Pacific Blue Carbon Workshop &
International Partnership for Blue Carbon (IPBC)
Third Annual Meeting
Summary Report
18-21 September 2018
Suva, Fiji
1
Acknowledgements
Thank you to our Pacific Blue Carbon Workshop and IPBC Third Annual Meeting co-hosts; the Pacific
Islands Forum Secretariat – Office of the Pacific Ocean Commissioner. These events would not have
been possible without your wonderful venue and the kind logistical support both in the lead up to and
during the meetings.
The organisers also wish to acknowledge the contributions and guidance received from the Conservation
International team in Fiji, who were instrumental in facilitating an engaging and highly educational field
trip, and also ensuring that we had great representation from across the Pacific. Thank you also to the
University of the South Pacific, University of Fiji, the Fiji Government and local communities, for their
contributions to the field trip.
We wish to acknowledge and thank the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, and
the other members of the Workshop Steering Group, for your support in developing an agenda which
reflected and helped draw out Pacific views and interests on blue carbon.
A sincere thank you to the Fiji Government, and Permanent Secretary for Local Government, Housing
and the Environment, Mr Joshua Wycliffe, for opening the Workshop proceedings.
Finally, thank you to all who participated, presented, and contributed their ideas over the four days in
Fiji – and particularly those who travelled from outside Fiji and the region to support blue carbon
discussions in the Pacific and help guide the future direction of the Partnership.
The IPBC Coordinator
Figure 1: Front cover - different mangrove ecosystems in the Rewa Delta, Fiji. Photo: Lucy Wallington
2
Executive Summary
Pacific Blue Carbon Workshop & Third Annual International Partnership for Blue Carbon Meeting
The value of coastal ecosystems to the Pacific region and the importance of improving the availability of
data were among the themes highlighted at blue carbon events in September in Suva, Fiji. More than 60
participants attended the events held by the International Partnership for Blue Carbon with co-hosts the
Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat – Office of the Pacific Ocean Commissioner. Pacific countries that
attended included Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Tonga and Vanuatu.
Many other countries and organisations also attended, including Japan, Korea, Philippines, Sierra Leone,
as well as Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy, the Wildlife Conservation Society, the
Secretariat for the Pacific Regional Environment Programme and the Pacific Community.
The Pacific Blue Carbon Workshop (18-19 September) highlighted the state of science, policy and
practical action on coastal ecosystems in the Pacific. The Workshop created greater awareness of blue
carbon while also helping to articulate the cultural significance these ecosystems to Pacific communities
and the vital ecosystems services they provide – and the need for national policies and appropriate
governance structures to support management of the ecosystems.
Fiji’s Permanent Secretary for Local Government, Housing and Environment, Joshua Wycliffe, opened
the Workshop and spoke of the extent and value of these ecosystems in the Pacific – Fiji alone has
40,000 hectares of mangrove forest. Mr Wycliffe also noted the pressures on coastal ecosystems from
development and governments’ need to balance economic development with appropriate
environmental safeguards and protections. This sentiment was echoed by Pacific representatives and
community engagement officers who called for national policies and appropriate modalities to support
local conservation efforts. They also said that while the carbon value of these ecosystems has been
highlighted recently, Pacific communities’ have long recognised and relied on the other vital services
these ecosystems provide. Another recurring theme was the centrality and importance of working
collaboratively with local communities (and governments) in the Pacific, in all aspects of project
planning, design and implementation – and to complement and strengthen the systems and traditional
management regimes and networks that are already in place.
Pacific research institutes said that while there are fairly reliable estimates of mangrove stocks in the
Pacific, there was a need for more complete datasets on coastal ecosystems in the Pacific to support
policy development and decision-making. Gilianne Brodie, Associate Professor, University of the South
Pacific, said there is currently limited understanding of seagrasses, and they need to be included in
policy frameworks to drive research. The data limitations are slowly changing. For example, Lisa
Benson, marine ecologist, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, pointed to a
3
project in Vanuatu that was helping to map seagrasses and assess carbon stocks. Other major projects
such as Marine and Coastal Biodiversity Management in Pacific Island Countries (MACBIO) and
Mangrove Ecosystems for Climate Change Adaptation and Livelihoods (MESCAL) have supported
research on ecosystem values and on management plans. More broadly, it was evident that significant
technical capacity and expertise has grown across the Pacific’s research institutes and CROP agencies.
What’s needed is genuine and lasting partnerships to encourage young talent and take these research
efforts forward, and more coordinated approaches to data collection, access and management.
During the Partnership Meeting (20-21 September), attention shifted to global developments on blue
carbon, and the Partnership’s future priorities. Coordination issues across government agencies were
frequently raised as a challenge in developing consistent and collaborative approaches to blue carbon
policy and management. Daniel Murdiyarso, principal scientist, Centre for International Forestry
Research, said a recent blue carbon summit in Indonesia was a major step toward mainstreaming blue
carbon in the national policy agenda. One of the key messages from the Summit was that while
improving the science and knowledge remains critical for good decision making, emphasis must also be
placed on improving sharing of information and data between agencies to promote effective
governance.
Speakers also highlighted the development of new or updated tools and guidance, including a resource
for measuring, assessing and analysing carbon in coastal ecosystems. Others said there was a need for
databases to be developed or extended, to allow for the development of downstream products which
can support different end users’ requirements.
Both the Workshop and the IPBC meeting included discussions around accessing finance to support blue
carbon efforts. Some speakers said that blue carbon was in the early stages of ‘finance readiness’, with
action still more likely to be supported by philanthropic organisations rather than markets and private
sector investors. Leah Glass, Global Strategic Lead for Mangrove Conservation, Blue Ventures, said that
establishing blue carbon offsets projects required significant technical development, community and
government engagement.
On the final day, the value of the Partnership in bringing together different sectors, and a focus on
governments and policy development, was reiterated in a Partnership strategy session. The Partnership
has grown to 38 members and the session provided a timely opportunity for members to consider how
the Partnership can maintain engagement and balance its resources between hosting events and
developing policy and technical guidance. Next steps for the Partnership include the development of
activities with Focal Groups (Tools and Methods, Governance, and Finance) while the Coordinating
Group will develop an options paper reflecting considerations raised in the strategy session.
4
Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 2
Pacific Blue Carbon Workshop - Day 1 ........................................................................................................ 5
Welcome ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Morning sessions ...................................................................................................................................... 6 International Policy Context ................................................................................................................. 6
Wetlands values and culture ................................................................................................................ 7
Science deep-dive ................................................................................................................................. 8
Afternoon sessions ................................................................................................................................... 8 Policy deep-dive .................................................................................................................................... 8
Technical building blocks .................................................................................................................... 10
Pacific priorities for blue carbon ......................................................................................................... 11
Pacific Blue Carbon Workshop – Day 2 ...................................................................................................... 13
Morning sessions .................................................................................................................................... 13 Practical Action Deep Dive .................................................................................................................. 13
Finance Pathways and Guidance ........................................................................................................ 14
Field trip .................................................................................................................................................. 15 Evening Welcome Reception ..................................................................................................................... 18
IPBC Third Annual Meeting – Day 1 ........................................................................................................... 20
Morning sessions .................................................................................................................................... 20 Science expert panel ........................................................................................................................... 20
Policy expert panel .............................................................................................................................. 22
Afternoon sessions ................................................................................................................................. 24 Action expert panel ............................................................................................................................. 24
Focal groups ........................................................................................................................................ 25
IPBC Third Annual Meeting – Day 2 ........................................................................................................... 26
Morning sessions .................................................................................................................................... 26 Focal group 1: Tools and Methods ...................................................................................................... 26
Focal Group 2: Governance ................................................................................................................ 27
Focal Group 3: Finance ....................................................................................................................... 27
Focal Group - plenary discussion ........................................................................................................ 28
Partnership strategy............................................................................................................................ 30
Snapshots ............................................................................................................................................ 32
Governance update & next steps ....................................................................................................... 33
Participants List .......................................................................................................................................... 35
5
Pacific Blue Carbon Workshop - Day 1
Welcome
Fiji’s Permanent Secretary for Local
Government, Housing and Environment,
Joshua Wycliffe opened the Pacific Blue
Carbon Workshop on Tuesday 18
September, 2018. PS Wycliffe spoke of the
extent and value of these ecosystems in the
Pacific – Fiji alone has 40,000 hectares of
mangrove forest. He also noted the
pressures on coastal ecosystems from
development and governments’ need to
balance economic development and
sustainable environmental uses.
