Additionality in Blue Carbon Ecosystems: Recommendations for a Universally Applicable Accounting Methodology
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
Standard Standard
In: Global Change Biology, Vol. 30, No. 11, 30.11.2024, p. e17559.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
HarvardHarvard
APA
CBE
MLA
VancouverVancouver
Author
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Additionality in Blue Carbon Ecosystems: Recommendations for a Universally Applicable Accounting Methodology
AU - Houston, Alex
AU - Kennedy, Hilary
AU - Austin, William E. N.
N1 - e17559 GCB-24-1588.R1
PY - 2024/11/30
Y1 - 2024/11/30
N2 - ABSTRACT Blue carbon ecosystems (BCEs) remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store significant amounts of organic carbon (OC) in their soils. Consequently, the protection and restoration of BCEs may contribute to net greenhouse gas emissions abatement and help address the global challenges of both mitigating and adapting to climate change. An ongoing debate is whether OC sequestered out with the blue carbon (BC) project and transported to its present location (allochthonous) should be counted as ‘additional’. There are inconsistencies in the treatment of allochthonous carbon between BCE methodologies, potentially undermining the credibility of global BC accounting initiatives. To explore these inconsistences, we compare the methodologies which we were able to find online, with particular focus on the VERRA, IPCC and BlueCAM methodologies, and review the science underlying any approach to account for allochthonous OC. Our findings indicate that there are currently no robust scientific approaches to define an appropriate apportioning of allochthonous OC for discounting in the calculation of additionality. We therefore advocate for the inclusion of allochthonous OC in BC crediting projects when an observational and experimental approach does not support the calculation (and discounting) of the refractory allochthonous carbon contribution.
AB - ABSTRACT Blue carbon ecosystems (BCEs) remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store significant amounts of organic carbon (OC) in their soils. Consequently, the protection and restoration of BCEs may contribute to net greenhouse gas emissions abatement and help address the global challenges of both mitigating and adapting to climate change. An ongoing debate is whether OC sequestered out with the blue carbon (BC) project and transported to its present location (allochthonous) should be counted as ‘additional’. There are inconsistencies in the treatment of allochthonous carbon between BCE methodologies, potentially undermining the credibility of global BC accounting initiatives. To explore these inconsistences, we compare the methodologies which we were able to find online, with particular focus on the VERRA, IPCC and BlueCAM methodologies, and review the science underlying any approach to account for allochthonous OC. Our findings indicate that there are currently no robust scientific approaches to define an appropriate apportioning of allochthonous OC for discounting in the calculation of additionality. We therefore advocate for the inclusion of allochthonous OC in BC crediting projects when an observational and experimental approach does not support the calculation (and discounting) of the refractory allochthonous carbon contribution.
KW - additionality
KW - allochthonous
KW - blue carbon
KW - carbon crediting
KW - IPCC
KW - nature-based solutions
U2 - 10.1111/gcb.17559
DO - 10.1111/gcb.17559
M3 - Erthygl
VL - 30
SP - e17559
JO - Global Change Biology
JF - Global Change Biology
SN - 1365-2486
IS - 11
ER -