven and involves larger struggle to suppress.
The applicability conditions of (or else relevant emissions cannot be Restoration and Conservation (WRC))
VM0033 and VM007 (tidal wetlands) accounted for in the baseline) or the projects, evidence required that land
are structured to ensure that the land use can continue with the project was not cleared to generate carbon
different types of leakage must not (for example, reed or hay harvesting). credits—deemed met if clearing
occur. To prevent leakage, the project happened 10 years or more before the
must be free of any land use that could For Afforestation, Reforestation and project start date.
be displaced outside the project area Revegetation (ARR) and Wetland
5 Compare Streck (2020); for ecological leakage compare VCS Module VMD0044: Estimation of emissions from ecological leakage (LK-ECO).
Development
BOX
31 Ensuring permanence
Emissions into the atmosphere and will not be used as “offsets” (aiming storage in one-year intervals); or (the
land-based carbon removals are at carbon neutrality) and they are not most common approach among carbon
not commensurate. While there is destined to have a trading (long-term standards and the one applied by
certainty that greenhouse gas (GHG) commodity) value. Verra/VCS), backed by a buffer pool.
emissions add to the amount of GHG
in the atmosphere for centuries, there Second, the non-permanence issue The Verra buffer pool is open to
is no such certainty for removals. can be addressed through continued AFOLU projects that meet the
The carbon stock they are building and comprehensive accounting. eligibility conditions as per the VCS
may last forever undisturbed. Yet, if This strategy is tailored primarily Non-Permanence Risk Tool. Among
disturbed, the sequestered carbon to jurisdictional approaches (both the conditions is that a project
can easily get lost into the atmosphere LULUCF-focused and economy- developer can demonstrate project
(risk of reversal). wide) but may also be applied to longevity of at least 30 years. Once
project-level interventions in cases the eligibility is met, the risk must be
There are different strategies used by in which the accounting capacity is quantified as a share of credits issued
policy makers and voluntary-carbon- strong and granular enough to record (often 20 percent) and defined in the
market stakeholders.6 First, the intervention-level changes. When a project documentation. Every project
installation of separate carbon country—notably under its Nationally developer must then transfer, from
markets for credits considered Determined Contributions (NDCs— every credit issuance, the specific
permanent and those coming with commits to comprehensive emission- share into a collateral or “buffer”
the risk of non-permanence. This is reduction targets, while permitting account. The buffer guarantees that
a choice made, for instance, by the the use of credits (for results that the portion of credits issued and
EU policy makers, who distinguish go beyond the target), future carbon forwarded to the project developer
emissions trading systems for stock losses will show in the NDC can be treated as permanent. Should
energy- and industry-based emissions accounts, and the country remains the project for which “permanent”
(European Emissions Trading System liable to over-compensate in the credits have been issued, be
and the Effort Sharing Framework), future. Jurisdictional approaches also subsequently affected by a reversal
on the one hand, and a cap-and-trade come with the benefit that the risk of event, an equivalent number of units
system for land use, land-use change, selective reversals can be statistically will be released and retired from the
and forestry (LULUCF), on the other managed (accounted for). standard’s buffer account.
hand. The approach may also be
used by voluntary carbon markets. Third, a technique used primarily In practice, buffers have
Credit suppliers and credit buyers, by project-based carbon standards, demonstrated robust collateralization.
then, would be transparent about credits from activities with a risk of Indeed, Verra’s VCS buffer system has
the risk of reversal and recognize reversal can be issued as time-bound proved remarkedly resistant. By late
non-equivalence with permanent (the Clean Development Mechanism 2022, the buffer held more than
credit types. Removal credits are used temporary Certified Emission 60 million credits, collateralizing some
still recognized for their (at least Reductions); fragmented (the Climate 190 projects.7 A single cancellation
initial) mitigation results and their Action Reserve, for instance, allows has been registered (for less than
contribution to advancing on the 2050 “ton/year” accounting, a metric that 50,000 credits) so far; the registry
mitigation pathways. However, they traces the climatic benefit of carbon shows a few more instances, where
6 Compare Carbon Credit Quality Initiative, at https://carboncreditquality.org/resources.html.

7 Cf. Verra Registry 2022: https://registry.verra.org/app/search/VCS/Buffer (accessed on 14 August 2022).
Development
buffer credits have been put on hold, markets. Under this option, credit their contribution to advancing on the
pending investigation. suppliers and credit buyers are 2050 mitigation pathways. However,
transparent about the risk of reversal they will not be used as “offsets”
The fourth strategy shares similarities and recognize non-equivalence with (aiming at carbon neutrality) and they
with the regulator-focused strategy of permanent credit types. Removal are not destined to have a trading
designing separate trading systems credits are still recognized for their—at (long-term commodity) value.
but is tailored to voluntary carbon least initial—mitigation results and
The common risks of non-permanence

from natural and anthropogenic
sources mostly apply to Blue Carbon
projects. In addition, sea-level rise
presents risks of its own, and every
project under VM0033 must calculate
the impact from sea-level rise for
the project as well as mitigation
strategies. The claim of GHG emission
reductions restricted if conversion
to open water is expected before
t=100A.
Beyond applying relevant risk tools