PIFS-OPOC Deputy Secretary General Cristelle Pratt’s welcome remarks became an important backdrop
to the workshop, recognising Pacific Island people as custodians of the largest global climate regulator,
and stewards of many coastal communities
around the globe. Secretariat for the
Pacific Regional Environment Program
(SPREP) A/g Deputy Director General,
Stuart Chape, completed the formal
welcomes by sending a clear message that
while regional organisations such as SPREP
can and do play an important part in
conservation and management, there is an
enduring and critical role for global
political leadership in combatting climate
change.
Figure 2: PS Joshua Wycliffe opened the Pacific Blue Carbon Workshop. Photo: Leah Glass
Figure 3: Scott Hook, PIFS, outlined the role of regional organisations. Photo: Leah Glass
6
Morning sessions
International Policy Context
To begin the workshop, Eliza Murray, Australian
Government Department of the Environment and
Energy, introduced the international policy context
for blue carbon, including the key climate change
and environmental agreements that can drive and
support national blue carbon actions.
Eliza highlighted that while conservationists and
scientists have been building the evidence base for
carbon sequestration by coastal ecosystems for
several decades, the signing of the Paris Agreement
in 2015 was an important moment for building
international awareness. The Paris Agreement
provided the momentum for heightened
international collaboration on climate action,
evidenced by the establishment of many new
initiatives, such as the International Partnership for
Blue Carbon.
Since its establishment, the Partnership has facilitated policy
discussions and technical studies into the questions
countries face when looking to protect and restore coastal
ecosystems. The Partnership has considered the policy
framing of and guidance provided by Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the United Nations
REDD Program (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), National Adaptation
Plans of Action (NAPAs) and environmental agreements including the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
and the Convention on Biological Diversity.
“We see this as an excellent way to
deepen awareness, knowledge and
action on blue carbon in the Pacific -
and around the world - and to create
new connections and opportunities
through dialogue.”
Figure 4: Eliza Murray, Australia, discussed international policy frameworks. Photo: Leah Glass
7
Wetlands values and culture
Moderator: Susana
Waqainabete-Tuisese, Fiji
Country Director, Conservation
International
In this session Susana was
joined by Rolenas Baereleo of
Vanuatu’s Department of
Environmental Protection and
Conservation, and Margaret
Tabunakawai-Vakalalabure,
Coordinator of Fiji’s Locally
Managed Marine Area (LMMA)
Network. The three women
discussed the socio-economic-
cultural context for knowledge
and management of coastal ecosystems, from their experiences supporting projects in the Pacific
Islands region.
Speakers reflected that many coastal communities have a strong sense of ownership for their local
areas and sometimes consider their management responsibilities to extend beyond land tenure
boundaries. Although the carbon value of these ecosystems has been highlighted recently, communities
living next to these ecosystems in the Pacific have long recognised and relied on their multiple benefits.
Local communities often serve as custodians for these ecosystems – and must be an essential
component of policy development and action on the ground.
A question from the audience prompted discussion on the major challenges to locally-led coastal
management and highlighted the importance for national policies to support (and not conflict with)
community efforts. For example, long-term community-led mangrove conservation in Suva Harbour
could be threatened by oil spills in the area, which are outside the control of community management.
The group considered shared regional values and acknowledged important points of differences
among communities in Pacific Island countries. Some participants were able to contribute experiences
from community-centered program design further afield, including in Madagascar, Kenya and Indonesia.
Figure 5: L-R: Susana Waqainabete-Tuisese, CI, Rolenas Baereleo, Vanuatu, Margaret Tabunakawai-Vakalabure, Fiji. Photo: Leah Glass
8
Science deep-dive
Moderator: Emily Pidgeon, Senior Director, Oceans and Climate Program, Conservation International
The workshop’s ‘science deep-dive’ laid the foundations for a shared understanding of blue carbon by
exploring the role of these different ecosystems in the global carbon cycle, and the science
underpinning our understanding of how different species store and sequester carbon from the oceans
and atmosphere. This introduction helped provide everybody with enough information to participate in
discussions – a necessary step given the diversity of topical backgrounds and disciplines represented in
the room. Representatives backgrounds’ included climate change policy, adaption planning, traditional
conservation and land management, maritime and foreign affairs, geographic information systems, and
beyond – reflecting the cross-sectoral nature of blue carbon.
Emily Pidgeon, Senior Director of Conservation International’s Oceans and Climate Program, provided
the introduction, drawing inputs from the Blue Carbon Initiative’s Scientific Working Group. Panelists
contributed case studies from their areas of expertise, and discussed the gaps and possible future
directions for blue carbon science and research. Gilianne Brodie, University of the South Pacific,
explained that while seagrass ecosystems are believed to more prevalent and sequester more carbon,
their value is yet to be fully understood or recognised.
Senilolia Tuiwawa, Conservation International, gave an update on several community-led conservation
projects in Fiji, and advocated strengthening the upkeep of traditional knowledge of sustainable
resource use. Lisa Benson, a marine ecologist with the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and
Aquaculture (CEFAS) continued the seagrass focus by describing CEFAS-led activities to develop
baselines in blue carbon data in Vanuatu. Discussions highlighted the disparities in research
infrastructure, capacity and expertise in different regions of the world.
Afternoon sessions
Policy deep-dive
Moderator: Scott Hook, Team Leader Resilience, Pacific Islands Forum
In this session experts discussed the potential linkages to blue carbon in existing regional initiatives in
the Pacific. Cristelle Pratt, PIFS-OPOC, and Stuart Chape, SPREP, agreed there is already a policy
architecture, institutional arrangements and commitments in the Pacific to support improved coastal
ecosystem management, such as the Pacific Oceanscape and the Pacific Ocean Alliance, and that the
focus should now be on implementation. Recent high level attention on oceans policy, evidenced by
Fiji’s role as co-chair of the UN Ocean Conference in 2017, and a UN Resolution in the same year
referencing the vital role of coastal blue carbon ecosystems (UN 72.73.197), were considered positive
9
signs that there is sufficient political will to enhance action related to oceans-climate policy. Cristelle
issued a call to action, asking participants to harness the opportunity presented by the workshop to ‘talk
about us’, and consider the particular context for climate action in the Pacific region, look at the
intersections between climate change and environmental policy, and identify pathways to make
‘Pacific people’s lives well worth living’.
