Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities

Transcription

1 CSIRO OCEANS & ATMOSPHERE Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities Workshop Report Prepared for the Department of the Environment and Energy 12 August, 2016 Cannard T 1, Kelleway J 3, Serrano O 4, Baldock J 2, Lavery P 4, Lovelock C 5, Macreadie P 6, Masqué P 4, Saintilan N 3, Steven A 1 1 CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Dutton Park, Qld CSIRO Agriculture and Food, Waite Campus, PMB 2, Glen Osmond, SA Environmental Sciences, Macquarie University, NSW School of Science, Centre for Marine Ecosystems Research, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Qld Faculty of Science, Engineering and Built Environment, Deakin University, Burwood, Vic 3125 Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 1

2 Contents Executive Summary Background, Aims and Project Team Aims and objectives Project Team Workshop planning Agenda Invitees Other preparations Workshop proceedings ERF, Carbon Accounting and International Partnership for Blue Carbon: State of knowledge for coastal blue carbon in the Australian context Extent and potential carbon stocks in Mangrove/Tidal Marshes/Seagrass: State of knowledge Assessing the potential of including coastal blue carbon in ERF methods Mangroves: Influencing factors and discussion on anthropogenic activities that sequester carbon or avoid emissions Tidal marshes: Influencing factors and discussion on anthropogenic activities that sequester carbon or avoid emissions Seagrass meadows: Influencing factors and discussion on anthropogenic activities that sequester carbon or avoid emissions Other contributions Final comments/discussion. Where to now? Feedback on the workshop and this report Appendices Appendix A. Summary of coastal blue carbon research in Australia from the CSIRO Marine and Coastal Carbon Biogeochemistry Cluster Appendix B. Workshop presentations Appendix C. Influencing factors Appendix D. GoogleDocs Instructions Appendix E. Workshop participants Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 2

3 List of Figures Figure 1: Influencing factors of carbon sequestration and avoided emissions in mangroves Figure 2: Influencing factors of carbon sequestrations and emissions in tidal marshes Figure 3: Factors influencing carbon stocks in seagrass habitats List of Tables Table 1: Mangroves influencing factors and potential anthropogenic activities (special notes for tidal marshes start with TM) Table 2: Tidal marshes influencing factor and potential anthropogenic activities Table 3: Seagrass meadows influencing factor and potential anthropogenic activities Table 4: Summary table of activities with the potential to sequester additional carbon or avoid emissions against the business as usual scenario within coastal blue carbon ecosystems Table 5. Framework to be used to describe potential emissions abatement activities Table 6. Framework for assessing emission abatement integrity. Scores for each integrity requirement item are to be entered as 0, 1, or 2 according to the criteria provided Table 7. Framework to consider requirements and of potential ERF projects built around an activity and to identify appropriate approaches capable of quantifying net emission abatement. To be completed for activities receiving a total score 8 from Table Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 3

4 Executive Summary Mangrove forests, tidal marshes, and seagrass ecosystems provide economic, environmental and social benefits for Australia with additional benefits being possible through their ability to capture and store carbon. A participatory stakeholder and expert workshop was conducted in Canberra on 28 July 2016 to scope potential for the inclusion of coastal blue carbon in the Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF). The workshop aimed in part to understand the state of the science and the carbon holding capability and capacity in vegetated coastal mangrove forests, tidal marshes, and seagrass habitats known as coastal blue carbon. The carbon stored in and flowing through these ecosystems has considerable potential to contribute to both the ERF and the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Emissions reduction methodology determinations (methods) for identifying activities eligible under the ERF must meet the offsets integrity standards detailed in the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 (the CFI Act). The workshop brought together experts and interested parties across all scientific disciplines and government representatives with industry, community and NGO experts. Presentations from staff of the Department of the Environment and Energy (DoEE) conveyed to participants important concepts under the CFI Act regarding regulatory additionality, newness, and the government program for evaluation of abatement plans. Information was provided to foster and support workshop deliberations including detail on the ERF, data needs of the National Carbon Inventory and the newly formed International Partnership for Blue Carbon. The second workshop session focussed on the state of knowledge in respect of the extent of potential carbon stocks in coastal blue carbon ecosystems with the project team presenting findings from the CSIRO Marine and Coastal Carbon Biogeochemistry Cluster research. Sessions 3 to 5 inclusive were working sessions in which participants offered their knowledge, experiences and real-time online data collection. In each of these sessions, focusing on one ecosystem type at a time, researchers provided more detailed information and explained a suite of influencing factors identified by the project team. The presenters encouraged participants to offer new influencing factors or refine already identified factors through the mention of issues related to potential activities to sequester carbon or avoid emissions. For each of the influencing factors identified through the workshop or the literature review prior to the workshop, participants were encouraged to provide locational and jurisdictional distinctions and comment on the historical, current or anticipated situation (for instance, permanent or temporary). Since differences in regulations and legislation under various jurisdictions (federal/state/local) are an important factor in the development of a national program, these were also recorded. Discussions included consideration of offsite activities, for example, improved water quality supporting resilience in coastal carbon stores, maintaining biodiversity and enhancing fisheries resources while the use of coastal areas by local communities also increases. During the workshop, the importance of building resilience into the monitoring and compliance regimes for abatement activities was discussed. Furthermore, participants urged careful thought regarding both unintended consequences and establishing unwanted incentives. Post-workshop, the project team continues to work through the data collected and collate additional information to conduct a formal evaluation of opportunities for emission abatement, additionality and integrity using the frameworks defined for assessing ERF opportunities. For each activity identified during the workshop, the project team is assessing the potential abatement Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 4