and set-asides, isolated single-
category Blue Carbon restoration or
conservation projects in the coastal
zone are likely to face a significant
risk of failure, if they do not explore
landscape-scale interventions,
including the entire sub- to supra-tidal
sequence, and set out strategies for a
landward shift of coastal ecosystems
(Needelman et al. 2018).
Development
References and Bibliography
Akiwumi, P. (2022). Climate finance for SIDS is shockingly Conservation International. (N.D.) “Blue Carbon: Integrating
low: Why this needs to change. UNCTAD. Retrieved from Ocean Ecosystems in Global Climate Action.” Retrieved
https://unctad.org/news/blog-climate-finance-sids- from https://www.conservation.org/docs/default-source/
shockingly-low-why-needs-change [Accessed: May 15, 2023] publication-pdfs/blue-carbon-integrating-ocean-ecosystems-
october-2021a.pdf?Status=Master&sfvrsn=304117ec_2
Atwood, T. B., Witt, A., & Majorga, J., et al. (2020). “Global [Accessed: May 14, 2023]
Patterns in Marine Sediment Carbon Stocks.” Front. Mar. Sci.
Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ BNCFF (Blue Natural Capital Financing Facility). “Blue Bonds:
fmars.2020.00165/full [Accessed: May 10, 2023] Financing Resilience of Coastal Ecosystems.” Retrieved
from https://www.4climate.com/dev/wp-content/
Barbier, E. B., Koch, E. W., & Silliman, B. R., et al. (2008). uploads/2019/04/Blue-Bonds_final.pdf [Accessed: May 14,
“Coastal Ecosystem-Based Management with Nonlinear 2023]
Ecological Functions and Values.” Science 319, no. 5861
(2008): 321-323. Retrieved from www.sciencemag.org/cgi/ Brodeur, J., Cannizzo, Z., & Cross, J., et al. (2022). NOAA Blue
content/full/319/5861/321/DC1 [Accessed: May 10, 2023] Carbon White Paper. NOAA. Retrieved from https://repository.
library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/40456 [Accessed: May 10, 2023]
Barrón, C., & Duarte, C. M. (2015). Dissolved organic
carbon pools and export from the coastal ocean. Global Cames, M., Harthan, R. O., & Füssler, J., et al. (2016). “How
Biogeochemical Cycles, 29(10), 1725-1738. additional is the Clean Development Mechanism? Analysis of
the application of current tools and proposed alternatives.”
Bertram, C., Quaas, M., & Reusch, T. B. H., et al. (2021). Öko-Institut e.V. Retrieved from https://climate.ec.europa.
“The Blue Carbon Wealth of Nations.” Nature Climate Change eu/system/files/2017-04/clean_dev_mechanism_en.pdf
11 (2021): 704–709. Retrieved from [Accessed: May 10, 2023]
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01089-4
[Accessed: May 10, 2023] Chen, Z. L., & Lee, S. Y. (2022). “Tidal Flats as a Significant
Carbon Reservoir in Global Coastal Ecosystems.” Front.
Bhomia, R. K., Nofyanza, S., & Thürer, T., et al. (2021). Mar. Sci. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/
“Global Comparative Study on REDD+ story of change fmars.2022.900896/full [Accessed: May 10, 2023]
CIFOR’s science on wetlands for Indonesian measurement,
reporting and verification and forest reference emission level Chiriac, D., Vishnumolakala, H., & Rosane, P. (2022).
development.” Infobrief no. 328. Retrieved from “Landscape of Climate Finance for Agriculture, Forestry,
https://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/infobrief/8048- Other Land Uses and Fisheries.” Climate Policy Initiative.
infobrief.pdf [Accessed: May 10, 2023] Retrieved from https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-
https://www.thebluecarboninitiative.org/ [Accessed: content/uploads/2022/11/Landscape-of-Climate-Finance-
May 27, 2023] for-Agriculture-Forestry-Other-Land-Uses-and-Fisheries.pdf
[Accessed: May 10, 2023]
Development
Claes J., Hopman, D., & Jaeger, G., et al. (2022). Duarte, C. M., Dennison, W. C., & Orth R. J. W., et al. (2008).
“Blue Carbon: The potential of coastal and oceanic climate “The Charisma of Coastal Ecosystems: Addressing the
action.” McKinsey & Company. Retrieved from Imbalance.” Estuaries and Coasts 31, no. 2: 233–238.
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/business%20 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-008-9038-7 [Accessed:
functions/sustainability/our%20insights/blue%20carbon%20 May 11, 2023]
the%20potential%20of%20coastal%20and%20oceanic%20
climate%20action/blue-carbon-the-potential-of-coastal- Duarte, C. M., Gatusso, JP., & Hancke, K., et al. (2022). “Global
and-oceanic-climate-action-vf.pdf [Accessed: May 10, 2023] Estimates of the Extent and Production of Macroalgal Forests.”
Global Ecology & Biogeography 31, no. 7. Retrieved from
Conservation International (2022). Vida Minglar, Impact https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.13515 [Accessed: May 11, 2023]
Report. Retrieved from https://www.conservation.org/docs/
default-source/publication-pdfs/cispata-bay-mangroves- Estes, E. R., et al. (2019). “Persistent Organic Matter in Oxic
2022-impact-report.pdf?sfvrsn=2b5b6f4d_3 Subseafloor Sediment.” Nature Geoscience 12 126–131.
Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-
Clean Development Mechanism. “Afforestation and Reforestation 018-0291-5#citeas [Accessed: May 11, 2023]
Project Activities Implemented on Lands other than Wetlands.”
Retrieved from https://cdm.unfccc.int/UserManagement/ FAO (2020). “From Reference Levels to Results Reporting:
FileStorage/G7D639YWI0K1JBECMX84FH2TLNSVPO REDD+ under the United Nations Framework Convention
[Accessed: May 15, 2023] on Climate Change.” Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/3/
cb1635en/CB1635EN.pdf [Accessed: May 11, 2023]
De Paula Costa, M. D., Lovelock, C. E., & Waltham, N. J., et
al. (2021). “Current and Future Carbon Stocks in Coastal Filbee-Dexter, K., & Wernberg, T. (2020) “Substantial Blue
Wetlands within the Great Barrier Reef Catchments.” Global Carbon in Overlooked Australian Kelp Forests.”
Change Biology 14, no7. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi. Scientific Reports 10, no. 12341 (2020). Retrieved from
nlm.nih.gov/33864332/ [Accessed: May 11, 2023] https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69258-7 [Accessed:
May 11, 2023]
Deverel, S. J., & Leighton, D. A. (2010). “Historic, Recent,
and Future Subsidence, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, Fourqurean, J. W., Duarte, C. M., & Kennedy, H., et al. (2012).
California, USA”. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed “Seagrass ecosystems as a globally significant carbon stock.”.
Science 8, no 2. (2010). Retrieved from https://escholarship. Nature Geoscience 5, no. 7: 505-509.
org/uc/item/7xd4x0xw [Accessed: May 11, 2023] https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1477 [Accessed: May 11, 2023]
Donato, D. C., Kauffman, J. B., & Murdiyarso, D., et al. (2011). Forest Trends. (2021). “Market in Motion: State of Voluntary
“Mangroves Among the Most Carbon-Rich Forests in the Carbon Markets 2021.” Retrieved from https://www.forest-
Tropics.” Nature Geoscience 4 (2011): 293-297. Retrieved trends.org/publications/state-of-the-voluntary-carbon-
from https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1123#citeas markets-2021/ [Accessed: May 15, 2023]
Forest Trends. (2022). “The Art of Integrity: State of