Andrew Foran, Oceania Regional Office, International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN),
shared outcomes from a number of regional projects. The MARSH Project, for example, supported four
Honours students to study mangroves at the University of Papua New Guinea, and reached more than
500 people through training in carbon accounting and associated community outcomes. Andrew
reflected that a challenge for introducing the blue carbon concept to Pacific Island communities would
be its relatively small potential to generate climate finance compared to bigger impact sectors such as
transport and agriculture. Andrew prompted an important discussion on how blue carbon can support
existing action – particularly activities supporting resilient and prosperous communities – rather than
dilute attention away from established regional priorities.
While not all participants agreed a Pacific regional blue carbon policy or strategy highlighting the carbon
value of these ecosystems was needed, there was support for continuing the dialogue by looking for
opportunities to bring together different communities of practice (climate change policy makers,
coastal zone managers, community engagement practitioners, etc.) through workshops such as this,
with a view to establishing a definition of blue carbon that is culturally and socially appropriate in this
region.
10
Technical building blocks
Moderator: Zoe Sinclair, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy
In this session the workshop
group turned their attention to
the technical building blocks
which support policy-driven
actions on coastal blue carbon
ecosystems. The panelists
described some of the tools
and approaches for
‘measurement, reporting and
verification’ (MRV) of
greenhouse gas emissions and
removals from natural sources
and sinks. MRV describes a
range of processes and systems
that can enable countries to
build the evidence base to
service a broad suite of policy
priorities. Zoe (moderator) began by describing how Australia has developed MRV processes for a range
of sectors to meet UNFCCC treaty obligations governing the preparation of national greenhouse gas
inventories. Zoe noted the importance of MRV in providing government with data about ecosystems to
inform policy development.
Steve Crooks, Silvestrum Climate Associates, described how MRV is dealt with in the UNFCCC and IPCC
context, highlighting the publication of the 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands (the Wetlands Supplement) as a major milestone. The Wetlands
Supplement provides guidance to countries on reporting for emissions associated with changes in the
land-use of coastal wetlands, including their conversion and degradation, as well as their restoration.
Anish Maharaj, University of Fiji, and Johanna Johnson, SPREP, completed the discussion panel. Anish
described how geographical information systems (GIS) and remote sensing are important for gathering
data on coastal ecosystems, and can serve to build a total picture of ecosystem services – where value is
being created as well as received – which can support policy decision-making.
Figure 6: L-R: Johanna Johnson, SPREP, Anish Maharaj, University of Fiji, Steve Crooks, Silvestrum, Zoe Sinclair, Australia. Photo: Lucy Wallington
11
Johanna shared the success of a bespoke marine monitoring toolkit developed for community-led data
gathering in Vanuatu. The toolkit includes relatively simple and low-tech methods for ecosystem
identification and monitoring that could be implemented by communities and generate scientifically
robust results. Johanna reflected that, in the past, the management focus in Pacific Island countries has
favored coral reefs over mangroves, but that the connectivity between reefs, seagrasses and mangroves
has more recently been recognised. Communities are now realising the potential to be gained from
integrated management across the environmental landscape.
A key question arising from the presentations was how countries can approach data gathering and
ecosystem management in privately owned areas. The experts conceded that while the aim is for
methods to be accessible and universal, implementing them at the national level involves tackling
land tenure and management zone challenges that can only be done in a nationally-appropriate way.
Pacific priorities for blue carbon
Moderator: Lucy Wallington, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy
At the end of the first day, participants were treated to snapshot-style presentations from six
representatives of Pacific Island governments, who each described the state of blue carbon knowledge
and activities in their countries. The presentations ensured the workshop group considered a broad
range of perspectives from the Pacific Islands region, and helped to build awareness of different country
experiences, especially for participants from outside the region.
Iki Peter, Papua New Guinea’s Climate Change Development Authority, highlighted that while blue
carbon is not formally recognised in PNG’s NDC or emissions reporting, there is growing awareness of
its potential to contribute to mitigation and adaptation efforts. Iki shared examples of how mangroves
have been recognised for their potential to generate economic activity (the Mangrove Market Meri
concept on sustainable use) and have a role in protected area planning (a model PA for mangroves in
Bootless Bay).
Nelly Kere, Solomon Islands’ Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management and
Meteorology, explained that a lack of data is a major challenge for taking up the blue carbon concept,
although the role of these ecosystems as fisheries nursery habitats and in seabed stability are widely
understood. Nelly made the point that if thought about and discussed as part of the broad package of
values for conservation, ecosystem services, and economic livelihoods, the new concept is more likely
to take hold.
Farran Redfern, Kiribati’s Ministry of Environment, Land, Agriculture and Development, shared a
national activity with the International Society for Mangrove Ecosystems, which introduced mangrove
12
planting techniques to local communities in several islands, and taught children about the benefits of
coastal protection against climate change impacts. Farran explained that in Kiribati, coastal ecosystems
are well recognised as an important contributor to biodiversity conservation and management, as well
as adaptation, but like in many other countries, the carbon element is very new concept.
Tolusina Pouli, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of Samoa, suggested that existing
recognition and promotion of wetlands through other avenues, such as the Ramsar Convention on
Wetlands and World Wetlands Day, and Ridge to Reef projects, could provide a pathway for raising
awareness of blue carbon. Identifying the key drivers for coastal ecosystem degradation could also be an
input for directing national policy attention on blue carbon.
Jeanette Mani, Fiji Government Ministry of Economy, provided estimates of the potential carbon market
value of avoided conversion of Fiji’s mangroves – between FJD8,5000 -25,000 per hectare at
conservative values. Biodiversity offsetting is a widely accepted policy approach in Fiji, and mangrove
conversion requires an additional 2-3 hectares of mangroves to be rehabilitated or permanently
conserved for every hectare converted. This approach supports Fiji’s overall goal of ensuring the
national GHG inventory continues to improve. Nina Sikiti, Fiji Government Ministry of Waterways and
the Environment, highlighted a current policy priority to strengthen monitoring activities, and
developing the case for introducing a 1 to 6 ratio for mangrove restoration (replanting 6 hectares for
every 1 hectare removed).
The day closed with a short discussion on future directions for international initiatives on blue carbon.
Panelists debated whether activities should focus on national level policy capacity building, or
community-level awareness raising, and concluded that with the right tools and information resources –
many of which are already available – it should be possible to achieve both.
13
Pacific Blue Carbon Workshop – Day 2
Morning sessions
Practical Action Deep Dive
Moderator: Stacy Jupiter, Melanesia Director, Wildlife Conservation Society
On Day 2, conservation practitioners and regional program managers discussed approaches to
mangrove and seagrass restoration, reflecting on lessons from outside the region and considering their
application in the Pacific. Stacy (moderator) began by describing how the current approach to
implementing Locally Managed Marine Areas (LMMAs) around the world had its genesis in the Pacific.
Wholly managed by communities to meet their own needs and objectives, LMMAs empower
communities to ‘learn by doing’. Despite limited empirical evidence, it is widely believed that LMMAs
deliver resilience outcomes in addition to their primary objectives (usually fisheries or tourism).
Dave Loubser, Vanuatu Country Manager, SPREP, stressed protection-focused activities should be a
priority, before tackling restoration, and proper business planning to achieve the long term,
generational impacts accessible through conservation projects.
Leah Glass, Global Strategic Lead for Mangrove Conservation at Blue Ventures, pointed out that Blue
Ventures in Madagascar is already exchanging lessons with the LMMA Network in Fiji. Blue Ventures, an
NGO primarily focused on supporting fisheries, became involved in blue carbon when they identified it
as possible incentive mechanism for conservation projects. Leah highlighted that whether or not carbon
credits are the end goal, the approach to setting up a project as a carbon project can ensure it will be
scientifically and methodologically robust.