5 opportunities in detail and assigning emission abatement integrity scores. Activities receiving scores over a predefined threshold will be evaluated further. This evaluation involved defining the potential to identify baselines, determine activity areas, estimate abatement, resolve issues around double counting, permanence and leakage, as well as land ownership and legal right to carbon. While the work is ongoing, the workshop engaged stakeholders, industry and other organisations in a participatory process to identify potential activities in the future development of ERF methods. Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 5

6 1 Background, Aims and Project Team The Australian Department of the Environment and Energy (DoEE) has elected to include coastal blue carbon ecosystems in Australia's national greenhouse gas inventory using the guidelines contained in the 2013 IPCC Wetlands Supplement. Additionally, activities that enhance carbon sequestration or avoid greenhouse gas emissions from coastal blue carbon ecosystems are being considered for inclusion in Australian Government's Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF). To scope the possible development of coastal blue carbon ERF methods, a team of experts from CSIRO, Edith Cowan University, Macquarie University, The University of Queensland and Deakin University was assembled. The team was asked by the DoEE to run a stakeholder workshop and prepare a detailed technical report defining influencing factors and anthropogenic activities with the potential to induce quantifiable and additional greenhouse gas emissions abatement via sequestration and/or emissions avoidance in coastal blue carbon ecosystems. 1.1 Aims and objectives The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive summary of the information presented by the project team, contributions made by participants and discussions held during the stakeholder workshop held in Canberra on 28 July The objectives of the workshop were: to compile and present existing information on carbon stocks and carbon accumulation rates within Australia s coastal blue carbon environments (mangroves, tidal marshes and seagrasses), to review the influencing factors affecting carbon sequestration or greenhouse gas emissions in coastal blue carbon environments, and to identify anthropogenic activities having a potential to enhance carbon sequestration or emissions avoidance. 1.2 Project Team CSIRO 1) Dr Jeff Baldock, Research Scientist, Agriculture and Food, Waite Campus 2) Toni Cannard, Experimental Scientist, Oceans and Atmosphere, Dutton Park 3) Dr Andy Steven, Research Program director, Oceans and Atmosphere, Dutton Park Edith Cowan University 1) Dr Oscar Serrano, Postdoctoral Fellow, Centre for Marine Ecosystems Research 2) Prof Paul Lavery, Centre for Marine Ecosystems Research 3) Prof Pere Masqué, Centre for Marine Ecosystems Research Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 6

7 Macquarie University 1) Jeff Kelleway, Postdoctoral Fellow, Environmental Sciences 2) Prof Neil Saintilan, Head of Department, Environmental Sciences The University of Queensland 1) Prof Catherine Lovelock, School of Biological Sciences Deakin University 1) Dr Peter Macreadie, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Science, Engineering and Built Environment Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 7

8 2 Workshop planning 2.1 Agenda The project team developed the workshop agenda in collaboration with DoEE staff. Opportunities for Coastal Blue Carbon Activities in Australia 8.30 Arrive, coffee, tea Thursday 28 July, Canberra 9.00 Welcome and objectives of the day (Jeff Baldock and Katrina Maguire DoEE). 9:15 Coastal blue carbon methodologies in the Australian context (provided by DoEE) Definition of influencing factors, activities, principles to be adhered to in ERF method development, etc Coastal blue carbon in Australia s national inventory 9.50 Coffee break 10:10 State of knowledge on extent and potential carbon stocks in each of the three ecosystems: Oscar Serrano Gras overview of the information generated by the Blue Carbon Cluster (10 min) Jeff Kelleway specific comments on carbon in Mangroves and then Tidal Marshes (10 min) Oscar specific comments on carbon in Seagrass meadows (5 min) Questions from floor/phone (5 min) 10:40 Present proposed process for the rest of the day and the table we will be using. 10:50 Mangroves: Influencing factors and discussion on anthropogenic activities that sequester carbon or avoid emissions (Jeff K /Jeff B to lead) Present influencing factors as defined so far expand if required List anthropogenic activities that can lead to sequestration or avoided emission (80 min) Summary check with room that main factors and activities are covered (10 min) Lunch break Tidal marshes: Influencing factors and discussion on anthropogenic activities that sequester carbon or avoid emissions (Jeff K/Jeff B to lead) Present influencing factors as defined so far expand if required List anthropogenic activities that can lead to sequestration or avoided emission (80 min) Summary check with room that main factors and activities are covered (10 min) Coffee break Seagrass meadows: Influencing factors and discussion on anthropogenic activities that sequester carbon or avoid emissions (Oscar S /Jeff B to lead). Present influencing factors as defined so far expand if required List anthropogenic activities that can lead to sequestration or avoided emission (80 min) Summary check with room that main factors and activities are covered (10 min) Final comments/discussion. Where to now (discussion of next steps)? Close Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 8

9 2.2 Invitees A range of experts were identified by the project team and discussed with DoEE. Care was taken to ensure that experts came from across all sectors including government, NGOs, indigenous, academia, NRM and consulting. A list of the invitees who attended either in person or by teleconference is provided in Appendix E. 2.3 Other preparations As part of the preparations for the workshop a range of options to encourage participatory processes were considered by the project team. For instance, the challenges of having teleconference participants were weighed against the advantages of a wider range of expert participants. To ensure that the flow of workshop discussions were enhanced by the teleconference participants several strategies were adopted. Teleconference participants could alert the workshop leader of their wish to question or discuss issues in two ways either by using the chat function, or speaking when teleconference participants were offered the floor. Teleconference participants were given time to respond verbally to issues discussed and raised by those in the room. Technology in the form of GoogleDocs was adopted by the team as a tool that could enable online and real-time written contributions to the tables fulfilled during the workshop. To ensure this was an appropriate and useful technology that could withstand the simultaneous contributions from around 10 participants at a time, GoogleDocs was tested prior to the workshop. Instructions on how to access and install extra modules for certain browsers were documented and forwarded to teleconference participants. In addition, teleconference participants were sent invitations with edit level access to the documents and were requested to test their access and ability to edit the document in the days prior to the workshop. All testing was completed successfully and this contributed to the smooth functioning of GoogleDocs during the workshop. 3 Workshop proceedings Participants were welcomed and thanked for making their time available to participate in the workshop. Participants in the workshop room were advised that some potential attendees had been unable to join in person and were instead joining by teleconference. Staff from DoEE checked to ensure that all participants had received the documents sent with the invitation, specifically the following: 1. Updated Agenda 2. Venue locality map 3. Background of some outcomes from the CSIRO s Coastal Carbon Cluster programme (draft document for discussion purposes only at the workshop). 4. The Influencing Factors paper that was attached to the original invitation. 5. GoogleDocs instructions (for teleconferencing participants). Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 9