Dooley, K., Keith, H., & Larson, A., et al. (2022). The Land Voluntary Carbon Markets 2022 Q3.” Retrieved from https://
Gap Report 2022. Retrieved from https://www.landgap.org/ www.forest-trends.org/publications/the-art-of-integrity-
wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Land-Gap-Report_FINAL.pdf ecosystem-marketplaces-state-of-the-voluntary-carbon-
[Accessed: May 11, 2023] markets-2022-q3/ [Accessed: May 15, 2023]
Development
Fransen T., Henderson, C., & O’Connor, R., et al (2022). Green, E. P., & Short, F. T. (2003). “World Atlas of
“The State of Nationally Determined Contributions: 2021.” Seagrasses.” Univ of California Press. Retrieved from
World Resources Institute. Retrieved from http://environmentalunit.com/Documentation/04%20
https://www.wri.org/research/state-nationally-determined- Resources%20at%20Risk/World%20Seagrass%20atlas.pdf
contributions-2022 [Accessed: May 15, 2023] [Accessed: May 11, 2023]
Friess, D. A., Chua, S. C., & Jaafar, Z., et al. (2021). Griffiths, L. L., Connolly, R. M., & Brown, C. J. (2020).
“Mangroves and People: Impacts and Interactions.” “Critical gaps in seagrass protection reveal the need to
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. Retrieved from address multiple pressures and cumulative impacts.” Ocean
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/ and Coastal Management 183, no. 104946. Retrieved
S0272771420308866 [Accessed: May 11, 2023] from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0964569119303035 [Accessed: May 11, 2023]
Friess, D. A, Rodgers, K., & Lovelock C. E., et al. (2019). “State
of the World’s Mangrove Forests: Past, Present, and Future.” Griscom, B. W., Adams, J., & Ellis, P. W., et al. (2017). “Natural
Annual Review of Environment and Resources 44, no 1: 89-115. Climate Solutions.” Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary
Retrieved from https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/ Sciences 114, no. 44: 11645-11650. Retrieved from
annurev-environ-101718-033302 [Accessed: May 11, 2023] https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1710465114
Friess, D. A., Yando, E. S., & Abuchahla G. M. O. G., et Hamilton, S., & Friess, D. A. (2018). “Global carbon stocks
al. (2020). “Mangroves Give Cause for Conservation and potential emissions due to mangrove deforestation from
Optimism, for Now.” Current Biology Magazine 30, R 135- 2000 to 2012.” Nature Climate Change 8, no.3: 240-244.
R158. Retrieved from https://www.cell.com/action/ Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-
showPdf?pii=S0960-9822%2819%2931687-2 [Accessed: 018-0090-4 [Accessed: May 11, 2023]
May 11, 2023]
Healthy Oceans, Healthy Economies, Healthy Communities.
Giri C., Ochieng, E., & Tieszen, L. L., et al. (2011). “Status 2021 Annual Report. PROBLUE & The World Bank.
and Distribution of Mangrove Forest of the World Using Earth Retrieved from https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/
Observation Satellite Data.” Global Ecology Biogeography 20, en/412571635838102176/pdf/PROBLUE-2021-Annual-
no. 1:154-159. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley. Report.pdf [Accessed: May 15, 2023]
com/doi/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2010.00584.x [Accessed:
May 11, 2023] High Level Panel for A Sustainable Ocean Economy. (N.D.)
“High Level Panel for A Sustainable Ocean Economy. What is
Gold Standard. A Practitioner’s Guide. Aligning the Voluntary the Ocean Panel?” Retrieved from https://oceanpanel.org/
Carbon Market with the Paris Agreement. Retrieved from about-ocean-panel/ [Accessed: May 15, 2023]
https://www.goldstandard.org/our-story/vcm-transition-
framework [Accessed: May 11, 2023] High Panel for A Sustainable Ocean Economy. (2022).
“Transformations for a Sustainable Ocean Economy.”
Goldberg, L., Lagomasino, D., & Thomas, N., et al. (2020). Retrieved from https://oceanpanel.org/wp-content/
“Global Declines in Human-Driven Mangrove Loss.” Global uploads/2022/06/transformations-sustainable-ocean-
Change Biology 26, no. 10: 5844-5855. Retrieved from economy-eng.pdf [Accessed: May 11, 2023]
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/gcb.15275
Development
Hiraishi, T., Krug, T., & Tanabe, K., et al. (2018). 2013 Jakovac, C. C., Latawiec, A. E., & Lacerda, E., et al.
Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National (2020). “Costs and Carbon Benefits of Mangrove
Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands. IPCC. Retrieved Conservation and Restoration: A Global Analysis.”
from https://www.ipcc.ch/publication/2013-supplement- Ecological Economics 176, no 106758. Retrieved from
to-the-2006-ipcc-guidelines-for-national-greenhouse-gas- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/artcle/abs/
inventories-wetlands/ [Accessed: May 11, 2023] pii/S0921800919318154#:~:text=Conserving%20
remaining%20mangroves%20would%20avoid,to%20
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Chopin, T., & Gaines, S. D., et al 0.32%20PgCO2%20globally [Accessed: May 12, 2023]
(2019). “The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change. Five
Opportunities for Action.” World Resource Institute. Retrieved Jayathilake, D. R. M., & Costello, M. J. (2018). “A Modelled
from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335984900_ Global Distribution of the Seagrass Biome.” Biological
The_Ocean_as_a_Solution_to_Climate_Change_Five_ Conservation 226: 120-126. Retrieved from https://doi.
Opportunities_for_Action [Accessed: May 15, 2023] org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.07.009 [Accessed: May 12, 2023]
Hutchison, J.; Spalding, M., and zu Ermgassen, P. (2014) Johnson, D. (2021). “Kelp’s Carbon Sink Potential Could Be
The Role of Mangroves in Fisheries Enhancement. The Nature Blocked by Coastal Darkening.” Hakai Magazine (Coastal
Conservancy and Wetlands International. Retrieved from Science and Societies). Retrieved from
https://www.weadapt.org/sites/weadapt.org/files/legacy- https://www.hakaimagazine.com/news/kelps-carbon-
new/knowledge-base/files/1520/547477c359ac8the-role- sink-potential-could-be-blocked-by-coastal-darkening/
of-mangroves-in-fisheries-enhancement-final.pdf [Accessed: May 12, 2023]
Hutto, S. H., Brown, M., &Francis, E. (2021). Blue Carbon in Kelleway, J., Serrano, O., & Baldock, J., et al. (2017).
Marine Protected Areas: Part 1, A Guide to Understanding “Technical Review of Opportunities for Including Blue
and Increasing Protection of Blue Carbon. National Marine Carbon in the Australian Government’s Emissions
Sanctuaries and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Reduction Fund.” CSIRO OCEANS & ATMOSPHERE.
Administration. Retrieved from https://nmssanctuaries. Retrieved from https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/
blob.core.windows.net/sanctuaries-prod/media/docs/blue- download?pid=csiro:EP166570&dsid=DS2 [Accessed:
carbon-in-marine-protected-areas-part-1.pdf [Accessed: May 12, 2023]
May 11, 2023]
Krause-Jensen, D., & Duarte, C. M. (2016). “Substantial
IISD. (2020). “Mangroves: A Unique Ally in the Climate Role of Macroalgae in Marine Carbon Sequestration.” Nature
