OT NCA FI Giant Kelp Blue Carbon
OT NCA FI Giant Kelp Blue Carbon
OT NCA FI Giant Kelp Blue Carbon
net/publication/319351795
Giant kelp 'Blue carbon' storage and sequestration value in the Falkland
Islands.
CITATIONS READS
8 734
4 authors, including:
Tara Pelembe
South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute
14 PUBLICATIONS 484 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Dan Bayley on 30 August 2017.
2017
Giant kelp ‘Blue carbon’ storage and sequestration value
in the Falkland Islands.
Authors
2
Contents
Glossary of Terms.................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 10
3. Results ........................................................................................................................................... 14
4. Discussion...................................................................................................................................... 20
5. Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................... 22
6. References .................................................................................................................................... 23
Glossary of Terms
Blue carbon: Carbon that is captured and stored within the world’s marine / coastal vegetation
habitats and their surrounding marine sediments.
Green carbon: Carbon that is captured and stored within the world’s terrestrial and marine
photosynthetic vegetation and surrounding soils / sediments.
Carbon stock: The quantity of carbon stored in a system which has the capacity to accumulate or
release carbon.
Carbon sink: A habitat (i.e. a forest), system (i.e. ocean), or other natural environment viewed in terms
of its ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, (the antonym of carbon ‘Source’).
Carbon sequestration: A natural or artificial process by which carbon dioxide is removed from the
atmosphere and held in solid or liquid form, typically for a prolonged period of time.
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
Coastal ecosystems around the world are known to provide a range of valuable ecosystem services to
people, for instance through coastal protection, commercial food supply and recreation (Beaumont et
al. 2007; Barbier et al. 2011). Within these services, the ‘Blue carbon’ which is captured and stored as
standing biomass, or sequestered into sediments from coastal vegetation such as mangroves, marshes
and seagrass (Pendleton et al. 2012), is gaining attention as a globally important climate regulating
service (‘Millenium Ecosystem Assessment’ 2005). However, the importance of macro-algae such as
kelp forests within Blue carbon assessments has been relatively overlooked, primarily due to current
uncertainty over precise rates of deep sea sequestration (Duarte 2016). As the knowledge of macro-
algae distribution, abundance and sequestration rate increases (Graham et al. 2007; Reed & Bzezinski
2009; Krause-Jensen & Duarte 2016) it is becoming clear that macro-algae’s role in carbon storage is
likely substantial. Current global sequestration estimates for all marine macro-algae are ~173
Teragrams Carbon yr−1 (with a range of 61–268 Tg C yr−1), with the majority of this sequestration being
facilitated through transport into the deep sea (Krause-Jensen & Duarte 2016).
Giant kelp is found in both the Northern and Southern hemisphere and is the most widely distributed
of the kelps. Macrocystis is typically the dominant component of the kelp assemblage where it occurs,
and is a foundation habitat which provides a range of important ecological and socio-economic
functions and services (Martínez et al. 2007). This habitat typically occurs between the low intertidal
and around 25 m in depth, although some deeper populations are also known to occur to 60+ metres
(Graham et al. 2007).
The morphology of the macroscopic sporophyte stage of their life-phase is highly variable according
to their local environment, but typically consists of a large holdfast attached to the substrate, with a
collection of stipes, laminae (fronds) and pneumatocysts (collectively known as a thallus) growing from
1
the top, which can reach lengths of up to 45 metres and provide a floating canopy habitat (Steneck et
al. 2002). Sporophytes are typically highly seasonal in their size and distribution density, with thinning
of the habitat normally occurring during winter storms, followed by a period of regrowth and
recruitment in the summer period of low wave activity (Graham et al. 2007). Individual sporophytes
typically live between 1 and 7 years, and individual fronds (of which there can be up to 400), typically
senesce after 6-8 months, demonstrating a rapid turnover of biomass, and high frond productivity
rates of between 2 and 15 g C m-2 day-1 in shallow habitats (Graham et al. 2007).
Kelp forest provides habitat both on the benthic floor and throughout the water column to a host of
associated species. The forests typically hold distinct communities within their holdfasts, mid-water
fronds / stipes, and within the surface floating canopy, just as within the vertically stratified layers of
forests on land (Graham et al. 2007). The kelp-associated species, which can be highly variable spatially
and temporally (Ríos et al. 2007), range from the small sessile invertebrates such as bryozoans and
hydroids which typically encrust the holdfast and surface of the kelp, to the mobile fish, urchins and
crustaceans which utilise the food resource and shelter it provides. Birds, pinnipeds, large predatory
fish, and cetaceans are also frequent users of this environmental resource, together making up a
diverse and often abundant ecosystem (Graham et al. 2007).