10 6. Instructions to attend the workshop via teleconference. Participants were asked if any changes to the agenda were requested; and none were advised. Inroom participants were given the opportunity during the lunch break to request access to edit and provide further contributions via the GoogleDocs table. Teleconference participants were invited to use the Chat function in GoogleDocs to ask questions or raise issues. After each presentation, questions and comments were invited first from the room and then from teleconference participants. In some cases this process was repeated several times. Usual meeting logistics were explained by Mark Newnham and Jeff Baldock including facilities and evacuation procedures. Katrina Maguire of DoEE opened the meeting and explained that the three presentations planned for the first session were designed to give an overview of the aims and objectives of including coastal blue carbon in the ERF. 3.1 ERF, Carbon Accounting and International Partnership for Blue Carbon: State of knowledge for coastal blue carbon in the Australian context The aim of this session was to present the state of knowledge in regards to the inclusion of coastal blue carbon in the ERF, inclusion of blue carbon within Australia s national greenhouse gas inventory and International Partnership for Blue Carbon. Session 1 - Presenters: Ben Docker (DoEE), Tertius De Kluyver (DoEE), Zoe Sinclair (DoEE) 1. Emissions Reduction Fund (Ben Docker) Ben explained that the workshop activities would be primarily focussed on coastal blue carbon and the ERF. The Department designs and implements policies and programs to protect and conserve the environment, water and heritage and promote climate action. The environmental framework is being delivered through four pillars: Clean Air, Clean Land, Clean Water and Natural Heritage. The Government's ERF aims to allow businesses and communities to enjoy the benefits of economic growth, increased productivity and a cleaner environment. The ERF policy is aimed at reducing Australia's emissions without adding to the household and business energy costs. Details of the ERF are available at: Emissions reduction methodology determinations (methods) identify the activities that are eligible for inclusion in the ERF and set out the rules for calculating and verifying emissions reductions achieved by activities. Participation in the ERF is voluntary. The agencies involved in administering the ERF are the Clean Energy Regulator, AusIndustry and DoEE. Methods are not currently available specifically for coastal blue carbon. Activities that are available and the process for participating in the carbon credits auction was provided in the presentation, see Appendix B. Current activities include Livestock/Agriculture, Vegetation Management, Energy Efficiency, Waste and Wastewater, and Transport. DoEE s method priority list includes Protection and restoration of mangroves to support sequestration and carbon storage. A detailed infographic summarising the combined result of the first 3 auctions was provided in the presentation. Identified co-benefits can include energy cost savings, indigenous employment, and biodiversity. Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 10

11 Within the ERF, once a carbon project is registered, approved activities within the elected method can commence. The issuing of Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs) is on delivery, meaning that credits are only rewarded once carbon sequestration or avoided emissions has been demonstrated using the project methodology. ACCUs can be sold by contract to the Government through a reverse auction process. So far three auctions for ERF contracts with the Government have been conducted by the Clean Energy Regulator. ACCUs can also be traded through voluntary markets. Any method needs to meet the Offsets Integrity Standards e.g. abatement must be additional, which means unlikely to occur in the normal course of events. The standards require that activity must also be a new activity and have measurable and verifiable carbon abatement either directly or through scientifically accepted modelling. Abatement must also be eligible carbon abatement, which means that it must be able to be used to meet Australia s international climate change targets. Currently wetlands are not included in Australia s 2020 Kyoto targets and it remains to be decided whether coastal wetlands will be included for the 2030 targets. In 2013 the IPCC Supplement on Wetlands included drained inland organic soils, re-wetted organic soils, coastal wetlands, inland wetland soils and constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. The presentation found in Appendix B.1 provides a full summary of activities associated with coastal wetlands that are defined in the 2013 Supplement. DoEE believes that significant interest exists in using coastal ecosystems (mangroves, tidal marshes and seagrass) to provide opportunities to offset national greenhouse gas emissions through sequestration of atmospheric carbon and/or avoidance of emissions. 2. National Carbon Inventory (Tertius De Kluyver) Tertius provided an overview of current work occurring within Australia s national greenhouse gas inventory group pertaining to the inclusion of coastal blue carbon. The need to prepare estimates of emissions and removals that are a direct result of human activity, and convene an informal advisory group were reported. The informal advisory group was established last year and comprises eminent Australian wetland and soil scientists and managers. The group had held its second workshop the previous day. The other major work underway is the review and identification of ways to augment existing inventory datasets and models and to characterise coastal blue carbon in mangroves forests and soils. The aims include the identification of existing management practices (activities) as well as those identified in the 2013 Supplement to the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands, whose GHG emissions or removals contribute to the inventory reported in the Australian Greenhouse Accounts. Currently in Australia mangroves are managed as forests. Tertius noted that the removal of mangroves from habitats for various coastal developments and/or land-use change are captured under extraction or drainage. Potentially areas previously drained could be re-wetted with or without associated habitat restoration. A desktop review of state and territory land development and other infrastructure projects that might impact coastal wetlands is underway. Also under development is the expansion of scope of coastal wetlands to include tidal marshes and seagrass meadows. This will involve development of Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 11