Jan Steffen, Program Director of the MACBIO program, GIZ, described their work on marine ecosystem
services valuation. The program has assessed the value of ecosystem services in five countries and
found that in Fiji, tourism and carbon value exceeded that of tuna licensing. This research informed
national policy and legislation reviews.
During the discussion, Duta Kauhiona, Coordinator for Community-based Resource Management,
Solomon Islands Ministry of Fisheries, said it was important to include national governments in project
design, implementation, and review, and planning projects with sufficient time to achieve sustained
outcomes (around 20 years was recommended). This comment drew on research that showed that
many community-based projects that failed after implementing partners departed had not included the
national government in planning and implementation.
14
Finance Pathways and Guidance
Moderator: Dave Loubser, Vanuatu Country Manager, SPREP
In the workshop’s final plenary session, experts drew on project examples from the Indo-Pacific region
and beyond to discuss sustainable finance opportunities for blue carbon. Dave (moderator) was joined
by Melissa Walsh, Ocean Finance Manager of OPOC, who presented the key ideas from a recently
published paper ‘Ocean Finance: Definition and Actions’, developed under the Pacific Ocean Finance
Program.
Jean-Baptiste Marre, Restoration of Ecosystem Services and Adaptation to Climate Change (RESCCUE)
Program Deputy Coordinator, shared experiences from the program which has been developing financial
mechanisms around several ecosystem services (tourism and fisheries, licenses, conservation
agreements, etc.). Jean-Baptiste suggested the approach to stacking various services of value could
lend itself to monetising blue carbon.
Arpana Pratap of the Pacific Islands Development Forum considered that the first blue economy
conference held this year in Suva provided a new perspective and useful lessons on industries,
innovations, options and sources of finance, and helped to raise the profile of the blue agenda among
regional leaders.
Dorothée Herr, Manager Oceans and Climate Change, IUCN rounded out the panel by presenting the
findings from a recent study into the preferences of buyers of carbon offset credits. Dorothée’s findings
showed that the carbon content of an offset offering is not a defining factor (as the measurement of a
tonne should be consistent across projects), but external factors such as major policy change are more
likely to deter compliance buyers than voluntary buyers. For several reasons voluntary buyers are
predicted to be the most flexible, and most prospective, customers for blue carbon offsets. The biggest
challenge for the blue carbon community will be supplying the credits to meet their demand.
15
Field trip
Summary by Senilolia Tuiwawa and Bridget Kennedy, Conservation International
On September 19 2018, Conservation International organised a half-day field excursion for participants
of the Pacific Blue Carbon Workshop. In partnership with the University of the South Pacific (USP) and
the University of Fiji, the trip combined classroom and experiential learning to provide an overview of
scientific expertise, academic research, and technical capacity within Fiji and the Pacific Islands region.
Workshop participants could choose from a visit to a mangrove habitat along the Rewa Delta,
conducting drone-mapping in the mangrove forests, applying remote-sensing technologies in My Suva
Park, and touring the laboratory and research facilities at USP.
The mangrove areas visited gave participants an insight into the communities and forest structure that
comprise the Rewa Delta, Fiji’s largest mangrove area covering over 40,000ha of land area. Located on
the south-eastern side of the main island, the Delta contains an expanse of relatively intact mangrove
stands. Much of the Delta’s land is owned by indigenous Fijian clans, called ‘mataqalis’ who utilize
coastal resources for social and economic purposes. CI has been working in the Rewa Delta in
Figure 7: Participants on the field trip learn about how to operate a drone. Photo: Lucy Wallington.
16
partnership with the Fiji Ministry of Forests on a reforestation project (adaptation) funded by the
International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO). The field trip site was characterised by a coastal
strand forest, sitting adjacent to an explicit profile of various mangrove forest types found across the
Rewa Delta. Participants examined pockets of Rhizophora forest, Bruguiera forest and mixed forest, as
well as natural regeneration sites of mangrove species. The Delta also contains agricultural and farming
sites, indicated by fruit trees, and cassava and taro farms. These species serve as primary resources for
income generation across the delta and are important for community livelihoods.
Nicholas Rollings from the USP School of Geography and a team of undergraduate students conducted a
drone-mapping demonstration at the site. This included multispectral and hyperspectral
measurements. Participants learnt about methods for species mapping and canopy morphology via
photogrammetry, as well as traditional API (application programming interface) of high resolution drone
imagery in conjunction with World View III satellite data.
Figure 8: Drone demonstration in Fiji. Photo: Lucy Wallington.
17
Over at the USP’s Marine Collection Centre,
South Pacific Regional Herbarium and
Chemistry laboratory, experts explained the
history of the facilities and their role in blue
carbon research. USP is one of only two
regional universities in the world and is
supported by 12 Pacific Island Countries:
Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands,
Nauru, Niue, Samoa, Solomon Islands,
Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.
The last activity included field data collection
and satellite imagery analysis by Anish
Maharaj, Assistant Lecturer in Environmental
Science at the University of Fiji. Participants
accompanied Anish to My Suva Park and
learnt how to gather GPS points using
satellite imagery equipment. Participants
discussed best practices for remote-sensing
field work in the context of his current
research on seagrass and coastal habitat
mapping. Back in the classroom the group
saw how satellite imagery is processed,
images are classified and accuracy
assessments are conducted. This information can help practitioners conduct environmental, climate
change and disaster risk analysis, by mapping change detection within selected blue carbon ecosystems,
such as mangroves.
Figure 9: USP is developing its comprehensive records. Photo: Lucy Wallington
18
Evening Welcome Reception
An evening welcome reception marked the transition from the Workshop to the IPBC Third Annual
Meeting. The reception provided a space for reflection for Workshop participants, and a warm welcome
to those who had travelled to Fiji for the IPBC Meeting.
Pacific Workshop Reflections
Workshop participants Farran Redfern, Ministry of Environment,
Land, Agriculture and Development in Kiribati, and Duta Kauhiona,
Solomon Islands’ Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources,
contributed their personal reflections from the Workshop. Farran
expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to develop an
understanding of blue carbon and build connections with regional and
international practitioners. Duta recognised the potential for blue
carbon to strengthen the case for coastal restoration projects,
building on their important role in adaptation, and urged proponents
of blue carbon project to engage national governments as a priority,
from the beginning.
IPBC Meeting Opening
Australia, as Coordinator of the International Partnership for
Blue Carbon, opened the Third Annual IPBC Meeting by
providing an overview of the Partnership’s activities and
achievements over the past year. Eliza Murray presented the
recap, highlighting the Partnership’s rapid growth in
membership – to almost 40 members – and the development
of technical activities to address targeted areas, building on
the Partnership’s earlier awareness-raising activities.
Figure 10: Susana Waqainabete-Tuisese, CI. Photo: Lucy Wallington
Figure 11: Farran Redfern and Duta Kauhiona. Photo: Lucy Wallington
19
Key achievements this year were:
Raising Awareness
• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties
(COP) 23 – partners collaborated at Oceans Action Day and in high level events
• Coastal blue carbon: an introduction for policymakers – new IPBC publication launched
• Asia Pacific Rainforest Summit – partners ran a dedicated Summit session on blue carbon
• New learning module developed and tested at the Coral Triangle Centre, with expert input
• Launch of the IPBC Newsletter (third edition out soon)
Sharing Knowledge
• Facilitating regional collaboration at the Coral Triangle Initiative Blue Carbon Workshop and the
Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA) Blue Carbon Summit
• Hosting Indian Ocean fellows during an immersive study tour in Australia
• Addressing key policy questions in dedicated focal groups:
– Tools and methods
– Governance and linkages
– Finance
Accelerating Action
• A multi-country technical exchange on
implementation of the Wetlands Supplement, held in
Brisbane in July (report available here).