While local scale processes appear to affect structure and extent of kelp most strongly, changes in
climate are affecting kelp ecosystems in a number of ways. Extreme climate events such as heatwaves
have been shown to cause significant reduction in kelp habitat abundance and associated shifts in
community structure towards a depauperate state (Wernberg et al. 2012). In some regions of the
world, ‘tropicalization’ is now occurring whereby shifting water currents are facilitating range
expansion of temperature-limited species, while also causing sub-optimal conditions for kelp growth
and in some cases a complete ecosystem shift away from kelp habitat (Vergés et al. 2014). Over-fishing
of kelp-associated species is exacerbating these changes in range limits, causing trophic cascade
processes which can ultimately lead to deforestation of kelp (i.e. urchin ‘barrens’), and reduced
resilience to disturbance events (Steneck et al. 2002; Ling et al. 2009).
2
However, in contrast to many other kelp habitats across the world, which experience strong seasonal
changes in structure, the Macrocystis populations within the Falkland Islands have been shown to be
relatively stable throughout the year. The forests here appear to not experience the same strong
winter storms that tend to reduce the frond biomass of kelp through wave action in other high latitude
areas (Van Tussenbroek 1993). Furthermore, the relative remoteness of the islands has protected the
habitat to some degree from commercial exploitation of kelp associated species, and from direct
harvesting of the kelp itself, which occurs in a number of regions, such as California (Barilotti &
Zertuche-Gonzalez 1990).
More broadly, a recent global study by (Krumhansl et al. 2016) showed large variation in kelp forest
habitat cover over the last 50 years. The global yearly average of abundance change across 34
‘ecoregions’ (Spalding et al. 2007) was -0.018 yr-1, with a high variability in magnitude and trajectory
of change between ecoregions, ranging from – 0.18 to + 0.11 yr-1 (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Illustrating the yearly rate of change and probability cut-off for kelp forests, from Bayesian modelled slopes of 26
ecoregions (sourced from (Krumhansl et al. 2016)).
3
1.4. Valuation of Blue carbon stocks
Ecosystem services
Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems toward their overall well-being,
and this concept encompasses the three broad categories of provisioning services (i.e. nutrition, water
supply, materials, energy), regulating & maintenance services (i.e. regulation of biophysical
environment, flow, physico-chemical and biotic environments), and cultural services (i.e. symbolic or
intellectual and experiential) (Haines-Young & Potschin 2013).
Coastal ecosystems hold a range of goods and services important to people which fall within each of
the defined service categories (Beaumont et al. 2007; Martínez et al. 2007). In order to appropriately
value such services, Fisher et al. (2008) proposes a combination of the idea of ecosystem services with
economics to assess the economic benefits derived from ecosystems through a number of metrics.
This can be therefore be thought of as monetarily valuing ecosystems specifically according to their
benefits to humans i.e. within the concept of ‘Nature for people’ (Mace 2014).
A common issue with any such valuations of ecosystems is in fully capturing a full and realistic total,
as is attempted within the concept of Total Economic Valuation (TEV). This concept attempts this goal
through the inclusion of not only the ‘direct use’ values, or ‘goods’, which are relatively easy to
quantify, but also the ‘indirect use values’ (the ecological functions / services), the future ‘option use
values’, and the more abstract ideas of non-use ‘bequest value’ and ‘existence value’ (see Roy Haines-
Young & Potschin (2013) for further details). This clear difficulty in giving a satisfactory monetary value
for nature has led to strong debate over the last half century on how best to approach the problem,
and gained particular attention following a global assessment by Costanza et al. (1997), in which they
attempted to give a value to the world’s services (Jacobs et al. 2016). The debate centres largely on
the dichotomy between those who consider nature should be protected for its worth in relation to
humans (instrumental value) or whether nature should be protected for its inherent value (intrinsic
value), i.e. nature cannot be valued as it is essentially priceless (Tallis & Lubchenco 2014; Chan et al.
2016). At a more general level, the problems in finding consistent and meaningful values, especially
for more indirect or abstract services has led to further contention and criticism, and is often
deepened as frequent re-evaluations of ecosystems occur as more is learnt about their range of
functions, i.e. (Pendleton et al. 2016).
Carbon sequestration
The removal and storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide through biological and chemical processes to
‘sinks’ such as oceans, soils or vegetation, is a natural part of the global carbon cycle and falls under
4
the category of supplying in-direct use value to people through natural regulating services. The oceans
are the largest of these natural sinks, and the waters of the high latitude areas around the Southern
Ocean (including the areas surrounding the Falkland Islands), are known to have a negative overall
annual net flux of CO2 (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Global yearly net flux of Carbon m-2 within the oceans. Sourced from Takahashi et al. (2009).
‘Blue carbon’ is the term used explicitly for the carbon that is captured and stored (sequestered) within
the world’s marine and coastal habitats and sediments through removal of emissions from the
atmosphere via living photosynthetic organisms. Habitats which have been found to yield large
amounts of Blue carbon include seagrasses, tidal salt marshes, mangrove forest, and more recently,
kelp forests (Laffoley & Grimsditch 2009). Blue carbon is a subset of ‘Green carbon’ (a term which also
includes the world’s terrestrial plants and soils), but it has until recently not garnered as much
attention as a carbon ‘sink’, despite marine habitats capturing more overall carbon annually, and doing
so more efficiently, than habitats on land (Nellemann et al. 2009; McLeod et al. 2011).