12 complementary Tier 2 models to accommodate these habitats. For more information contact Tertius at tertius.dekluyver@environment.gov.au. 3. International Partnership for Blue Carbon (Zoe Sinclair) As mentioned by others, multiple benefits are derived from coastal blue carbon ecosystems. Globally, these ecosystems contribute to food security, the mitigation of sea level rise and coastal storms, and are conserved under various management arrangements. One of the key outcomes from COP21 in Paris during December 2015 was the announcement that Australia was working together with other countries with significant coastal blue carbon resources to form a partnership to incorporate blue carbon within national climate change mitigation strategies. The overall objective of the international partnership is to instigate and accelerate practical actions to restore and conserve coastal blue carbon ecosystems. Indonesia and Costa Rica are two of the countries included but partners also include the IUCN, Conservation International and others looking for equally shared partnership. It is hoped that the partnership outcomes will include the delivery of significant mitigation and adaptation options and that by connecting global efforts to better understand and protect coastal blue carbon ecosystems to ensure the carbon accumulation potential and ongoing stability is optimised. Session 1 - Discussion Questions from the room and from teleconference participants included specific questions such as which partner will lead the collaborative cooperation and more generally inquiries regarding scope and timelines for actions under the partnership. Zoe advised in response that the new partnership is in the early stages and planning is underway to determine those general logistics such as scope, extent and timelines for both strategy formation and detailed program planning. Specifically the partnership intends for the arrangement to be equally-shared in terms of leadership and ways forward. 3.2 Extent and potential carbon stocks in Mangrove/Tidal Marshes/Seagrass: State of knowledge A presentation that summarised the state of knowledge regarding the extent and potential of coastal blue carbon ecosystems in Australia to store and sequester carbon was provided. The participants of the CSIRO Marine and Coastal Carbon Biogeochemistry Cluster (referred to as CSIRO Coastal Carbon Cluster) during were acknowledged see Appendix B.1 for the PowerPoint presentations. The summary document provided to participants prior to the workshop and reproduced in Appendix A is the basis of both the presentations. Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 12

13 Session 2 - Presenters: Oscar Serrano (Edith Cowan University), Jeff Kelleway (Macquarie University) 1. Extent and potential carbon stocks in Seagrass Maps displaying the different coastal blue carbon stocks and accumulation rates in mangrove, tidal marshes and seagrass ecosystems around Australia obtained during the four years of the CSIRO Coastal Carbon Cluster were presented. Living biomass is reported as stock of organic carbon (C org ), in kg of C org m -2. Carbon in soils is estimated for 1 metre deep and reported in kg of C org m -2 Seagrass meadows had the largest areal extent but soil carbon stocks in the top meter of soil of mangrove forests were higher than in seagrass and tidal marshes. Carbon burial rates were similar for tidal marshes and seagrass with both just under 40 g m -2 per year while mangroves exceed those rates by a factor of more than 3 times. Mangroves had the highest carbon stocks in the living biomass (stems and canopy) but 65% of the C org is found in the soil. Mangrove forests in subtropical zones held the most carbon in both soil and biomass stocks per unit area. Tidal marshes held higher levels of carbon in arid zones, largely because of the extensive area of arid zone tidal marshes, although data is particularly limited from the arid zone. Seagrasses on the other hand represented the largest carbon stock per unit area in the arid and semi-arid zones, with tropical zones have the lowest total carbon stock by a factor of 3. A series of three maps depicting the likely carbon stock in the soils of tidal marshes, mangroves and seagrass were presented. The scaling up of this data acknowledges the current sampling gaps of certain regions that have not yet been sampled. In some case the availability of suitably fine-scale habitat/landscape mapping that is needed to extrapolate stocks to a national level is not available or in some cases is not accessible. The potential for certain Australian states having higher stocks of carbon than others was noted and explained mainly on the basis of habitat extent. In comparing Australia with other nations, Australia s coastal blue carbon accounted for 12% of the global potential. It was noted that coastal ecosystems are being impacted significantly such that the extent of mangroves, tidal marshes and seagrasses have declined globally, estimated in the range of 1-3% of habitat per year, but in Australia current rates of loss are lower with much of the losses in habitat occurring historically. Habitat loss can lead to remineralisation of C org and subsequently the release of greenhouse gases such as CO Extent and potential carbon stocks in Mangroves and Tidal marshes While our understanding of carbon stocks within Australian mangroves and tidal marshes has improved substantially in recent years there remain significant gaps in our knowledge of carbon cycling in these ecosystems. There is more science needed in Australia to determine the fate of the carbon including emissions of CO 2 and other GHG (e.g. methane, nitrous oxides) under natural settings as well as their response to anthropogenic impacts and management actions. Better understanding of shifts in habitat dynamics can inform the appropriate management activities and how to apply those activities in the most efficacious manner. Habitat changes can result in phaseshift and species distributional changes to mangroves and tidal marsh ecosystems. Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 13