• Korea-Australia technical exchange on developing
national blue carbon inventories
• Contributing expertise to support national
coordination at the Indonesia Blue Carbon Summit
• Targeted technical activities with research partners,
including gathering lessons from REDD
• Australia’s Pacific Blue Carbon Initiative announced
Figure 12: Zoe Sinclair, Australia. Photo: Lucy Wallington
20
IPBC Third Annual Meeting – Day 1
Morning sessions
Science expert panel
Moderator: Emily Pidgeon, Senior Director, Oceans and Climate
Program Conservation International
The IPBC’s Third Annual Meeting opened with a science expert
panel – providing updates on key blue carbon science and
research developments and implications for policy, building on the
information presented and discussion from the Pacific workshop
science deep dive.
This included a presentation from Zhao Peng, Fourth Institute of
Oceanography, Ministry of Natural Resources, who reflected on
the proceedings and outcomes from the Blue Carbon Initiative
(BCI) Scientific Working Group meeting, hosted by China in Weihai
earlier this year – a first for China and the region. Zhao highlighted
the importance of blue carbon ecosystems for supporting
Whooper Swan populations in China, and the work currently
underway to better understand, define and incorporate blue
carbon in national policies and plans; Zhao
confirmed China will be pushing ahead with plans
to carry out a national blue carbon survey and
incorporate blue carbon in its national greenhouse
gas accounts.
Daniel Murdiyarso, Senior Scientist, Centre for
International Forestry Research, provided
reflections from the Blue Carbon Summit held in
Indonesia this July – the Summit was a major step
toward mainstreaming blue carbon in the national
policy agenda. Blue carbon governance is a
complex issue in Indonesia; one of the key
takeaways from the Summit was that while
improving the science and knowledge remains
critical for good decision making, emphasis must
The Blue Carbon Initiative (BCI) – a founding
member of the IPBC – is a global program
supporting scientific research into the role of
coastal blue carbon ecosystems for climate
change mitigation, and works to develop
comprehensive methods for assessing blue
carbon stocks and emissions. The BCI
announced in Weihai the launch of the BCI’s
Coastal Blue Carbon Methods for Assessing
Carbon Stocks and Emissions Factors in
Mangroves, Tidal Salt Marshes, and Seagrass
Meadows (vol. 2) – a key resource to assist
scientists and coastal managers to produce
robust blue carbon data.
Figure 13: Tolusina Pouli leading a morning prayer. Photo: Lucy Wallington
21
also be placed on
improving sharing of
information and data
across agencies in order to
promote effective
communication and
governance. For science to
have an impact, it must
have an audience – Daniel
stressed that more
outreach is needed with
key partners in
government, business and
the community.
A key theme emerging from the discussion was the importance of multi-disciplinary approaches to blue
carbon, to draw in the knowledge and expertise not just of the climate community, but other relevant
experts – foresters, biologists, and ecologists. Investing more in socioeconomic research is also
important, to understand how communities rely on and relate to these ecosystems. Discussants also
underlined the importance of understanding and respecting the local protocols, land tenure and
resource management structures in place when undertaking scientific research and targeted blue
carbon interventions, including in the Pacific.
On more technical elements, a key theme to emerge was the need for databases to be developed or
extended, and to enable use by multiple parties for different purposes. While there may be good data
in pockets, further work is needed to build the infrastructure that would allow these data to be shared
and integrated in national plans, policies and inventories. The One Map-Indonesia initiative is one
example of what can be done to bring together multiple datasets (land use, land tenure and other
spatial data) and make them more accessible at the national level. In the US, the Smithsonian
Environmental Research Centre leads on similar efforts. With more of these data initiatives coming
online, the challenge is to ensure these are interconnected, and the inputs reliable and accurate.
Figure 14: L-R: Emily Pidgeon, CI, Zhao Peng, China, Daniel Murdiyarso, CIFOR, Gilianne Brodie, USP. Photo: Lucy Wallington
22
Policy expert panel
Moderator: Lisa Schindler-
Murray, Policy Advisor,
International Climate
Change, The Nature
Conservancy
In this session policy
experts discussed recent
international policy
developments and shared
examples of how blue
carbon is being integrated
in policy frameworks.
Steve Crooks, Silvestrum,
began by providing an
overview of blue carbon in
the UNFCCC context, including the guidance countries have available to them for incorporating coastal
wetlands into national greenhouse gas inventories1. Steve noted that while it may be challenging initially
to apply this guidance, the important thing is for countries to commence work on their inventories
(using default values if necessary) and to focus on refining data inputs and approaches over time.
Climate Change Commissioner Noel Gaerlan highlighted the action being taken at various levels in the
Philippines; a new resolution put forward by the Commission will establish a Blue Carbon Steering
Committee and Blue Carbon Technical Group to operationalise the Philippines’ Blue Carbon Roadmap.
Japanese representative, Daisuke Uesako, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, also
reported on the establishment (in 2017) of a Blue Carbon Working Group – to better understand the
challenges and opportunities associated with blue carbon for Japan. Japan is currently investigating the
creation of new tidal wetlands from dredge spoil and seaweed beds from industrial by-products.
Indonesian research scientist, Frida Sidik, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fishery, highlighted the various
ways in which blue carbon is being considered in climate change policies and actions – including
through Regional Action Plan on Greenhouse Gas Reduction at the sub national level (34 provinces), the
Indonesia Blue Carbon Strategy Framework (for mainstreaming blue carbon into policy), and a national
1 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands
Figure 15: L-R: Noel Gaerlan, Philippines, Daisuke Uesako, Japan, Steve Crooks, Silvestrum, Frida Sidik, Indonesia, Lisa Schindler-Murray, TNC. Photo: Lucy Wallington
23
working group to support coordination among the many agencies with an interest in carbon science,
policy and reporting.
Nelly Kere, Solomon Islands’ Ministry of Economy, Climate Change and Disaster Management, noted
that while blue carbon discussions in her country are at the preliminary stage, there may be
opportunities to include blue carbon in a future NDC and/or REDD+ policy frameworks.
Across the board there was interest in how blue carbon could be taken forward in national policy
settings – and in some cases through enhanced ambition in NDCs. Daisuke said Japan intends to include
blue carbon in a future NDC, but this may take a few years, owing to the lack of historical data and
measurement. In the Philippines and Indonesia, mangroves are already being incorporated in national
greenhouse gas inventories – although not yet carbon in soils; Philippines is in the process now of
updating its NDC to recognise both the carbon storage and adaptation benefits of coastal ecosystems.
Nelly said the Solomon Islands needed to better understand what it means to include blue carbon in an
NDC, including the relative costs and benefits.
The discussion also picked up blue carbon and its potential links to REDD+ and carbon trading
mechanisms under the Paris Agreement. Some observed that not all countries will be supportive of
market-type approaches, and cautioned that selling credits through voluntary or compliance
mechanisms could introduce issues such as double counting and/or limit countries ability and
willingness to count blue carbon in their NDCs. Countries will also need to examine how mangroves in
particular are captured in current forest definitions and establish the governance mechanisms and
infrastructure to encourage better access to and use of data. More broadly, there are lessons to be
learned from the REDD+ experience for blue carbon – The Nature Conservancy is currently working on a
paper to draw these out and understand how blue carbon may be integrated in countries REDD+ plans
and the broader international climate architecture.