While kelp forests were previously thought to contribute little to sequestration of carbon (due to their
habitat typically being located on hard rock as opposed to soft sediment), it is now clear that there is
considerable potential for macro-algae to be sequestered to deep waters in a number of ways (Figure
3).
5
Figure 3. “Conceptual diagram of the pathways for export and sequestration of macroalgal carbon. Air bladders are common
among brown algal taxa and facilitate their long-range transport (i). Langmuir circulation forms windrows of macroalgae (ii)
and can force the algae to depths where water pressure makes the air bladders burst and the algae then sink. Macroalgal
carbon can be sequestered either via burial in the habitat or by transport to the deep sea where it is sequestered whether
buried or not (iii)”. Sourced from (Krause-Jensen & Duarte, 2016).
Macroalgae (which are the dominant primary producers in the coastal zone), therefore have a much
more substantial role as a carbon sink than previously thought (Krause-Jensen & Duarte 2016). Kelp
specifically is known to act as a significant carbon storage sink in temperate and polar seas, with global
modelled estimates of standing crop biomass ranging from 7.5 to 20 Tg C (Reed & Bzezinski 2009).
Current estimates for the total contribution of all vegetated coastal habitats (including seagrass,
macroalgal beds, mangrove forests and salt-marshes) toward organic Blue carbon sequestration (in
shallow sediments and through transport to the deep sea), range from 73 Tg C year-1 to 866 Tg C year-
1
(Duarte 2016). Approximately 55% of total contributions to CO2 capture from all Green carbon is
from the Blue Carbon component, despite its far smaller global distribution (Nellemann et al. 2009).
Just as on the land, the appropriate managing and accounting for the carbon currently held within
marine systems, and their ability to sequester more, is an important component of mitigating climate
change through reduction of emissions, such as seen with the UN (REDD) mechanism for terrestrial
6
forests. A number of recent studies have therefore focussed on quantifying the amount of Blue carbon
stored in various habitat types (McLeod et al. 2011; Pendleton et al. 2012; Macreadie et al. 2014;
Thomas 2014; Duarte 2016). Others have built on these earlier works to attempt to apply monetary
values to the climate change mitigation benefits of these systems’ stored and annually sequestered
Carbon, and try to incorporate this concept into climate market mechanisms (Lau 2013; Luisetti,
Jackson & Turner 2013; Ullman, Bilbao-Bastida & Grimsditch 2013; Canu et al. 2015; Murdiyarso et al.
2015). The final stage is then to see how to manage these valuable systems into the future in order to
protect, restore or enhance their Blue carbon storage benefits (Laffoley & Grimsditch 2009; Zarate-
Barrera & Maldonado 2015; Macreadie et al. 2017).
The report by (Nellemann et al. 2009) shown in Figure 4, illustrates the current range of estimates of
total value in US dollars per hectare for a number of well-studied coastal ecosystem carbon sinks.
Mangrove forest shows the greatest carbon capture value due to their ability to both store carbon in
dense standing stocks and sequester large amounts of organic biomass into their surrounding
sediments.
7
Figure 4. Current range of total valuation estimates of blue carbon sinks per hectare. Adapted from (Nelleman et al. 2009).
Once an assessment has been made of the quantity of carbon stock and the sequestration rate of an
ecosystem, a judgement of the value to assign to that storage must be estimated. The ‘Social Cost of
Carbon’ (SCC) is a term used in climate policy whereby a value is placed on the speculated economic
cost or ‘marginal cost’ of every additional metric tonne of CO2 equivalent emitted to the atmosphere,
including the non-market impacts on health, the environment, well-being etc. In essence the SCC
attempts to calculate future damage and mitigation costs of greenhouse gas emissions to humanity
globally, and then ‘discount’ this total value into an appropriate cost in today’s money. This estimate
8
once calculated and applied at an individual country level can then be used by government to weigh
off policy decisions in terms of climate adaption and mitigation.
To construct the SCC value estimate and project it to the future requires a number of assumptions:
First, a range of socio-economic estimates such as population growth are projected; second, a ‘climate
module’ is chosen whereby future environmental and climate responses are predicted (with further
assumptions based on which global temperature goal is to be met); third, cost-benefit scenarios are
created to evaluate the effects of future climate on both market and non-market variables; and fourth,
a ‘discount rate’ is applied to calculate how much people should pay today to use a resource and
mitigate associated damages, versus what people need to pay in the future for the same benefits. The
discount rate in particular affects the SCC value, with a higher discount inferring a greater emphasis
on easing the financial burden of those alive today (and therefore giving a lower initial SCC value). Or
to put it another way, a lower discount rate will give greater weight to costs or benefits occurring in
the distant future than to those occurring in the near future, while a higher discount rate will give
greater weight to costs and benefits occurring in the near future than in the more distant future. For
context, in the report by UK treasury (Stern 2007), a low rate of 1.4 % was recommended, however
following a 2009 review this value has shifted to 3.5 % (Harrison 2010; DBEIS 2017).