Emergency.” Retrieved from http://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/ Geoscience 9: 737–742 (2016). Retrieved from
guest-articles/mangroves-a-unique-ally-in-the-climate- https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2790 [Accessed:
emergency/ [Accessed: May 15, 2023] May 12, 2023]
IUCN WCPA Task Force on OECMs. (2019). “Recognising Kuwae T., Yoshida, G., & Hori, M., et al. (2019). “Nationwide
and Reporting Other Effective Area-Based Conservation estimation of the annual uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide
Measures.” IUCN, International Union for Conservation of by shallow coastal ecosystems in Japan.” Environmental
Nature, 2019. Retrieved from doi:10.2305/IUCN.CH.2019. Science. Retrieved from https://www.semanticscholar.org/
PATRS.3.en. paper/NATIONWIDE-ESTIMATE-OF-THE-ANNUAL-UPTAKE-
OF-CARBON-Kuwae-Yoshida/2400dd221c3830b3a542a4aeb
d5a37c48f1de918 [Accessed: May 12, 2023]
Development
Kuwae, T., Yoshihara S., & Suehiro, F., et al. (2022). WWF. Retrieved from https://ocean-climate.org/wp-content/
“Implementation of Japanese Blue Carbon Offset Crediting uploads/2021/10/coastal-and-marine-ecosystemDEF.pdf
Projects.” Ecological Research Monographs. Retrieved from [Accessed: May 12, 2023]
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-16-
6791-6_22#ref-CR42 [Accessed: May 12, 2023] Lee, D., Llopis, P., & Waterworth, R., et al. (2018). Approaches
to REDD+ Nesting: Lessons Learned from Country Experience.
Laffoley, D. (2020). “Protecting and Effectively Managing Blue World Bank, Washington DC. Retrieved from
Carbon Ecosystems to Realise the Full Value to Society – a https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/29720
Sea of Opportunities (WWF).” Retrieved from [Accessed: May 12, 2023]
https://www.wwf.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-11/WWF_
blue_carbon020.pdf [Accessed: May 12, 2023] Lopez, O. (2022). “Ocean-Based Climate Solutions in
Nationally Determined Contributions (November 2021
Laffoley, D., & Grimsditch, G. (2009). “The Management of Update).” Ocean Conservancy. Retrieved from
Natural Coastal Carbon Sinks (IUCN publication).” Retrieved https://oceanconservancy.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/
from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252896445_ NDC_Tracker_October2021_update_draft-3_CS.pdf
The_Management_of_Natural_Coastal_Carbon_Sinks [Accessed: May 12, 2023]
Lovelock, C. E., & Duarte, C. M. (2019). “Dimensions of Blue
Losada, J. et al. 2018. “The Global Value of Mangroves for Carbon and Emerging Perspectives.” Biology Letter 15, no.
Risk Reduction Mangroves Protect Coastlines by Decreasing 20180781. Retrieved from https://royalsocietypublishing.org/
the Risk of Flooding and Erosion.” 44. doi:10.7291/ doi/epdf/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0781 [Accessed: May 12, 2023]
V9DV1H2S.
Luisetti, T., Ferrini, S., & Grilli, G., et al. (2020). “Climate
La Viña, A. G. M., de Leon, A., & Barrer, R. R. (2016). Action Requires New Accounting Guidance and Governance
“Chapter 1: History and Future of REDD+ in the UNFCCC: Frameworks to Manage Carbon in Shelf Seas.” Nature
Issues and Challenges,” in Voigt, C., (ed.) Research Communications 11, o. 4599. Retrieved from
Handbook on REDD-Plus and International Law. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18242-w
Retrieved from https://www.elgaronline.com/view/ [Accessed: May 12, 2023]
edcoll/9781783478309/9781783478309.00013.xml
[Accessed: May 12, 2023] Mcleod, E., Chmura, G. L., Bouillon, S., Salm, R., Björk, M.,
Duarte, C. M., ... & Silliman, B. R. (2011). A blueprint for Blue
Leal, M., & Spalding, M. D. (2022). The State of the World’s Carbon: toward an improved understanding of the role of
Mangroves 2022. Global Mangrove Alliance. Retrieved vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Frontiers in
from https://www.mangrovealliance.org/wp-content/ Ecology and the Environment, 9(10), 552-560.
uploads/2022/09/The-State-of-the-Worlds-Mangroves-
Report_2022.pdf [Accessed: May 12, 2023] Macreadie, P.I., Costa M. D. P., & Atwood T. B., et al. (2019
Macreadie mentioned). “Blue Carbon as Natural Climate
Lecerf, M., Herr, D., & Thomas, T., et al. (2021). “Coastal and Solution.” Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 2: 826-839.
Marine Ecosystems as Nature-based Solutions in New or Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-
Updated Nationally Determined Contributions.” Ocean and 021-00224-1 [Accessed: May 12, 2023]
Climate Platform, Conservation International, IUCN, GIZ,
Rare, The Nature Conservancy, Wetlands International and
Development
Macreadie, P. I., Robertson, A. I., & Spinks, B., et al. Mikoko Pamoja. “About Mikoko Pamoja.” Retrieved from
(2022). “Operationalizing Marketable Blue Carbon.” https://www.mikokopamoja.org/sample-page/ [Accessed:
One Earth. Retrieved from https://www.cell.com/action/ May 12, 2023
showPdf?pii=S2590-3322%2822%2900206-8 [Accessed:
May 12, 2023] Morocho, R., González, I., & Ferreira, T. O., et al. (2022).
“Mangrove Forests in Ecuador: A Two-Decade Analysis.”
Marbà, N., Krause-Jensen, D., & Masqué, P., et al. (2018). Forests 13, no. 5: 656. Retrieved from https://doi.
“Expanding Greenland Seagrass Meadows Contribute New org/10.3390/f13050656 [Accessed: May 12, 2023]
Sediment Carbon Sinks.” Scientific Reports 8, no. 14024.
Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598- Murdiyarso, D., Donato, D., & Kauffman, J. B., et al. (2009).
018-32249-w [Accessed: May 12, 2023] “Carbon Storage in Mangrove and Peatland Ecosystems.
A Preliminary Account from Plots in Indonesia.” Front
Marine Conservation Society (2020). “Marine unprotected Matter: 1-2. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/
areas.” Retrieved from https://media.mcsuk.org/documents/ resrep02288.1 [Accessed: May 12, 2023]
marine-unprotected-areas-summary-report.pdf [Accessed:
May 12, 2023] Murray, B. C., Watt, C. E., & Cooley, D. M., et al. (2012).
Coastal Blue Carbon and the United Nations Framework
Martyr-Koller, R., Thomas, A., & Schleussner, C., et al. (2021). Convention on Climate Change. Current Status and Future
“Loss and Damage Implications of Sea-level Rise on Small- Directions. Duke Nicholas Institute. Retrieved from
Island Developing States.” Current Opinion in Environmental https://nicholasinstitute.duke.edu/sites/default/files/
Sustainability 50: 245-259 Retrieved from publications/coastal-blue-caron-and-the-unfccc-paper.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ [Accessed: May 12, 2023]
S1877343521000713 [Accessed: May 12, 2023]
Murray N. J., Phinn, S. R., & DeWitt, M., et al. (2019).
McKenzie, L. J., Nordlund, L. M., & Jones, B. L., et al. “The Global Distribution and Trajectory of Tidal Flats.” Nature
(2020). “The global distribution of seagrass meadows.” 565: 222–225. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/
Environmental Research Letters 15, no. 074041. Retrieved articles/s41586-018-0805-8 [Accessed: May 12, 2023]
from https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/
ab7d06/pdf [Accessed: May 12, 2023] Murray, N. J., Worthington, T. A., & Bunting, P., et al. (2022).