24
Afternoon sessions
Action expert panel
Moderator: Dorothée Herr, Manager, Oceans and Climate Change, International Union for Conservation
of Nature (IUCN)
This session covered current efforts to protect, restore and monitor blue carbon ecosystems, drawing on
experience from technical initiatives around the world. Leah Glass, Global Strategic Lead for mangrove
conservation at Blue Ventures, spoke first about her project experience in Madagascar. Leah observed
that any mangrove project could be viewed as a carbon project, but for those looking to access offset
credits then there are certain requirements and a degree of technical rigour to consider – including
due diligence around site selection, scientific baselines, project design, financial analysis and benefit
sharing. Proponents must be willing to invest the time to build community buy-in and ownership over
any blue carbon project, and in the interim consider other shorter-term incentives and mechanisms for
managing threats to these ecosystems.
Steven Lutz, Programme Leader for Blue Carbon at GRID-Arendal, highlighted other successful projects
and blue carbon activities, including in Gazi Bay in Kenya which has the world’s first working payments
for mangrove carbon project. There are plans in place to replicate this successful model in Vanga Bay in
Kenya, with the Plan Vivo project design document accepted for peer review. Steve also reported briefly
on the work in Ecuador to protect mangroves and sustainable use of their resources through
concessions. These concessions, brokered by Kenya’s Ministry of Environment, grant communities
exclusive rights to use mangrove areas for fishing, tourism or other livelihood needs.
Bridget Kennedy, Asia-Pacific Senior Development and Program Manager at Conservation International
in Fiji, observed that while there aren’t any examples of large scale coastal carbon activities in the
Pacific, there are lessons to be drawn from community-based terrestrial projects, such as the
Nakauvadra Reforestation Initiative in Fiji; 28 villages and 200 participating households worked in
partnership with Fiji water to replant 1,135ha of indigenous and introduced species. Bridget stressed the
importance of culturally and regionally appropriate vehicles for conservation, to ensure communities
are involved in the planning, design and implementation of projects. More broadly, there are likely to be
lessons from REDD+, particularly in relation to benefit sharing and the management of carbon rights.
The final speaker, Sebastian Thomas, Sustainability Science Lab, University of Melbourne, emphasised
the importance of community linkages and partnerships, rather than ‘top-down’ approaches to blue
carbon conservation. Sebastian observed that carbon markets are expanding – and with that potential
for online peer-to-peer verification – through tools such as Blockchain – which could be used to reduce
transaction costs.
25
A panel discussion moved on to address potential challenges and opportunities associated with
Blockchain. Some observed that without proper safeguards, a system like Blockchain could potentially
be used to game the price of carbon credits, and that peer-to-peer accountability would not be enough
to support the scale and ambition of the Paris Agreement and countries’ NDCs.
Solomon Islands urged blue carbon proponents in the Pacific to proceed cautiously, and to understand
how projects may impact communities both positively and negatively. These sentiments were echoed by
Leah, who pointed out that despite a five-and-a-half year long engagement in Madagascar, Blue
Ventures has not approached carbon traders/financiers. Instead, the focus has been on addressing the
building blocks – blue carbon science and supporting community management of the ecosystems –
which are critical to establishing the feasibility of any future carbon project.
Participants were reminded of concerns – raised previously in international fora – about the potential
for carbon projects to limit communities’ access to crucial coastal resources, as illustrated by one
particularly well-known mangrove project in Africa. These concerns have prompted some organisations
(like Blue Forests) to explore the development of a blue carbon code of conduct and/or mechanisms for
handling disputes. In the Pacific context, Bridget again emphasised the importance of working with
governments and traditional systems in order to establish sustainable and culturally-appropriate
conservation and benefit-sharing models. The forestry project in Fiji’s Sovi Basin provides a good
example of how community conservation agreements, supported by the proceeds of a trust fund, can
lead to positive environmental outcomes and livelihoods opportunities.
Focal groups
In the afternoon participants were invited to join one of the Partnership’s three established focal groups
conducted in parallel: Tools and Methods; Governance and Linkages; and Finance. Discussion topics
were prepared in advance of the sessions, but participants were encouraged to contribute their own
ideas and discussion topics. A detailed summary of these discussions is presented in the next section.
26
IPBC Third Annual Meeting – Day 2
Morning sessions
Focal group 1: Tools and Methods
Chair: Karl Haby, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy
This focal group focused on geospatial data and MRV tools in the Pacific – challenges, needs and
potential solutions. The discussion revealed that for blue carbon ecosystems there are generally good
data for mangrove (distribution), but this is not the case for seagrasses. This has spurred work to
collect more seagrass data in the region.
The Pacific also faces some particular challenges in accessing and applying remotely sensed data and
products – it’s a geographically large and diverse area (meaning satellite images can lack the required
resolution or fail to track the right areas); repeat monitoring and automatic validation can also be
challenging due to prevailing cloud and atmospheric conditions; Pacific countries often lack the
required digital infrastructure and human capacity to store, process, and analyse data, a situation not
helped by generally slow internet speeds. Shared or overlapping governance and coordination
arrangements were also raised: a range of agencies have an interest in coastal ecosystem management,
which can complicate how geospatial data and other information is collected and who can access it. This
can also result in different or inconsistent definitions of landuse/landuse boundaries, and competing
methods for the interpretation and analysis of datasets.
Discussants highlighted a project (Pacific Data Hub) being developed by SPC, to consolidate and make
accessible in one place the many data portals and datasets which exist but are either undiscoverable
or under-utilised. The USP is developing a reputation as a centre of excellence for remote sensing in the
Pacific – new partnerships could help the USP and other Pacific research institutions push further into
this space and add new capability (e.g. carbon sampling). Outside the region, the One Map initiative in
Indonesia could offer a model in how to build trust and open data sharing policies across relevant
agencies using a common digital platform. Future MRV capacity building efforts must be well directed,
sustainable (past the initial program or donor investment), and ultimately supportive of countries’
policy priorities – more emphasis should be placed on giving Pacific countries access to pre-processed
geospatial data and data products which have been validated and harmonised with other data sources.
27
Focal Group 2: Governance
Chair: Zoe Sinclair, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy
Two discussion options were presented to the group: the first related to NDC guidance, and specifically
the information and guidance countries might need to revise their NDCs (due to be submitted or
resubmitted in 2019-20); the second topic addressed blue carbon governance, including the challenges
and opportunities for improving coordination, data sharing and policy development across agencies and
at levels of government.
Beginning with NDCs, participants mainly sought information on avenues available to support NDC
development. Some initiatives that were highlighted, and with particular relevance to the Pacific,
included the NDC Hub. Discussants agreed that there was a need for factual easy to understand
information about NDCs and identification of sources of support. An NDC/Blue carbon ‘starter kit’ was
proposed as a potential product. Discussants also noted the value of technical guidance to support the
NDC process. In particular, participants noted the Partnership’s technical exchange in July in Australia on
coastal wetlands and national greenhouse gas inventories.
Discussants observed that a key challenge to governance and blue carbon in NDCs remained the lack of
available data. Others noted again the need to raise awareness across agencies which did not have
significant understanding of blue carbon but may be well-placed to contribute to coastal ecosystems
policy development and data management – Fiji shared an example of coordination across ministries in
preparation of Fiji’s NDC. Overall, discussants recognised the synergies between enhanced data sharing
and more capacity building at the national level, so that the respective interests and responsibilities of
different agencies in blue carbon can be clarified.