Using the constructed SCC, individual governments (or groups such as the EU) then typically use
market trading within polluting industries (i.e. ‘Cap and trade’ schemes such as the EU Emissions
Trading Scheme), set at regional prices (World Bank, Ecofys & Vivid Economics 2016), and mix this
with a range of corresponding carbon / pollution taxes to meet their speculated targets.
Project aim
This study aims to estimate the current extent and density of Macrocystis kelp forest found within the
Falkland Islands, analyse if this distribution is stable or changing, and then apply a monetary valuation
to both the carbon stored and the carbon sequestered annually to deep sea sediments within this
system, based on published values of the SCC.
9
2. Methodology
Figure 5. An example of the spatial digitisation of current kelp extent, using the outline of visible kelp fronds on the surface
waters surrounding the Falkland Islands.
Giant kelp density was calculated based on field survey data collected from across the Falkland Islands
by the Falklands-based ‘Shallow Marine Survey Group’ (http://www.smsg-falklands.org/), with a total
of 386 surveys conducted between 2008 and 2016 (Figure 6). Density values were based on the
number of individual giant kelp holdfasts observed in-situ one metre either side along a 20 m transect
placed randomly on the seabed within the kelp forest habitat.
10
Figure 6. Site locations of annual SMSG benthic surveys of kelp conducted within the Falkland Islands between 2008 and
2016 (WGS/UTM 21S projection).
Density per square metre for each survey was then averaged across the known distribution for
Autumn (March – May) and Spring (September – November) surveys to account for any seasonal
changes in density as the forest thins. Density calculations were initially further sub-divided to the East
and West of the archipelago to account for any differences in abundance caused by the different
temperature water currents surrounding the Falklands islands, (with the Eastern Falklands Islands
Current being generally colder than the West), although any differences were shown to be negligible.
11
Islands to give a total carbon standing stock, then converted to CO2 using a conversion factor of 3.67
(based on relative atomic weights).
Following a global analysis by Krause-Jensen & Duarte (2016): it is estimated that sequestration
through burial of Particulate Organic Carbon (POC) in deep waters is ~0.92 % of annual NPP;
sequestration through export of POC to the deep sea is ~2.30 % of NPP; and sequestration through
export of Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) is ~7.69 % of NPP. Once these values were calculated they
were multiplied across the current known extent of Macrocystis forest within the Falkland Islands and
converted to CO2 equivalent (CO2e) weight.
To further give context to this study using more recent valuations, and to give future extrapolation
values under different scenarios, we use a study by Nordhaus (2017) and incorporate it with UK
Emission Trading Scheme market estimations (DBEIS 2017). Both studies use various scenarios and
discount rates to cost the benefit to society of 1 metric ton of CO2e extracted from the atmosphere
and estimate for future SCC in 2030 based on each scenario. These values were then applied to current
estimates of carbon content and sequestration within the Falkland Islands (based on current density
and distribution and assuming no future decline in kelp extent or density). It is important to note that
12
the current value of the carbon already sequestered to the deep sea was not estimated due to lack of
data, but is likely to be substantial.
13
3. Results
Figure 7. Mapped extent of Macrocystis kelp forest surrounding the Falkland Islands, based on 2016 GoogleEarth Imagery.
Measures of mean density were highly variable, ranging between ~0.15 and 0.85 thalli / m2, with a
mean of 0.401 thalli / m2 (SE = ± 0.034) across all years (Figure 8).
14
Figure 8. Seasonal values of mean Macrocystis forest density (individuals/m2) from 2008 to 2016, with 1 = Spring, 2 = Summer,
3 = Autumn, 4 = Winter.
There was a slight overall density decline of −0.024 thalli m2 yr -1 across the Falkland Island ecoregion
(Spalding et al. 2007) from 2008 to 2016, in line with the globally averaged kelp decline of −0.018 yr −1
(Krumhansl et al. 2016). However, this decline is non-significant (p>0.1) due to the large variation seen
and an apparent underlying cycle of growth and decline in density of ~ 3-4 years (Figure 9), indicating
an overall stable kelp community. The highest survey density was seen in 2009 with 0.530 thalli / m2,
and the lowest seen in 2015 with 0.195 thalli / m2.
Figure 9. Yearly boxplots of Macrocystis forest density (individuals/m2) from 2008 to 2016, along with yearly averaged linear
trend of mean density.
15
3.2. Biomass
Following measurements of kelp biomass recorded by (Van Tussenbroek 1993), and assuming dry
weight to be 10% of wet weight (Reed & Bzezinski 2009), mean thallus weight was found to be 0.74
kg (averaged across all years). Applying the known mean density of kelp and assuming carbon content
to be ~30 % of dry weight (Reed & Bzezinski 2009), mean carbon weight was seen to be 0.09 kg m-2.
This gives an average overall carbon standing stock of 0.06 Teragrams (million tonnes) within the giant
kelp across the Falkland Islands, or 0.3 – 0.8 % of the global stock (Table 1), and is equivalent to ~ 266
million individual kelp across the archipelago.
Table 1. Density and carbon standing stock of kelp forest held within the Falkland Islands. *carbon weight assumed to be 30
% of dry weight, following Reed and Bzezinski (2009).