14 One of the clear current limitations is data gaps for carbon stocks and burial rates (as seen by the bioregional maps compiled with data from the CSIRO Coastal Carbon Cluster over the last 4 years). The gaps are both in terms of limitations in habitat mapping (extent and resolution) but also regional gaps in the understanding of both cycling and fate of carbon. As already stated, a clear understanding of the anthropogenic impacts upon carbon stocks, carbon accumulation and burial rates is vital. Additionally, the fate of C org in Australian mangroves and tidal marshes is poorly understood. If activities are to be applied under the ERF a detailed understanding of the response of carbon stocks, burial rates and flows is required. Session 2 - Discussion The first question queried the units and figures quoted in the summary paper provided prior to the workshop (Appendix A). The suggestion was made that quoting figures in CO 2 tonnes per hectare would minimise the possibility of miscalculations and misunderstanding of the carbon potential in Australian ecosystems. It was further noted that if industry is to be engaged in coastal blue carbon activities it is important to use the current terminology. Project team clarified that the data was provided in kg per unit area to facilitate calculations, but agreed that figures in carbon dioxide tonnes per hectare could be more appropriate for industry. Questions around the scaling up of current data were discussed. It was noted that in some cases very large areas existed with only small stocks per unit area (e.g. arid zone tidal marshes). The presenters explained that in cases where no data was available for a particular bioregion, values from adjacent or the most appropriate alternative bioregions were used. The project team suggested that generally it is important to understand the assumptions behind the scaling, and noted that variability in C org stocks within and between habitats can be very large, making robust scaling exercises difficult. There was a query from a participant as to whether the workshop will be looking for suggestions for opportunities around additionality. The project team confirmed that in the afternoon session on influencing factors this topic would be discussed in detail. Jeff B outlined the concept of additionality and asks all participants to keep this in mind during the rest of the proceedings. The topic of methane abatement was raised, and the question was asked if methane abatement will be regarded as a carbon sink. The answer was that it is more likely to be considered to be an avoided emission. Finally the project team was asked if there are correlations between high rates of sequestration and high rates of biodiversity. The CSIRO Coastal Carbon Cluster did not focus on biodiversity relationships with sequestration but pointed out that typically blue carbon ecosystems have low plant diversity and that a correlation between diversity and carbon sequestration rates was unlikely. 3.3 Assessing the potential of including coastal blue carbon in ERF methods The organisation of the remainder of the workshop was explained, indicating that each coastal blue carbon ecosystem would be examined in turn over the next three workshop sessions. These sessions will focus on talking through the influencing factors for each of the coastal blue carbon ecosystems in turn. Firstly focusing on mangroves, then on tidal marshes and finally on seagrasses. The influencing factors tables were displayed in GoogleDocs to both the room and to Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 14

15 teleconference participants. The project team pre-populated some of the information in the tables to provide guidance and stimulate discussion. Contributions from the room and teleconference participants were used to identify gaps and improve the detail of the information contained within the tables. It was explained to the workshop participants that in completing the table we have been asked to: 1. Identify the activity and into which of the following categories it falls (Mangrove protection, Mangrove restoration, Tidal marsh protection, Tidal marsh restoration, Seagrass protection, Seagrass restoration). 2. Description of the activity how the activity will sequester carbon or avoid GHG emissions, differentiating allochthonous from autochthonous. 3. Define the circumstances or conditions under which the activity can be implemented. 4. Potential participant groups 5. Potential size of the abatement 6. Identify adverse impacts (social, environmental, economic) 7. Additionality why would the activities not occur as part of business as usual, and 8. References/documents/data sets to support successful implementation of the activity. The tables generated will be incorporated into the technical report being prepared for the DoEE on the potential of including coastal blue carbon environments in ERF methods designed to quantify and issue Australian Carbon Credit Units for carbon sequestration and/or emission avoidance. 3.4 Mangroves: Influencing factors and discussion on anthropogenic activities that sequester carbon or avoid emissions In commencing this session, the aim was to firstly provide an overview of the thinking behind various potential influencing factors in mangroves and tidal marshes. A copy of the presentation file for this session can be viewed in Appendix B. The implications of a range of influencing factors upon carbon sequestration and emissions were summarised in a conceptual diagrams (Figure 1). The influencing factors in physical, biological and chemical categories were outlined and the concepts behind each of the influencing factors were discussed to ensure that the participants could identify any other influencing factors for mangroves. The workshop participants were asked for their views on whether, for this process of scoping influencing factors and identifying activities, mangroves and tidal marshes should be grouped together or kept separate. To answer this question, participants were prompted to think about whether the activities in mangroves would be the same activities applied in tidal marshes? The consensus of all participants was to start with the mangroves separate to tidal marshes. Then consider the similarities and differences prior to discussing tidal marshes. Tidal connectivity was used as example of an influencing factor related to both carbon sequestration and carbon emissions in coastal wetlands. In terms of identifying potential anthropogenic activities that may enhance sequestration or emission avoidance, those activities that trigger changes in the impact of influencing factors were considered to have the greatest potential to be incorporated into methods. Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 15

16 The discussions included questions regarding whether there are threatened species in mangroves, differences in actions on private as compared to crown lands and the potential mismatch between particular rules that could potentially create perverse or unintended incentives. A few key issues were highlighted as follows: high salinity inhibits decomposition relative to fresh water inputs nutrients are needed for primary productivity nutrients can alter above ground:below ground biomass allocation potential exists to alter biogeochemistry (and thereby stocks and emissions) by inputting tidal saline, fresh, and/or nutrient-rich waters. Figure 1: Influencing factors of carbon sequestration and avoided emissions in mangroves The discussion then focussed on the conversion of tidal marshes to mangroves given other factors such as sea level rise or freshwater inputs. Given adjacent land-uses need to also be considered, the question was raised as to whether the opportunity cost would encourage adoption of activities. Also discussed was the issue of groundwater management and how offsite activities affecting carbon stocks or emissions in coastal systems could be rewarded, particularly when the land is owned by someone else. Consideration of who gains and owns the carbon credits is required. This was a reminder of the earlier discussion about the importance of the right incentives. Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 16