“High-Resolution Mapping of Losses and Gains of Earth’s
Mcowen, C. J., Weatherdon, L. V., & Van Bochove, J., et al. Tidal Wetlands.” Science 376, no. 6594: 744-749. Retrieved
(2017). “A Global Map of Saltmarshes.” Biodiversity Data from https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm9583
Journal 5, no. 11764. Retrieved from https://bdj.pensoft.net/ [Accessed: May 12, 2023]
articles.php?id=11764 [Accessed: May 12, 2023]
Nagelkerken, I., Grol, M. G. G., & Mumby, P. J. (2012). “Effects
Melanidis, M. S. & Hagerman, S. (2022). “Competing of Marine Reserves Versus Nursery Habitat Availability on
narratives of nature-based solutions: Leveraging the power of Structure of Reef Fish Communities.” PubMed. Retrieved from
nature or dangerous distraction?” Environmental Science and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22675474/ [Accessed:
Policy 132: 273-281 Retrieved from May 12, 2023]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1462901122000818 [Accessed: May 12, 2023]
Development
Naran, B., Fernandes, P., & Padmanabhi, R., et al. (2021). Oreska, M. P. J., McGlathery, K. J., & Aoki, L. R., et al. (2020).
“Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2021.” Climate Policy “The Greenhouse Gas Offset Potential from Seagrass
Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.climatepolicyinitiative. Restoration.” Scientific Reports 10, no. 7325. Retrieved from
org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Global-Landscape-of- https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-64094-1
Climate-Finance-2021.pdf [Accessed: May 10, 2023] [Accessed: May 12, 2023]
NDC Partnership. Guidelines for Blue Carbon and Nationally Oreska, M. P. J., McGlathery, K. J., & Orth, R. J., et al. (2018).
Determined Contributions. Retrieved from “Seagrass Mapping: A survey of the Recent Seagrass
https://ndcpartnership.org/toolbox/guidelines-blue-carbon- Distribution Literature.” Retrieved from https://www.
and-nationally-determined-contributions [Accessed: taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.1201/9780429435362-
May 15, 2023] 12/seagrass-mapping-matthew-oreska-karen-mcglathery-
robert-orth-dave-wilcox [Accessed: May 14, 2023]
Needelman, B. A., et al. (2018) A Blue Carbon Primer:
The State of Coastal Wetland Carbon Science, Practice Orger Seary, R. C. (2019). Mangroves, fisheries and
and Policy. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429435362 community livelihoods. University of Cambridge. Retrieved
[Accessed: May 12, 2023] from https://core.ac.uk/download/237399403.pdf [Accessed:
May 14, 2023]
Ocean Visions (2022). “Answering Critical Questions About
Sinking Macroalgae for Carbon Dioxide Removal. A Research Pendleton, L., Donato, D. C., & Murray, B. C., et al. (2012).
Framework to Investigate Sequestration Efficacy and “Estimating Global ‘Blue Carbon’ Emissions from Conversion
Environmental Impacts.” Retrieved from https://oceanvisions. and Degradation of Vegetated Coastal Ecosystems.” PLoS
org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Ocean-Visions-Sinking- ONE 7, no.9: e43542. [Accessed: May 14, 2023]
Seaweed-Report_FINAL.pdf [Accessed: May 15, 2023]
Pittman, S. J., Roelfsema, C., & Swanborn, D., et al. (2022).
OECD (2020). A Comprehensive Overview of Global “Outlining a Methodological Pathway to Improve the Global
Biodiversity Finance. Retrieved from https://www.oecd. Seagrass Map.” Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.
org/environment/resources/biodiversity/report-a- net/publication/359513011_Outlining_a_methodological_
comprehensive-overview-of-global-biodiversity-finance.pdf pathway_to_improve_the_global_seagrass_map [Accessed:
[Accessed: May 12, 2023] May 14, 2023]
OECD (2022). Climate Finance Provided and Mobilized Pittman, S. J., Yates, K. L., & Bouchet, P. J., et al. (2021).
by Developed Countries in 2016-2020: Insights from “Seascape Ecology: Identifying Research Priorities for an
Disintegrated Analysis. Climate Finance and the USD 100 Emerging Ocean Sustainability Science”, Marine Ecology
Billion Goal (OECD Published). Retrieved from https://doi. Progress Series 663: 1-29. Retrieved from https://www.int-
org/10.1787/286dae5d-en [Accessed: May 12, 2023] res.com/articles/feature/m663p001.pdf [Accessed:
May 14, 2023]
One Planet Summit (2021). “Blended finance for scaling
up climate and nature investments.” Retrieved from Plan Vivo (2020). Mikoko Pamoja, Mangrove conservation
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/wp-content/ for community benefit. https://www.planvivo.org/Handlers/
uploads/2021/11/Blended-Finance-for-Scaling-Up-Climate- Download.ashx?IDMF=3faf7087-dec2-41ca-8a67-
and-Nature-Investments-1.pdf [Accessed: May 12, 2023] 42a98e21c59d [Accessed: May 14, 2023]
Development
Plan Vivo (2022). Plan Vivo Standard: Project Requirements Rights and Resources Initiative, Woods Hole Research Center,
(Version 5.0). Retrieved from https://www.planvivo.org/ WRI, and Environmental Defense Fund. (2018). “A Global
Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=9fd4491d-6851-4819- Baseline of Carbon Storage in Collective Lands: Indigenous
a970-e2e94338445e [Accessed: May 14, 2023] and Local Community Contributions to Climate Change
Mitigation.” Retrieved from: https://rightsandresources.org/
Porras, I., & Chacon-Cascante, A. (2018). “Costa Rica’s wp-content/uploads/2018/09/A-Global-Baseline_RRI_Sept-
Payments for Ecosystem Services Programme. Case Study 2018.pdf
Module 2.” IIED. London. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323831791_ Rights and Resources Initiative. (2015). Who Owns the
Costa_Rica%27s_Payments_for_Ecosystem_Services_ World’s Land? A global baseline of formally recognized
programme_Case_study_Module_2 [Accessed: May 14, 2023] indigenous and community land rights. Washington, DC.
Retrieved from https://rightsandresources.org/wp-content/
Pörtner, H., Roberts, D. C., & Adams, H., et al. (2022). uploads/GlobalBaseline_web.pdf [Accessed: May 14, 2023]
Summary for Policymakers. IPCC. Retrieved from
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/ Rosentreter, J. A., Al-Haj, A. N., & Fulweiler, R. W., et al.
IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf [Accessed: (2021). “Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions Complicate
May 12, 2023] Coastal Blue Carbon Assessments.” Global Biochemical
Cycles 35, no. 2. Retrieved from https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.
Primavera, J.H. et al. 1997.”Mangroves as nurseries: shrimp wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020GB006858 [Accessed:
populations in mangrove and non-mangrove habitats.” May 14, 2023]
Bulletin of Marine Science.
Sala, E., Mayorga, J., & Bradley, D., et al. (2021). “Protecting
Quiros, T. E. A. L., Sudo, K., & Ramilo, R. V., et al. (2021). the Global Ocean for Biodiversity, Food and Climate.” Nature
“Blue Carbon Ecosystem Services Through a Vulnerability 592: 397-402. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/
Lens: Opportunities to Reduce Social Vulnerability in Fishing articles/s41586-021-03371-z [Accessed: May 14, 2023]
Communities.” Front. Mar. Sci 8. Retrieved from