Averaged (all
Spring Autumn
seasons)
Mean thallus Weight (wet) kg / m2 (Van Tussenbroek 8.00 1.40 -
1993)
Mean thallus Weight (Dry) kg / m2 (Van Tussenbroek 0.80 0.14 -
1993)
Density thalli / m2 (Van Tussenbroek 1993) 0.62 0.72 -
Mean thallus dry weight kg (Van Tussenbroek 1993) 1.29 0.19 0.74
3.3. Sequestration
Figure 10 illustrates the annual flow of carbon from standing kelp forest to re-mineralisation, grazing
-2
or sequestration using the averaged value of NPP (985 g C m yr-1) for a typical Macrocystis bed,
following the carbon flows described by (Krause-Jensen & Duarte 2016).
16
Figure 10. Flow of carbon from a macro-algal bed to sequestration in the form of i) Particulate Organic Carbon (POC) exported
to the deep sea, ii) POC buried in the benthic shelf, or iii) Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) exported below the water’s mixed
layer. Net Primary Productivity (NPP) based on (Reed & Bzezinski, 2009) and flow percentages based on average values from
(Krause-Jensen & Duarte, 2016). Sequestered Blue Carbon shown in bold.
Applying the average values detailed in Figure 10 to the Falkland Island’s current Macrocystis forests
gives a total average blue carbon sequestration value of 0.065 Tg carbon year-1, or an equivalent of
0.239 million tonnes of CO2, as shown (with corresponding maximum and minimum estimates) in
Table 2.
Table 2. Rounded minimum, average, and maximum estimated values of carbon sequestered from the Falkland Islands
Macrocystis forests per year based on current known distribution and NPP rates of 670-1300 g C m-2 y-1.
17
3.4. Valuation
Using the mean value of SCC from Tol (2008) of $102 per tCO2e (USD), and taking the conservative
average measures for both standing stock and annual sequestration, the Falkland Islands have a
current standing stock of $22.20 million, with the annual sequestration of carbon to the deep sea
valued at $24.38 million yr-1 (ranging from $16.58 – 32.17 million). The data suggests that the extent
and of kelp and therefore rate of sequestration will remain fairly stable for the foreseeable future,
unless any new pressure is placed on the system, either from future habitat destruction, or through
tropicalization via climate change.
For further reference and context, Table 3 details model scenarios for the future SCC value in 2030 of
the kelp resource in the Falkland Islands based on various starting SCC values and discount rate
scenarios in 2015 from Nordhaus (2017) and DBEIS (2017). These estimates give a future 2030 average
stock value of $47.81 million (ranging from $11.23 – 81.88 million across SCC estimates), and an annual
sequestration value of $52.49 million (ranging from $12.33 – 89.90 million across SCC estimates).
18
Table 3. Values given in US dollars for the mean calculated Blue carbon (CO2e) standing stock, and mean annual Blue carbon sequestration to deep sediments for FI kelp forests. Scenarios are
shown between the year 2015 and 2030 (using modelled values). Carbon pricing scenarios based on a range of recent literature spanning low and high estimations of SCC: *1 = (DBEIS 2017);
*2 = (Nordhaus 2017); *3 = (Stern 2007). For detail on the modelling used see (Nordhaus 2017) on which the estimations are based.
19
This valuation shows that giant kelp contributes to climate mitigation an average ~ $0.033 m-2 (USD)
in terms of standing stock along the coast of the Falkland Islands and a sequestration value of ~ $0.037
m-2 year-1 (USD), (while current kelp populations remain stable). Figure 11 shows an interpolated value
map for kelp forest value per m2 for the Falkland Islands across the current known distribution.
Figure 11. Value per m2 of kelp forest for the Falkland Islands. Value was calculated based on averaged biomass densities at
sampled locations multiplied by present day averaged SCC. Points interpolated across the region using Inverse Distance
Weighting (shown with blue bandings), and apply ONLY to the known distribution of kelp (shown in yellow).
20
4. Discussion
This analysis showed that both the carbon standing stock and amount of carbon sequestered each
year by the giant Kelp habitat is extremely valuable to humanity both now and in the future, in terms
of its ability to regulate climate and mitigate future damage. While in the Falkland Islands the system
appears healthy and stable currently a great deal of uncertainty still exists on how this habitat will fare
into the future. In the ‘state of the environment’ and Biodiversity Framework reports produced by
Falkland Islands Government (Otley et al. 2008; FIG Environmental Planning Department 2016), a
number of risk factors exist for kelp, which need to be appropriately managed to avoid any
degradation (and subsequent loss of value) of this system. High priority threats are from potential
invasive species and biosecurity issues, along with medium and low threats from development
(habitat conversion) in coastal regions, pollution, potential oil spills from exploration and extraction
in the region, any unregulated fishing activities, potential increases in land-based nutrient flows from
farming practices, and the potential damaging effects of tourism. Overarching all of these threats are
potential changes associated with future climate. While the majority of these threats are well
managed, uncertainty associated with climate impacts is likely to be the highest concern over the
coming years. Kelp is to some degree resilient to acute temperature fluctuations (Reed et al. 2016),
but increases in storm occurrence, chronic temperature changes and shifting of key associated
species’ range will all still drive changes to this habitat (Krumhansl et al. 2016; Pecl & et al 2017). The
best way therefore to sustain Blue carbon benefits and limit some of these threats (aside from working
towards attaining global emission reduction targets), is through good sustained local management
(Macreadie et al. 2017).