17 The idea of additionality being beyond the business as usual case was discussed in the context of projects that are removing juvenile mangroves to improve coastal bird habitats. The project team will consider such cases and take advice from DoEE. Rod Connolly noted that tidal marshes in Australia are quite different to other parts of the world as the tidal marshes are found much higher into the intertidal zone. There was discussion of Mimosa coverage, and further discussion about removal of weeds and the potential impacts this may have on carbon stock change via sequestration or avoided emissions in coastal ecosystems. It was noted that industry participants in the ERF are looking for carbon returns on their investment, so it is important that activities identified provide such returns. The remainder of the session was given over to the completion of the influencing factors and activities table, see Table 1. Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 17

18 Table 1: Mangroves influencing factors and potential anthropogenic activities (special notes for tidal marshes start with TM) Mangroves & Tidal marshes Influencing Factor Mechanism Regulation Legislation Location Jurisdiction Historic Current Anticipated Scale and magnitude Potential anthropogenic activities Evidence base Tidal connectivity and drainage - Loss or change in vegetation due to alterations in water salinity and hydroperiod. - Exclusion of tidally transported carbon sources - Exclusion of sulphates contained within marine tidal water may increase methane production. - Ponding of water may increase remineralisation of C via methanogenic pathways - downstream impacts upon plant communities and shifts in distribution, - reduced sediment supply (i.e. lower SAR) - oxidation of soils/acid sulphate soils C wealth Ramsar QLD 2001 prevents bunding below HAT - All marine plants are protected under Queensland law through provisions of the Fisheries Act 1994 NSW mangroves protected on crown land but private lands; TM - EEC listing VIC offsets potential conflicts for funding projects TAS SA WA NT -Coastal management acts and local planning schemes -Potentially RAMSAR complications -Illegal bund walls? - Ponded pastures in monsoonal tropics (QLD, NT?; WA?). - Extensive floodplain drainage or floodgates/levees along mid to north coast of NSW. Shoalhaven also floodgates as well as ponded pastures - southern VIC bunding - south WA Bayswater - SEQ Rocky Point canelands protected by walls GCC -canal estates Gold Coast and WA -removals of sea walls (examples in USA) - Saltfields in and around Port river estuary - JH (DEWNR) - East Kimberley Large freshwater Historic? Mostly historic changes associated with the expansion of floodplain agriculture in eastern Australia (in the 19 th and 20 th centuries). Current? Potential shift in freshwater inflow, from either drainage, groundwater and surface run-off, coupled with high temperatures (air, SST) in 2015/2016 may have induced significant dieback in mangrove patches along 700 km of the Gulf of Carpentaria coastline in the NT. Anticipated? These historic changes have current and anticipated future impacts on carbon - Extensive across the developed coastal catchment s of Australia. - 5,536 barriers to tidal flow across 19,674 km of stream length in Wet Tropics basin (QLD) (Lawson et al in Creighton 2002) floodgates; 626 weirs and 1628 road 1. Reintroduction of tidal flow (removal or modification of floodgates and artificial levees). 2. Moving location of bund walls further upstream 3. Addition of further structures e.g. culverts 4.Relocation of roads and tracks 5.Land-use change 6.Substrate alteration 7. TM rezoning /planning for sea level rise 8.TM removing seawalls Sci. papers Macklin, P. A., Maher, D. T., & Santos, I. R. (2014). doi: /j.marche m Reports Case studies Contacts TM paper - Rogers et al 2016 Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 18

19 Mangroves & Tidal marshes Influencing Factor Mechanism Regulation Legislation Location Jurisdiction Historic Current Anticipated Scale and magnitude Potential anthropogenic activities Evidence base TM - endangered ecological community listing storage to add to ponded developments behind stocks and emissions as previously carbon stored in the drained floodplains remineralises crossings in coastal NSW (Creighton 2002) Groundwater connectivity - Loss or change in vegetation due to alterations in water salinity and hydroperiod. - Increased oxidation of substrate if groundwater saturation decreases - abstraction or dewatering activities altering fresh/saline groundwater interface - Changes in lateral groundwater carbon exports, e.g. tidal pumping (relates to form of C released as endpoint of remineralization, DIC/Alkalinity vs. CO2) -saltwater intrusion due to freshwater extraction (changes in C oxidation, veg communities) C wealth Water act and relevant state legislation WA Dept of Water holds licensing power for groundwater use (I think within Water agencies powers act) - although note our legislation is being revised/reformed so these acts might change in next few years NT Generally water legislation QLD NSW VIC TAS SA In WA - significant use of groundwater for mines, agriculture, and urban water supply. Large scale groundwater extraction from Sand Islands within South East QLD. Historic? Extensive changes to coastal hydrology due to sand mining activities along many coastal landscapes of Eastern Australia - Changes to hydrology due to abstraction historically in WA Current? -Current changes to hydrology due to water use from abstraction, climate change, mining, and dewatering activities - See entry above re NT coastal die-back and potential role of groundwater inflow linked to north Australian monsoonal dynamics. Impacts intensified with 1. Offsite activities Sci. papers 2009 CL land subsidence SCU papers on GWderived C exports from various blue C systems Reports Case studies Burdekin River SEQ groundwater Contacts Groundwater centre Adelaide Water for food website shows locations where new groundwater use is being encouraged near mangrove habitat (seehttp:// ood.wa.gov.au/projec Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 19

