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)