Focal Group 3: Finance
Co-Chairs: Lucy Wallington, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy and David Loubser, SPREP
The two suggested areas of discussion were: developing a better understanding of the potential finance
sources for blue carbon; and the experience of communities wanting to access finance for projects,
including obstacles and how they’ve been addressed. The group began my considering the best ways to
bring forward blue carbon projects at a global scale. One way to approach this would be by focusing
efforts on developing as many small scale projects as possible in the short term, using the limited
existing interest through the voluntary market to establish norms and prepare for financing at a larger
scale. There was some debate over whether these demonstration projects should be designed and
28
implemented one country at a time – to focus on developing community ownership – or as a regional
program which might have greater potential to be scaled up.
The group then considered what size of project or ecosystem extent could be considered 'significant' –
and what would that mean for countries with very small amounts of blue carbon ecosystems and
associated blue carbon potential. More creative or complex economic analysis may be needed to build
the ‘business case’ in these scenarios, e.g. including cultural values when assessing total value. Different
types of finance and funding sources are appropriate at different stages of a project life cycle and the
timing of incentives needs to be done carefully – while some flagged incentives are important, others
considered this could be a distraction from building ownership of the project based on non-carbon
outcomes and benefits. In general, the experience of conservation groups working in the marine sector
has been that small batch funding for projects makes it harder to plan for and get good value out of
compared to larger value projects.
Based on the discussion, some suggested next steps in this space may be to: develop investment
principles or standards to potentially give more assurance to investors; investigate what opportunities
there are to attract finance away from investments or sectors that aren't supporting the objectives of
blue carbon; conduct a stocktake of finance streams being channeled to community projects to assess
which are successful or problematic, and to learn from them.
Focal Group - plenary discussion
A plenary discussion built on the key themes and issues raised
in the Focal Group report back session. Key points from the
plenary discussion included:
NDCs/policy
There remains a need to build capacity of countries to
engage with the NDC process, including:
o Basic information/guidance about: what is an
NDC, what data are needed, who leads the
process, how can different Ministries
contribute to developing NDCs.
There are different approaches/models for
incorporating blue carbon in policy. There’s no single
‘best’ way, but it’s important to get started rather
than wait for ‘formal’ rules Figure 16: Karl Haby, Australia. Photo: Lucy Wallington
29
Context is extremely important. There’s a need to support countries to identify and discuss their
own capacity, what’s happening on the ground, and understand what’s possible or not
o Many factors and competing priorities will influence how blue carbon proceeds at the
country level.
There are policy mechanisms in place (like REDD+) which may be relevant to blue carbon.
o More work is needed to understand the nexus between blue carbon and REDD+ and a
learning exchange with the REDD+ community could be useful in bridging that gap.
o Data are key to understanding whether or not REDD+ is the right policy vehicle, and in
which circumstances.
The degree to which governments can/do incorporate blue carbon in policy is ultimately
contingent on how sustainable it is, particularly from a monitoring and compliance perspective.
Community engagement
Careful communication and active engagement are needed to make programs work on the
ground. How we talk about blue carbon with communities matters, and we should be cautious
about creating unrealistic expectations
o On this point there’s a lot to be learned from the Pacific that can be applied elsewhere.
In the Pacific, customary boundaries mean you can only manage resources/ecosystems within
those defined limits – these vary in geographical size, which can have substantial influence on
the feasibility of a blue carbon project.
Data/tools
Data collected from projects and other interventions should go towards better understanding
and management of these ecosystems tailored to what communities value, rather than just for
securing access to outside finance.
There has been a proliferation of blue carbon tools and methods. What’s needed now are
models, examples, and guidance demonstrating these things in action.
In the Pacific, as with anywhere, it is very important to understand and work with the local
governance context, protocols and ethics.
30
Partnership strategy
Zoe Sinclair, Australian Government Department of the Environment, began the session with a brief
recap of the Partnership’s history, purpose, and governance structure. Australia has been the
Coordinator of the Partnership since its launch in 2015. The Partnership has now grown to 38 members,
and manages an increasing array of activities. As the Partnership continues to develop its approach to
governance and sustainability, participation and activities will also need to evolve.
Governance and sustainability: the Partnership is largely supported by Australia and in-kind
support from partners – what options are there for this funding model to evolve in the future?
Participation: How can the Coordinator be supported to allow for increased engagement and
what is the role of select groups such as the private sector and communities in the Partnership?
Activities: How does the Partnership balance its focus between providing policy and technical
guidance, with events and awareness raising?
Participants explored these issues in break-out groups, with some themes and issues appearing across
the separate discussions.
Sustainability – Partnership governance/funding
Participants in the discussions queried whether a more formal secretariat might be required to support
engagement with IPBC members. Examples were shared of secretariats under other institutions which
might serve as a model, such as the World Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF). Participants raised
issues of funding for a future secretariat, its structure, and the timeframes involved in establishing and
embedding it – would a roadmap identifying medium and long-term options be a useful planning and
communications tool for the Partnership?
Others queried the implications for engagement of a more formal secretariat. For example, were it to be
housed in a UN institution such as UN Environment or IOC-UNESCO (some of the suggestions that were
raised in discussion), would that limit the Partnership’s current agility? Alternatively, would association
with the UN be a more effective mechanism for engaging national governments? Some thought that a
global secretariat body/board, supported by a network of regional working groups or committees could
help expand the reach and influence of the Partnership.
Others emphasised the potential for leveraging other regional or global entities to enhance awareness
and implementation of blue carbon. The Pacific NDC Hub could be one avenue – working with countries
to refine their NDCs could provide the impetus (and resourcing needed) for greater recognition of blue
carbon/coastal ecosystems national mitigation, adaptation and environmental policy and reporting
31
frameworks. The Global Island Partnership was also mentioned as a possible platform and/or home for
regional blue carbon activities.
Overall, participants agreed that the Partnership’s value had been well-established and that there is
strong support from Partners for taking the initiative forward. Some observed that Partners
themselves have not been approached for financial support, but that this ultimately may be needed for
the Partnership to grow and be sustainable. As the Partnership continues to grow, the shared leadership
model also needs to evolve. A key priority is supporting more governments to take leadership roles in
the Partnership.
Participation
Partners again reiterated the IPBC’s government participation and policy focus to be a strength.
Participants also observed however that different countries are at different stages when it comes to
addressing blue carbon. This led to discussions around how best to engage with governments through
which modalities; on this point there were very strong synergies with those issues discussed in
‘Activities’ (described in more detail below).
The Partnership currently maintains its engagement through a quarterly newsletter and regular updates
on the website, but potentially a deeper look at how the Partnership talks to key audiences with what
messages (e.g. through the development of a communications strategy) could help expand its reach.
There was also the view that the Focal Groups are excellent platforms, but there could be ways to
improve information flows with the broader membership. A related proposal from the group was for
the Focal Groups to be more proactive in identifying and responding to technical requests from
governments and other partners.
The potential for more direct engagement with local communities was raised as a way of bringing local
groups into the conversation and for having their voices heard in global platforms. In the Pacific, this
might leverage faith-based organisations which are well embedded in the community, have extensive
people-to-people networks, and are themselves often involved in the delivery of projects. Some urged
caution around the difficulty in maintaining this engagement in the absence of a dedicated resources,
and that this should be balanced against the Partnership’s national government focus.