20 Mangroves & Tidal marshes Influencing Factor Mechanism Regulation Legislation Location Jurisdiction Historic Current Anticipated Scale and magnitude Potential anthropogenic activities Evidence base enhanced variability of north Australian monsoon, especially severe when coupled with heat waves and below average wet seasons. Anticipated? WA has planned water for food projects which look to access untapped groundwater resources for irrigated agriculture - with some locations in Kimberley which may be close enough to affect mangroves ts), NT mangrove dieback - news item, no formal investigative study yet; au/news/ /unprecedented hectares-ofmangrovesdie/ Biomass removal - Removal of aboveground carbon pool - Loss of source of production for belowground biomass carbon pool - change in trapping capacity of sediment surface - change in erodibility of soils and soil carbon pool - de-snagging -change in soil microbial community - changes in macrofaunal C wealth QLD - All marine plants are protected under Queensland law through provisions of the Fisheries Act 1994 NSW VIC TAS SA WA NT Still occurring - fairly well monitored e.g. Qld wetland mapping Big developments that require offsetting Historic? Current? Clearing of mangroves in Darwin harbour, small patches but multiple sites. Anticipated? Development proposals in northern Australia Priority Development Areas for major coastal Large scale further developme nt of northern Australia TM tidal marsh biomass less than mangroves 1.snagging practices in coastal rivers 2. Revegetation activities 3.changing development practices 4. Control of people intentionally interfering with natural Sci. papers Reports Case studies QLD monitor loss of MAN and TM extent Contacts Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 20

21 Mangroves & Tidal marshes Influencing Factor Mechanism Regulation Legislation Location Jurisdiction Historic Current Anticipated Scale and magnitude Potential anthropogenic activities Evidence base community (e.g. bioturbation) - export of carbon to coastal waters developments in Queensland. regeneration 5.Fencing/stock exclusion - Feral animal exclusion physical damage 6.Human access exclusion (vehicles) 7. burning Disturbance to soil profile - oxidation of substrate - change in compaction of soils - change of water infiltration - feral animals (pig, deer, buffalo, donkeys - grazing -- vehicle access - people trampling - runnelling -changes in carbon oxidation pathway (e.g. aerobic vs. anaerobic, CO2 vs. CH4) - introduction of saltponds and aquaculture - maintenance of infrastructure e.g. seawalls As for herbivory for cattle C wealth QLD NSW VIC TAS SA WA NT Historic? Current? Anticipated? Salt works TM - cattle impacts, potentially other herbivores e.g. kangaroos 1.As for herbivory re cattle exclusion 2.Fencing 3.restoration of degraded sites 4.Boardworks 5.Avoidance of urban developments 6.Forced aeration of mangrove sediments Sci. papers CSIRO Feral pigs project Reports Applicability of international lit to Aust setting Case studies AIMS Aeration experiments Contacts Sedimentati on - source of allochthonous carbon pool - maintenance of surface C wealth QLD Reef catchments NSW Downstream of Dams Downstream of land clearing Historic? Increase in mangrove extent to Likelihood of more dams in 1.flow optimisation to cope with storm Sci. papers Reports Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 21

22 Mangroves & Tidal marshes Influencing Factor Mechanism Regulation Legislation Location Jurisdiction Historic Current Anticipated Scale and magnitude Potential anthropogenic activities Evidence base elevation relative to sea level (leading to maintenance of standing biomass and productivity) - source of nutrients supporting primary productivity VIC TAS SA WA NT Downstream / lateral to dredging activities Current? Anticipated? Changes under future storms Prospect of future dams Changes to agriculture (landcover) northern Australia to enable agriculture TM- lower sedimentat ion means mangrove encroachm ent events 2.Offshore reefs 3.Dredge spoil placement Darwin Harbour development monitoring, c Case studies Dredge spoils in US (New York e.g. for TM; plus Louisiana studies) Contacts Plant productivity -Growth of biomass carbon pool - Rate of biomass carbon addition - Rate of soil carbon addition C wealth QLD NSW VIC TAS SA WA NT Historic? Current? Anticipated? Sci. papers Reports Case studies Contacts Herbivory - complete or partial removal of aboveground carbon pool - change in species composition - Loss of source of production for belowground biomass carbon pool OR enhancement of belowground biomass C wealth QLD all marine plants protected but not enforced NSW VIC TAS SA WA NT This influencing factor is likely to be widespread across all coastal states and territories, particularly on private land and outside of urban areas. Historic? Current? Anticipated? This influencing factor is likely to be widesprea d across all coastal states and territories, particularly 1.Fencing 2.Exclusion of stock from wetlands; 3. Reduction in stocking densities or stocking rates in wetlands 4. Large scale Sci. papers Ponded pastures in Queensland (Wildin 1991). Reports Case studies Is terrestrial literature applicable? Ramsar in Westernport Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 22

23 Mangroves & Tidal marshes Influencing Factor Mechanism Regulation Legislation Location Jurisdiction Historic Current Anticipated Scale and magnitude Potential anthropogenic activities Evidence base allocation - change in trapping capacity of sediment surface - change in erodibility of soils and soil carbon pool on private land and outside of urban areas. feral animal removal 5.Addition of external carbon Contacts Bioturbation - increases tidal pump / export of carbon - alters plant productivity C wealth QLD NSW VIC TAS SA WA NT Historic? Current? Anticipated? Sci. papers Reports Case studies Contacts Changing species distributions - Change in distribution of high biomass species (e.g. mangrove encroachment of tidal marshes or unvegetated flats) -Removal of weed species C wealth QLD NSW VIC TAS SA WA NT Historic? Current? Anticipated? Mimosa in Nth Australia 1.Revegetation species carefully selected 2.Weed replaced with useful species e.g. pond apple in Nth Qld 3.barriers removed to enable coastal shifts Sci. papers Reports Case studies Moreton Bay - expansion of mangrove, decline of TM Port River in Adelaide Contacts Nutrient inputs - maintenance of primary productivity - change in biomass C wealth QLD Significant nutrient inputs in Queensland Cane dissolved inorganic nitrogen Downstream impacts Historic? Current? Anticipated? - Point sources - proximity 1. Other markets in place 2. Mechanisms Sci. papers Lovelock nutrient addition papers Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 23