This study would benefit from a number of additional elements if further monitoring allows. Firstly, it
is important to have long terms data on the actual extent of the kelp forest habitat around the Falkland
Islands year on year in order to record any changes in distribution (and the rate at which they are
occurring). Secondly, a missing element to this valuation study is in the quantification of the amount
of carbon already sequestered to the deep sea sediments from the kelp forests over the last centuries.
Given current estimates of sequestration rates, this value is likely to be substantial and would be in
great threat if future deep sea fishing / extraction / damaging activities were to start in these highly
sedimented areas. Thirdly, while smaller kelps such as Lessonia and Durvillaea, which also occur in in
the islands in high abundances (and typically in the same distribution range as Macrocystis), were not
included in this specific analysis, they too will add some additional annual carbon sequestration value
to the region and should be included in any management.
21
Finally, it is worth considering the two further points. First of all Blue carbon storage is just one of a
host of ecosystem services that Macrocystis kelp forest provide to society, and it is important to not
think of each service in complete isolation. Instead it is best to regard all the services as an interlocking
system, each providing some value, but providing a greater collective value when all functioning well.
Second, when valuing any carbon regulating service using the ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ method, it is
important to keep in mind that this metric is essentially a construct that we have applied which
incorporates a large amount of uncertainty, ethical judgements, political beliefs and regional variation.
While this is very useful as a tool for conceptualising value and debating cost-benefits of a service for
policy making, it is not in any way an absolute value, and future society may see its worth change
dramatically over the years as knowledge increases or perceptions change.
5. Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the contribution to this piece of work made by the IMS-GIS data centre
(Falkland Islands) through provision of data. We also acknowledge the Shallow Marine Survey Group
for the collection of the field data on which this analysis relies.
22
6. References
Barbier, E.B., Hacker, S.D., Kennedy, C., Koch, E., Stier, A.C. & Silliman, B.R. (2011). The value of
estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecological Monographs, 81, 169–193.
Barilotti, D.C. & Zertuche-Gonzalez, J.A. (1990). Ecological effects of seaweed harvesting in the Gulf of
California and Pacific Ocean off Baja California and California. Hydrobiologia, 204–205, 35–40.
Beaumont, N.J., Austen, M.C., Atkins, J.P., Burdon, D., Degraer, S., Dentinho, T.P., Derous, S., Holm, P.,
Horton, T., van Ierland, E., Marboe, A.H., Starkey, D.J., Townsend, M. & Zarzycki, T. (2007).
Identification, definition and quantification of goods and services provided by marine
biodiversity: Implications for the ecosystem approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54, 253–265.
Bell, T.W., Cavanaugh, K.C., Reed, D.C. & Siegel, D.A. (2015). Geographical variability in the controls of
giant kelp biomass dynamics. Journal of Biogeography, 42, 2010–2021.
Canu, D.M., Ghermandi, A., Nunes, P.A.L.D., Lazzari, P., Cossarini, G. & Solidoro, C. (2015). Estimating
the value of carbon sequestration ecosystem services in the mediterranean sea: An ecological
economics approach. Global Environmental Change, 32, 87–95.
Chan, K.M.A., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gould, R.,
Hannahs, N., Jax, K., Klain, S., Luck, G.W., Martín-López, B., Muraca, B., Norton, B., Ott, K.,
Pascual, U., Satterfield, T., Tadaki, M., Taggart, J. & Turner, N. (2016). Opinion: Why protect
nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 113, 1462–1465.
Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S.,
O’Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P. & van den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the
world’s ecosystem servces and natural capital. Nature, 387, 253–260.
DBEIS. (2017). Updated short-term traded carbon values used for UK public policy appraisal.
Duarte, C.M. (2016). Reviews and syntheses: Hidden Forests, the role of vegetated coastal habitats on
the ocean carbon budget. Biogeosciences Discussions, 1981, 1–17.
Fisher, B., Turner, K., Zylstra, M., Brouwer, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Ferraro, P., Green, R., Hadley,
D., Harlow, J., Jefferiss, P., Kirkby, C., Morling, P., Mowatt, S., Naidoo, R., Paavola, J., Strassburg,
23
B., Yu, D. & Balmford, A. (2008). Ecosystem services and economic theory: Integration for policy-
relevent research. Ecological Applications, 18, 2050–2067.
Graham, M.H., Vásquez, J. a, Buschmann, A.H., Landing, M., Laboratories, M., Road, M.L., Marina, D.B.,
Ciencias, F. De & Católica, U. (2007). Global Ecology of the Giant Kelp Macrocystis : From
Ecotypes To Ecosystems. Oceanography and Marine Biology, 45, 39–88.