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ Salina, Z., Baroudy, E., & Guimaraes, L., et al. (2011).
fmars.2021.671753/full [Accessed: May 14, 2023] BioCarbon Fund Experience: Insights from Afforestation
and Reforestation Clean Development Mechanism
Ricart, A. M., York, P. H., & Bryant, C. V., et al. (2020). ”High Projects – Summary English. The World Bank. Retrieved
Variability of Blue Carbon Storage in Seagrass Meadows at the from https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/
Estuary Scale.” Scientific Report 10, 5865, no. 5865. documents-reports/documentdetail/974011468326221734/
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62639-y [Accessed: biocarbon-fund-experience-insights-from-afforestation-
May 14, 2023] and-reforestation-clean-development-mechanism-projects-
summary [Accessed: May 14, 2023]
Rifai, H., Hernawan, U. E., & Zulpikar, F., et al. (2022).
“Strategies to Improve Management of Indonesia’s Blue Salzman, J., Bennett, G., & Carroll, N, et al. (2018).
Carbon Seagrass Habitats in Marine Protected Areas.” “The Global Status and Trends of Payments for Ecosystem
Coastal Management 50, no. 2. Retrieved from https://www. Services.” Nature Sustainability 1: 136-144. Retrieved from
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08920753.2022.2022 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0033-0
948?journalCode=ucmg20 [Accessed: May 14, 2023] [Accessed: May 14, 2023]
Development
Sapkota, L. M., & Hoang, T. T. (2020). “Introduction to Forest Slobodian, L. N. & Badoz, L. (2019). Tangled Roots and
Landscape Restoration.” RECOFTC. Retrieved from Changing Tides: Mangrove Governance for Conservation and
https://www.recoftc.org/publications/0000384 [Accessed: Sustainable Use. WWF Germany, Berlin, Germany and IUCN,
May 14, 2023] Gland, Switzerland. Retrieved from
https://www.mangrovealliance.org/wp-content/
Science Based Targets Initiative (2020). Foundations for uploads/2019/11/Tangled-Roots-and-Changing-Tides.pdf
Science-Based Net-Zero Target Setting in the Corporate [Accessed: May 14, 2023]
Sector (version 1.0). Retrieved from
https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/foundations- Sobrevila, Claudia. (2008). The Role of Indigenous Peoples in
for-net-zero-full-paper.pdf [Accessed: May 14, 2023] Biodiversity Conservation: The Natural but Often Forgotten
Partners. World Bank. Retrieved from: https://documents1.
Science Based Targets Initiative (2023). “SBTi Corporate Net- worldbank.org/curated/en/995271468177530126/
Zero Standard (version 1.1).” Retrieved from pdf/443000WP0BOX321onservation01PUBLIC1.pdf
https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/Net-Zero-
Standard.pdf [Accessed: May 14, 2023] Steadman, D., Thomas, J. B., & Villanueva, V. R., et al. (2021).
New Perspectives on an Old Fishing Practice: Scale, Context
Seddon, N. (2022). “Harnessing the Potential of Nature- and Impact of Bottom Trawling. Retrieved from
based Solutions for Mitigating and Adapting to Climate https://www.fauna-flora.org/app/uploads/2021/12/
Change.” Science 376, no. 6600: 1410-1416. Retrieved from FFI_2021_New-perspectives-on-an-old-fishing-practice.pdf
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abn9668 [Accessed: May 14, 2023]
Steneck, R. S., & Johnson, C. R. (2013). Kelp forests: Dynamic
Serengil, Y. & Erden, H. (2012). “Report: Durban Patterns, Processes and Feedbacks. Retrieved from
Climate Deal and LULUCF.” International Journal https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285650458_
of Environmental Studies 69, no 1: 169-171. Kelp_forests_Dynamic_patterns_processes_and_feedbacks
Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ [Accessed: May 14, 2023]
abs/10.1080/00207233.2011.652895?journalCode=genv20
[Accessed: May 14, 2023] Stuchtey, M. R., Vincent, A., & Merkl, A., et al. (2020). Ocean
Solutions That Benefit People, Nature and the Economy. High
Serrano, O., Gómez-López, D. I., & Sánchez-Valencia, L., et Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy. Retrieved from
al. (2021). “Seagrass Blue Carbon Stocks and Sequestration https://oceanpanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/full-
Rates in the Colombian Caribbean.” Scientific Reports 11, report-ocean-solutions-eng.pdf [Accessed: May 14, 2023]
no. 11067. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/
s41598-021-90544-5 [Accessed: May 14, 2023] Streck, C. (2020). Shades of REDD+. We Have to Talk
About Leakage. Ecosystem Marketplace. Retrieved from
Shub, A., Vaughan, L., & Crooks, S. (2021). Enhancing Climate https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/shades-
Mitigation and Adaptation Co-Benefits with NOAA’s Blue of-reddwe-have-to-talk-about-leakage/ [Accessed:
Carbon Inventory Project. NOAA. Retrieved from May 14, 2023]
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/RD13%20
Poster%20Day%202%20AShub.pdf [Accessed: Sumaila, U. R., Ebrahim, N., & Schuhbauer, A., et al. (2019).
May 12, 2023] “Updated Estimates and Analysis of Global Fisheries
Development
Subsidies.” Marine Policy 109. Retrieved from https://www. The Nature Conservancy. Case Study: Belize Debt Conversion
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X19303677 for Marine Conservation. Retrieved from https://www.nature.
[Accessed: May 14, 2023] org/content/dam/tnc/nature/en/documents/TNC-Belize-
Debt-Conversion-Case-Study.pdf [Accessed: May 15, 2023]
Sumaila, U.R., Walsh, M., & Hoareau, K., et al. (2021).
“Financing a Sustainable Ocean Economy.” Nature Tokoro, T., Kenta, W., & Kazufumi, T., et al. (2015). “Guideline
Communications 12, no. 3259. Retrieved from of Blue Carbon (CO2 Absorption and Carbon Sequestration)
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23168-y [Accessed: Measurement Methodology in Port Areas.” Technical Note
May 14, 2023] of the Port and Airport Research Institute, no. 1309: 31P.
Retrieved from https://jglobal-jst-go-jp.translate.goog/en/
Sumaila, U.R., Walsh, M., & Hoareau, K., et al. (2020). detail?JGLOBAL_ID=201502213059197332&_x_tr_sl=ja&_x_
Ocean Finance: Financing the Transition to a Sustainable tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc [Accessed: May 15, 2023]
Ocean Economy. High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean
Economy. Retrieved from https://oceanpanel.org/wp-content/ UNEP (2022a). “MPA Finance – Status and Future Directions.”
uploads/2022/05/Ocean-Finance-Full-Paper.pdf [Accessed: Discussion Paper. Nairobi, Kenya. Retrieved from https://
May 14, 2023] wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/40275/
MPA_Finance.pdf?sequence=3andisAllowed=y [Accessed:
Swiss Re Institute (2021). The Insurance Rationale for May 15, 2023]
Carbon Removal Solutions. Retrieved from
https://www.swissre.com/dam/jcr:31e39033-0ca6- UNEP (2022b). State of Finance for Nature. Time to Act:
418e-a540-d61b8e7d7b31/swiss-re-institute-expertise- Doubling Investment by 2025 and Eliminating Nature-
publication-insurance-%20rationale-for-carbon-removal- Negative Finance Flow. Nairobi, Kenya. Retrieved from https://
solutions.pdf [Accessed: May 14, 2023] wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/41335/