The role of the private sector was not overlooked in discussions either (although business groups were
not in attendance). An example from Sri Lanka was provided which highlighted how Corporate Social
Responsibility can be a driver for engagement. There was also a view put forward that in the Pacific
more work is needed to strengthen governments’ capacity to engage the private sector and to identify
32
appropriate entry points – more forward leaning groups like the Fiji Green Business Council was flagged
as one platform for raising awareness and possible investment interest.
Activities
Participants considered whether IPBC activities should have a strict policy or technical focus, or whether
continued awareness raising is still a priority. Participants supported the Partnership’s targeted
technical activities such as the Wetlands Supplement knowledge exchange event in Brisbane earlier in
the year. However, they also reiterated the value of awareness raising such as through events at the
UNFCCC COP meetings, where there are high level representatives from governments and ministries in
attendance.
There was a view that the IPBC could lean more on its members to carry out awareness raising activities
– perhaps supported by an IPBC-endorsed package of materials or key resources, ongoing training and
knowledge exchange opportunities; or possibly with partners taking a greater role in generating
proposals and identifying sources of funding. Another option (raised previously) is for increased support
for ‘blue carbon champions’ in certain countries/regions – to support better regional engagement
and/or the establishment of regional nodes for blue carbon expertise. For those implementing projects
on the ground, ‘champions’ could push the blue carbon agenda with local businesses and governments
to identify and support income generating opportunities.
Snapshots
The final session of the meeting involved brief presentations from South Korea, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka
and Somalia – and provided great insight into how different countries are approaching and prioritising
blue carbon science, policy and action.
Sri Lanka, for example, spoke about using the Commonwealth Blue Charter initiative as an opportunity
to review the present status of mangroves ecosystems by categories of ownership and species diversity.
South Korea highlighted the significant progress in understanding the carbon storage capacity of tidal
marsh and seagrass, linked to the development of a blue carbon information system – and how
ultimately this is contributing towards blue carbon being included in South Korea’s national greenhouse
gas inventory.
Next steps: The Coordinator will develop a draft options paper providing more detail on the above
discussions, including the different funding and governance models suggested. This will be
considered and developed further by the Partnership’s Coordinating Group with a view to
identifying actions.
33
Somalia (with the longest coastline in Africa) laid out an ambitious program for blue carbon awareness
raising, policy development and action, while addressing some of the challenges and constraints that
Somalia has historically faced in advancing coastal ecosystem protection.
Sierra Leone has used remote sensing (satellite) technology to gather detailed estimates of changes in
mangrove extents (1990-2016), and introduced the community-driven mangrove management and
restoration program (initiated in 2017) across the Sierra Leone Coastal Landscape Complex.
Figure 17: Eliza Murray, Australia, wrapped up the events. Photo: Lucy Wallington.
Governance update & next steps
In the final session, participants were reminded that the membership of the Coordinating Group and the
Focal Groups are set for a refresh. The Coordinator will soon call for expressions of interest from the
membership, with positions to be filled shortly thereafter. Those who have previously served on either
the Coordinating Group or Focal Groups are eligible to nominate again. The Partnership will again seek a
balance of representation and new faces across the different sectors – government, non-government
and research.
34
Final words...
The Coordinator would like to sincerely thank all those people who have generously donated their time
and good ideas in support of the Partnership over the last 12 months. It’s very exciting to see the
Partnership continue to grow and attract the interest of governments from around the world in blue
carbon. We look forward to sharing with you future Partnership updates, and of course progress
towards implementing the outcomes of the Pacific Blue Carbon Workshop and the third annual IPBC
meeting of which you’ve been a major part.
Figure 18: Happy participants at the end of the Fiji meetings. Photo: Lucy Wallington
35
PACIFIC BLUE CARBON WORKSHOP & THIRD ANNUAL IPBC MEETING
PARTICIPANTS LIST
First name Last name Organisation
Abdullahi Dool Ministry of Foreign Affairs & International Cooperation (Federal Republic of Somalia)
Aholotu Palu Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat
Alifereti Tawake LMMA Network (Fiji)
Andrew Foran IUCN
Anish Maharaj The University of Fiji
Arpana Pratap Pacific Islands Development Forum
Bridget Kennedy Conservation International (Fiji)
Daisuke Uesako Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (Japan)
Daniel Murdiyarso Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)
Dave Loubser SPREP
Devika Raj Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat
Wakai Digine National Planning and Monitoring Ministry (PNG)
Dorothée Herr IUCN
Duta Kauhiona Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (Solomon Islands)
Eliza Murray Department of the Environment and Energy (Australia)
Emily Pidgeon Conservation International
Fafetai Namoto Department of Climate Change and Disaster (Tuvalu)
Farran Redfern Ministry of Environment, Lands and Agriculture Development (Kiribati)
Frida Sidik Institute for Marine Research & Observation, Ministry of Marine Affairs & Fisheries (Indonesia)
George Uzice Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change (Seychelles)
Graham Sem University of Papua New Guinea
Giliane Brodie University of the South Pacific
Helena Wright E3G
Heung-Sik Park Korea Institute of Ocean Science &Technology
Huang Haibo Fourth Institute of Oceanography, Ministry of Natural Resources (China)
Hugh Govan LMMA Network (Fiji)
Iki Peter Climate Change and Development Authority (PNG)
Jannett Handyside Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat
Jean-Baptiste Marre Pacific Community
Johanna Johnson SPREP
Karl Haby Department of the Environment and Energy (Australia)
Katerina Syngellakis Green Growth Institute (Fiji)
Kesaia Tabunakawai WWF Pacific
Kolleh Bangura NPAA-MDA (Sierra Leone)
Lauren Babuik British High Commission
Leah Glass Blue Ventures (Madagascar)
Lisa Benson Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)
Lisa Schindler-Murray The Nature Conservancy
Lucy Wallington Department of the Environment and Energy (Australia)
Margaret Tabunakawai-Vakalalabure LMMA Network (Fiji)
Mark Borg Pacific Islands Development Forum
Mary Angelie Sto. Domingo Climate Change Commission (Philippines)
36
Maria Elder US Embassy Suva
Mason Smith IUCN
Meresini Marau Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat
Nathan McIntosh Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Australia)
Nelly Kere Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management and Meteorology (Solomon Islands)
Nina Sikiti Department of Environment (Fiji)
Noel Antonio Gaerlan Climate Change Commission (Philippines)
Patrick Martin University of New South Wales
Peng Zhao Fourth Institute of Oceanography, Ministry of Natrual Resources (China)
Peni Suveinakama Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat
Petelo O.K. To'oa Ministry of Environment and Communications (Tonga)
Riibeta Abeta Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat
Rolenas Baereleo Department of Environment Proection and Conservation (Vanuatu)
Sandeep Singh Department of Environment (Fiji)
Scott Hook Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat
Sebastian Thomas University of Melbourne
Semisi Meo Conservation International (Fiji)
Senilolia Tuiwawa Conservation International (Fiji)
Sharon Sukh Mani Department of Environment (Fiji)
Stacy Jupiter Wildlife Conservation Society
Stanley Wapot Melanesian Spearhead Group Secretariat
Stephen Crooks Silvestrum Climate Associates
Steven Lutz GRID-Arendal
Surendra Prasad The University of the South Pacific (Fiji)
Susana Waqainabete-Tuisese Conservation International (Fiji)
Tolusina Pouli Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (Samoa)
Wasantha Dissanayake Ministry of Mahaweli Development & Environment (Sri Lanka)
Young-don Kim Korea Marine Environment Management Corporation (Korea)
Yunae Nam Green Growth Institute (Fiji)
Zoe Sinclair Department of the Environment and Energy (Australia)