Harrison, M. (2010). Valuing the Future: The social discount rate in cost-benefit analysis. Productivity
Commission, Canberra.
Jacobs, S., Dendoncker, N., Martín-López, B., Barton, D.N., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Boeraeve, F.,
McGrath, F.L., Vierikko, K., Geneletti, D., Sevecke, K.J., Pipart, N., Primmer, E., Mederly, P.,
Schmidt, S., Aragão, A., Baral, H., Bark, R.H., Briceno, T., Brogna, D., Cabral, P., De Vreese, R.,
Liquete, C., Mueller, H., Peh, K.S.H., Phelan, A., Rincón, A.R., Rogers, S.H., Turkelboom, F., Van
Reeth, W., van Zanten, B.T., Wam, H.K. & Washbourn, C.L. (2016). A new valuation school:
Integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions. Ecosystem Services, 22,
213–220.
Krause-Jensen, D. & Duarte, C.M. (2016). Substantial role of macroalgae in marine carbon
sequestration. Nature Geoscience, 9, 737–742.
Krumhansl, K.A., Okamoto, D.K., Rassweiler, A., Novak, M., Bolton, J.J., Cavanaugh, K.C., Connell, S.D.,
Johnson, C.R., Konar, B., Ling, S.D., Micheli, F., Norderhaug, K.M., Pérez-Matus, A., Sousa-Pinto,
I., Reed, D.C., Salomon, A.K., Shears, N.T., Wernberg, T., Anderson, R.J., Barrett, N.S., Buschmann,
A.H., Carr, M.H., Caselle, J.E., Derrien-Courtel, S., Edgar, G.J., Edwards, M., Estes, J.A., Goodwin,
C., Kenner, M.C., Kushner, D.J., Moy, F.E., Nunn, J., Steneck, R.S., Vásquez, J., Watson, J., Witman,
J.D. & Byrnes, J.E.K. (2016). Global patterns of kelp forest change over the past half-century.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113, 13785–
13790.
Laffoley, D. & Grimsditch, G. (2009). The Management of Natural Coastal Carbon Sinks. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland.
Lau, W.W.Y. (2013). Beyond carbon: Conceptualizing payments for ecosystem services in blue forests
on carbon and other marine and coastal ecosystem services. Ocean and Coastal Management,
83, 5–14.
24
Ling, S.D., Johnson, C.R., Frusher, S.D. & Ridgway, K.R. (2009). Overfishing reduces resilience of kelp
beds to climate-driven catastrophic phase shift. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America, 106, 22341–5.
Luisetti, T., Jackson, E.L. & Turner, R.K. (2013). Valuing the European ‘coastal blue carbon’ storage
benefit. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 71, 101–106.
Macreadie, P.I., Baird, M.E., Trevathan-Tackett, S.M., Larkum, A.W.D. & Ralph, P.J. (2014). Quantifying
and modelling the carbon sequestration capacity of seagrass meadows - A critical assessment.
Marine Pollution Bulletin, 83, 430–439.
Macreadie, P.I., Nielsen, D.A., Kelleway, J.J., Atwood, T.B., Seymour, J.R., Petrou, K., Connolly, R.M.,
Thomson, A.C., Trevathan-Tackett, S.M. & Ralph, P.J. (2017). Can we manage coastal ecosystems
to sequester more blue carbon? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 206–213.
Martínez, M.L.L., Intralawan, a., Vázquez, G., Pérez-Maqueo, O., Sutton, P. & Landgrave, R. (2007).
The coasts of our world: Ecological, economic and social importance. Ecological Economics, 63,
254–272.
McLeod, E., Chmura, G.L., Bouillon, S., Salm, R., Björk, M., Duarte, C.M., Lovelock, C.E., Schlesinger,
W.H. & Silliman, B.R. (2011). A blueprint for blue carbon: Toward an improved understanding of
the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO2. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, 9, 552–560.
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005).Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Island Press,
Washington, D.C.
Murdiyarso, D., Purbopuspito, J., Kauffman, J.B., Warren, M.W., Sasmito, S.D., Donato, D.C., Manuri,
S., Krisnawati, H., Taberima, S. & Kurnianto, S. (2015). The potential of Indonesian mangrove
forests for global climate change mitigation. Nature Climate Change, 5, 1089–1092.
Nellemann, C., Corcoran, E., Duarte, C.M., Valdés, L., De Young, C., Fonseca, L. & Grimsditch, G. (2009).
Blue carbon: A Rapid Response Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-
Arendal.
Nordhaus, W.D. (2017). Revisiting the social cost of carbon. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 2016, 201609244.
25
Otley, H., Munro, G., Clausen, A. & Ingham, B. (2008). Falkland Islands State of the Environment Report.
Stanley.
Pecl, G.T. & et al. (2017). Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: impacts on ecosystems and
human well-being. Science, in press.
Pendleton, L., Donato, D.C., Murray, B.C., Crooks, S., Jenkins, W.A., Sifleet, S., Craft, C., Fourqurean,
J.W., Kauffman, J.B., Marbà, N., Megonigal, P., Pidgeon, E., Herr, D., Gordon, D. & Baldera, A.