state_finance_nature_summary.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Tall, A., Lynagh, S., & Vecchi, C. B., et al. (2021). Enabling [Accessed: May 15, 2023]
Private Investment in Climate Adaptation and Resilience.
Retrieved from https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/ UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Center (2021). Global
bitstream/handle/10986/35203/Enabling-Private- Distribution of Seagrasses (version 7.1). Seventh update to
Investment-in-Climate-Adaptation-and-Resilience-Current- the data layer used in Green and Short (2003). Cambridge
Status-Barriers-to-Investment-and-Blueprint-for-Action. (UK). Retrieved from https://data.unep-wcmc.org/datasets/7
pdf?sequence=5andisAllowed=y [Accessed: May 14, 2023] [Accessed: May 15, 2023]
‘t Gilde, L., Victoria, G, A., & Greiner, S., et al. (2022). UNEP (2020). Out of the Blue: The Value of Seagrasses to
Article 6 Transaction Structures. Retrieved from the Environment and to People. Retrieved from https://www.
https://transformativecarbonassetfacility.org/sites/ unep.org/resources/report/out-blue-value-seagrasses-
tcaf/files/2022-05/Article%206%20Transaction%20 environment-and-people [Accessed: May 15, 2023]
Structures%20report_.pdf [Accessed: May 14, 2023]
UNEP FI (2022). Moving Together on Nature: Statement from
The Changing Wealth of Nations 2021: Managing Assets for the the Private Financial Sector to the Conference of the Parties
Future. The World Bank. Retrieved from https://documents1. to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Retrieved from
worldbank.org/curated/en/500171635402227325/pdf/Main- https://www.unpri.org/download?ac=17383 [Accessed:
Report.pdf [Accessed: May 15, 2023] May 15, 2023]
Development
UNFCCC. NDC Registry. Retrieved from Unsworth, R. K. F., Cullen- Unsworth, L. C., & Jones, B. L. H.,
https://unfccc.int/NDCREG [Accessed: May 15, 2023] et al. (2022). “The Planetary Role of Seagrass Conservation.”
Science 377, no. 6606: 609-613. Retrieved from
UNFCCC (2021). The SCF Forum on Finance for Nature-based https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362490627_The_
Solutions (Part I). Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/topics/ planetary_role_of_seagrass_conservation [Accessed:
climate-finance/events-meetings/scf-forum/the-scf-forum- May 15, 2023]
on-finance-for-nature-based-solutions-part-i [Accessed:
May 15, 2023] USAID (N.D). Marine Tenure and Small-scale Fisheries:
A Priority for Development Programming. Retrieved from:
UNFCCC. Policy Brief. (2020)“Technologies for Adverting, https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MVXZ.pdf [Accessed:
Minimizing and Addressing Loss and Damage in Coastal May 15, 2023]
Zones.” Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/ttclear/misc_/
StaticFiles/gnwoerk_static/2020_coastalzones/b9e88f6f Valiela, I., Bowen, J. L., & York, J. K., et al. (2001).
ea374d8aa5cb44115d201160/3863c9fabdf74ea4 “Mangrove Forests: One of the World’s Threatened Major
9710189acbf6907a.pdf [Accessed: May 15, 2023] Tropical Environments.” BioScience 51, no. 10: 807- 815.
Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/
UNFCCC (2018). Modalities, Procedures and Guidelines for article/51/10/807/245210?login=true [Accessed:
the Transparency Framework for Action and Support Referred May 15, 2023]
to in Article 13 of the Paris Agreement. Retrieved from
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/l23_0.pdf Van der Heijden, L., & Kamenos, N. (2015). “Calculating
[Accessed: May 15, 2023] the global contribution of coralline algae to carbon burial.”
Biogeosciences Discussions 12, no. 10: 7845-7877. Retrieved
UNFCCC (2006). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277945322_
Eleventh Session held at Montreal from 28 November 2005 Calculating_the_global_contribution_of_coralline_algae_to_
to 10 December 2008. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/ carbon_burial [Accessed: May 15, 2023]
resource/docs/2005/cop11/eng/05.pdf [Accessed:
May 15, 2023] Verified Carbon Standard (2021a). VCS Methodology
Module VMD0052. Demonstration of Additionality of Tidal
UNFCCC Secretariat (2022). Nationally Determined Wetland Restoration and Conservation Project Activities
Contributions under the Paris Agreement. Synthesis report (Version 2.0). Retrieved from https://verra.org/wp-content/
by the Secretariat. Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/sites/ uploads/2020/09/VMD0052-Demonstration-of-additionality-
default/files/resource/cma2022_04.pdf [Accessed: of-tidal-wetland-restoration-and-conservation-project-
May 15, 2023] activities-ADD-AM-v2.0.pdf [Accessed: May 15, 2023]
United Nations. “Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Verified Carbon Standard (2021b). Proposal to Create a Long-
Technological Advice. Ocean and Climate Change Dialogue Term Reversal Monitoring System. Retrieved from
2022.” Information Note by the Chair. Retrieved from https://verra.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/LTRMS-
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Ocean%20 Public-Consultation.pdf [Accessed: May 15, 2023]
and%20Climate%20Change%20Dialogue%202022_
Information%20note.pdf [Accessed: May 14, 2023] VERRA. (n.d.) Climate, Community & Biodiversity Standards.
Retrieved from https://verra.org/project/ccb-program/rules-
requirements-and-guidance/ [Accessed: May 11, 2023]
Development
VERRA. (n.d.) Proposed New Verra Unit Labels. Retrieved from von Unger, M., Sereviratne, T., & Herr, D., et al. (2020).
https://verra.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Proposed- “Blue Nature-based Solutions in Nationally Determined
new-Verra-unit-labels-1.pdf [Accessed: May 15, 2023] Contributions.” Blue Solutions. Retrieved from
https://gridarendal-website-live.s3.amazonaws.com/
Vierros, M. (2017). “Communities and Blue Carbon: The Role production/documents/:s_document/610/original/NbS_
of Traditional Management Systems in Providing Benefits for in_NDCs._A_Booklet_for_Successful_Implementation.
Carbon Storage, Biodiversity Conservation and Livelihoods.” pdf?1606858312 [Accessed: May 15, 2023]
Climate Change 140: 89-100. Retrieved from
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0920-3 World Bank. (2022). “Scaling Up Finance for
[Accessed: May 15, 2023] Nature: Nature and Development Brief.” Retrieved
from https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/
von Unger, M. & Castillo Cartín, G. (2022). “Investments b08b82598c0bb418ee7f73a49ff3fdfd-0320012022/
in Coastal Nature-based Solutions. Opportunities for original/3-Nature-Finance.pdf [Accessed: May 15, 2023]
National and Local Governments.” BNCFF. Retrieved
from https://bluenaturalcapital.org/wp2018/wp-content/ World Bank (forthcoming). “Mobilizing private finance for
uploads/2022/06/BNCFF-Coastal-NbS-Investments.pdf coastal nature-based solutions through the voluntary carbon
[Accessed: May 15, 2023] market: Approaches to Carbon Credit Generation from Public
Projects.” Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
UNLOCKING
BLUE CARBON
DEVELOPMENT
INVESTMENT READINESS FRAMEWORK FOR
GOVERNMENTS
More information [email protected] worldbank.org/problue

