Comment on Geoengineering with seagrasses: is credit due where credit is given?

Abstract

In their recent review, ‘Geoengineering with seagrasses: is credit due where credit is given?,’ Johannessen and Macdonald ( 2016 ) invoke the prospect of carbon offset-credit over-allocation by the Verified Carbon Standard as a pretense for their concerns about published seagrass carbon burial rate and global stock estimates. Johannessen and Macdonald ( 2016 ) suggest that projects seeking offset-credits under the Verified Carbon Standard methodology VM0033: Methodology for Tidal Wetland and Seagrass Restoration will overestimate long-term (100 yr) sediment organic carbon (SOC) storage because issues affecting carbon burial rates bias storage estimates. These issues warrant serious consideration by the seagrass research community; however, VM0033 does not refer to seagrass SOC ‘burial rates’ or ‘storage.’ Projects seeking credits under VM0033 must document greenhouse gas emission reductions over time, relative to a baseline scenario, in order to receive credits. Projects must also monitor changes in carbon pools, including SOC, to confirm that observed benefits are maintained over time. However, VM0033 allows projects to conservatively underestimate project benefits by citing default values for specific accounting parameters, including CO _2 emissions reductions. We therefore acknowledge that carbon crediting methodologies such as VM0033 are sensitive to the quality of the seagrass literature, particularly when permitted default factors are based in part on seagrass burial rates. Literature-derived values should be evaluated based on the concerns raised by Johannessen and Macdonald ( 2016 ), but these issues should not lead to credit over-allocation in practice, provided VM0033 is rigorously followed. These issues may, however, affect the feasibility of particular seagrass offset projects.

Keywords

• Blue carbon
• offset-credits
• seagrass restoration
• greenhouse gas accounting
• carbon burial