(2012). Estimating Global ‘Blue Carbon’ Emissions from Conversion and Degradation of
Vegetated Coastal Ecosystems. PLoS ONE, 7.
Pendleton, L.H., Thébaud, O., Mongruel, R.C. & Levrel, H. (2016). Has the value of global marine and
coastal ecosystem services changed? Marine Policy, 64, 156–158.
Reed, D.C. & Bzezinski, M.A. (2009). Kelp Forests. The management of natural coastal carbon sinks.
(eds D. d’A. Laffoley & G. Grimsditch), p. 53. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Reed, D., Washburn, L., Rassweiler, A., Miller, R., Bell, T. & Harrer, S. (2016). Extreme warming
challenges sentinel status of kelp forests as indicators of climate change. Nature
Communications, 7, 13757.
Ríos, C., Arntz, W.E., Gerdes, D., Mutschke, E. & Montiel, A. (2007). Spatial and temporal variability of
the benthic assemblages associated to the holdfasts of the kelp Macrocystis pyrifera in the Straits
of Magellan, Chile. Polar Biology, 31, 89–100.
Spalding, M.D., Fox, H.E., Allen, G.R., Davidson, N., Ferdaña, Z. a., Finlayson, M., Halpern, B.S., Jorge,
M. a., Lombana, A., Lourie, S. a., Martin, K.D., Mcmanus, E., Molnar, J., Recchia, C. a. & Robertson,
J. (2007). Marine Ecoregions of the World: A Bioregionalization of Coastal and Shelf Areas.
BioScience, 57, 573.
Steneck, R.S., Graham, M.H., Bourque, B.J., Corbett, D., Erlandson, J.M., Estes, J.A. & Tegner, M.J.
(2002). Kelp forest ecosystems: biodiversity, stability, resilience and future. Environmental
Conservation, 29, 436–459.
Stern, N.H. (2007). The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge University Press,
UK.
Takahashi, T., Sutherland, S.C., Wanninkhof, R., Sweeney, C., Feely, R.A., Chipman, D.W., Hales, B.,
Friederich, G., Chavez, F., Sabine, C., Watson, A., Bakker, D.C.E., Schuster, U., Metzl, N.,
Yoshikawa-Inoue, H., Ishii, M., Midorikawa, T., Nojiri, Y., Körtzinger, A., Steinhoff, T., Hoppema,
26
View publication stats
M., Olafsson, J., Arnarson, T.S., Tilbrook, B., Johannessen, T., Olsen, A., Bellerby, R., Wong, C.S.,
Delille, B., Bates, N.R. & de Baar, H.J.W. (2009). Climatological mean and decadal change in
surface ocean pCO2, and net sea-air CO2 flux over the global oceans. Deep-Sea Research Part II:
Topical Studies in Oceanography, 56, 554–577.
Tallis, H. & Lubchenco, J. (2014). A call for inclusive conservation. Nature, 515, 27–28.
Thomas, S. (2014). Blue carbon: Knowledge gaps, critical issues, and novel approaches. Ecological
Economics, 107, 22–38.
Tol, R.S.J. (2008). The Social Cost of Carbon: Trends, Outliers and Catastrophes. Economics: The Open-
Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 2, 1.
Van Tussenbroek, B.L. (1993). Plant and frond dynamics of the giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera,
forming a fringing zone in the Falkland Islands. European Journal of Phycology, 28, 161–165.
Ullman, R., Bilbao-Bastida, V. & Grimsditch, G. (2013). Including Blue Carbon in climate market
mechanisms. Ocean and Coastal Management, 83, 15–18.
Vergés, A., Steinberg, P.D., Hay, M.E., Poore, A.G.B., Campbell, A.H., Ballesteros, E., Heck, K.L., Booth,
D.J., Coleman, M.A., Feary, D.A., Figueira, W., Langlois, T., Marzinelli, E.M., Mizerek, T., Mumby,
P.J., Nakamura, Y., Roughan, M., van Sebille, E., Gupta, A. Sen, Smale, D.A., Tomas, F., Wernberg,
T. & Wilson, S.K. (2014). The tropicalization of temperate marine ecosystems : climate-mediated
changes in herbivory and community phase shifts The tropicalization of temperate marine
ecosystems : climate-mediated changes in herbivory and community phase shifts. Proceedings
of The Royal Socienty B, 281, 1–10.
Wernberg, T., Smale, D. a., Tuya, F., Thomsen, M.S., Langlois, T.J., de Bettignies, T., Bennett, S. &
Rousseaux, C.S. (2012). An extreme climatic event alters marine ecosystem structure in a global
biodiversity hotspot. Nature Climate Change, 3, 78–82.
World Bank, Ecofys & Vivid Economics. (2016). State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2016. The World
Bank, Washington, DC.
Zarate-Barrera, T.G. & Maldonado, J.H. (2015). Valuing blue carbon: Carbon sequestration benefits
provided by the marine protected areas in Colombia. PLoS ONE, 10, 1–22.
27