Unlocking Development: Blue Carbon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unlocking Development: Blue Carbon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unlocking Development: Blue Carbon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized

Unless otherwise indicated, “$” refers to

1. The Scientific Basis for Action on Blue Carbon

1.1 Established Blue Carbon Ecosystems....................................................................5

2. Building a Policy and Institutional Environment for

2.1 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ............................................33

3. Mobilizing Finance for Blue Carbon (Pillar 3)..................... 47

3.1 Multilateral Funding..............................................................................................48

4. Scaling Blue Carbon Opportunities: Creating a

4.1 Blue Carbon Data Requirements for Nationally Determined Contributions.......75

5. Recommendations for Action............................................... 96

Pillar One: Data and Analytics .......................................................................................97

Appendix 1: Checklist (Blue Carbon Readiness Framework)..................................... 101

References and Bibliography..................................................... 131

BOX 1 Commodity-driven mangrove losses in Southeast Asia .......................................................................17

The role of coastal ecosystems in

The credits are then sold to global buyers such as

Propelling Blue Carbon to its full potential in support

The WBG’s experience in developing innovative

Figure 1 The Blue Carbon Readiness Framework consists of three pillars

Blue Carbon Readiness Framework

“The first chapter, Scientific Basis for Action on

The second chapter, “Building a Policy and Institutional

The third chapter, “Mobilizing Finance for Blue Carbon

Chapter 4, “The Blue Carbon Readiness

Figure 2 Summary of Blue Carbon Readiness Framework pillars and recommendations

CO₂ 1 to develop GHG inventories for above and below-

2 institutional structures, and design specific policies that

Recommendation 5: Leverage partnerships between

Recommendation 7: Access international grant funding for

Recommendation 8: Promote public-private partnerships

Figure 3 Global distribution of established Blue Carbon ecosystems

Mangroves Seagrass Saltmarsh

Source: UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Center (UNEP-WCMC13) (2021)

Comparison of the potential for sequestering carbon, between coastal and

Soil Organic Carbon Living Biomass

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Source: Blue Carbon Initiative

Positive and negative net wealth redistributions (in US$ bn yr–1)

–27 to –10 –10 to –0.5 –0.5 to 0 0–0.5 –0.5–10 10–23

Source: Blue Carbon Initiative

SCALE: LONGEVITY: THREAT:

Figure 6 Actionable Blue Carbon Ecosystems (Climate Change Mitigation Policy).

Significant Long-term Gains / Manageability Actionability Annual

Mangroves Yes 0.06-0.73

Coral reefs No N.A.

Oyster reefs No N.A.

Mangroves Seagrasses Salt marshes

Distribution and trends

Global mitigation opportunities

of mangroves exist within

Conservation opportunities Restoration opportunities

Distribution and trends

Global mitigation opportunities

tons CO2 per year annual emissions of the entire

Conservation opportunities Restoration opportunities

1.1.3 Salt marshes

Distribution and trends

Global mitigation opportunities