24 Mangroves & Tidal marshes Influencing Factor Mechanism Regulation Legislation Location Jurisdiction Historic Current Anticipated Scale and magnitude Potential anthropogenic activities Evidence base allocation (aboveground v belowground) - nutrient overload especially in arid periods - increased nutrients stimulates decomposition -enhanced photosynthetic root exudates? reef catchments from cane, horticulture, bananas. Queensland has regulation in some catchments nvironment/agriculture/s ustainable-farming/reefinitiatives/ NSW VIC TAS SA WA NT Microbiological impact on water and sediment from sewage effluent. Darwin harbour receives > ML treated sewage effluents, impact assessment methods using N-cycle functional markers and changes in community composition in mangrove sediments and tidal creeks. of upstream sources Reduction in reef catchments? to urban areas with stormwate r discharge Septic tanks, WWTP - Diffuse sources - connectivit y with other ecosystem s (SG) TM - closer to sources of overland nutrients to take reduce nutrients in tidal water Reports Case studies Cane farms in reef catchments VIC examples (Tertius) Wwtp inputs roebuck bay northern WA Contacts Salinity / freshwater inputs - change in primary productivity - change in biomass C wealth QLD NSW High rainfall areas Cane areas NT - ponded pasture Historic? Dams on rivers 1400 km drainage network on 1.manipulate water flow to increase salinity Sci. papers See Call et al 2015 (GCA) Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 24

25 Mangroves & Tidal marshes Influencing Factor Mechanism Regulation Legislation Location Jurisdiction Historic Current Anticipated Scale and magnitude Potential anthropogenic activities Evidence base allocation (aboveground v belowground) - salinity thresholds VIC TAS SA WA NT freshwater Flood prone catchments Highly impounded estuarine areas/coastal catchments Ord River damming and Lake Argyle Current? Anticipated? Richmond River, so floodplain wide in NSW Westernpo rt - channelise d drainage See tidal connectivit y data on floodplain structures (methane avoided emission) 2. Treated wastewater inputs 3.Wastewater stream/timing 4.Constructed wetlands in urban estuaries 5. Water harvesting? 6. Utilise ring drains, etc 7.Removal of constructed drainage 8. Sustainable design of aquaculture (northern Australia) 9.manipulate water flow/elevation in salt flats (links to hydrology) (doi.org/ /j.gc a ) we found high water column CH4 under hyper saline conditions in a mangrove driven by tidal pumping Reports IPCC wetlands supplement (15ppt as CH4 threshold) Case studies Ord River (Wolanski paper) Mississippi Delta Contacts Recalcitranc e of C inputs - change in rate of carbon remineralisation C wealth QLD NSW Historic? Current? Anticipated? 1.Revegetation with species higher in lignin Sci. papers Reports Case studies Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 25

26 Mangroves & Tidal marshes Influencing Factor Mechanism Regulation Legislation Location Jurisdiction Historic Current Anticipated Scale and magnitude Potential anthropogenic activities Evidence base VIC TAS SA WA NT Contacts **Microbial community (see tidal connectivity and drainage) C wealth QLD NSW VIC TAS SA WA NT Historic? Current? Anticipated? Sci. papers Reports Case studies Contacts **Sulphate concentratio ns (see tidal connectivity and drainage) C wealth QLD NSW VIC TAS SA WA NT Historic? Current? Anticipated? Sci. papers Reports Case studies Contacts Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 26

27 3.5 Tidal marshes: Influencing factors and discussion on anthropogenic activities that sequester carbon or avoid emissions Tidal marshes influencing factors were discussed in a conceptual flow in a manner similar to that used for mangroves (Appendix B). The factors included: Suspended sediment Hydroperiod Plant productivity Surface sedimentation Marsh surface height Auto-compaction, and Environmental changes. The list of the influencing factors for tidal marshes grouped in physical, biological and chemical categories is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Influencing factors of carbon sequestrations and emissions in tidal marshes As the influencing factors for tidal marshes were discussed, the similarities with the mangrove discussions were noted. As a result, only one additional and separate influencing factor was differentiated and included in addition to those associated with mangroves: herbivory (Table 2). The discussion included issues of sea level rise and how that variability may complicate ERF activities and their outcomes. Migration zones for tidal marshes (to avoid coastal squeeze ) was Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 27

28 raised as a possible consideration, as was the potential for addition of sediment to top-up tidal marshes to mitigate sea level rise. The remainder of the discussion was on the current terrestrial carbon methodologies, which have separate methods for soil and for biomass and the limitation that you can only apply one method in each project location. It was felt that this situation would be particularly restrictive in the case of mangroves and the opportunity to create a method that includes both soil and biomass carbon would be highly desirable. Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 28

29 Table 2: Tidal marshes influencing factor and potential anthropogenic activities Tidal marshes Influencing Factor Mechanism Regulatio n Legislatio n Locatio n Jurisdic tion Historic Current Anticipate d Scale and magnitude Potential anthropogenic activities Evidence base Herbivory - complete or partial removal of aboveground carbon pool - change in species composition - prevent establishment or expansion of plant species - Loss of source of production for belowground biomass carbon pool OR enhancement of belowground biomass allocation - change in trapping capacity of sediment surface - change in erodibility of soils and soil carbon complete or partial removal of aboveground carbon pool - change in species composition - prevent establishment or expansion of plant species - Loss of source of production for belowground biomass carbon pool OR enhancement of belowground biomass allocation - change in trapping capacity of sediment surface - change in erodibility of soils and soil carbon pool - compaction of soils from grazing altering microbial activity through loss of soil pore spaces C wealth QLD NSW VIC TAS SA WA NT Historic? Current? Anticipate d? - Qld - whole coast grazing Tidal marshes also temperate (not always associated with mangrove) 1.Fencing 2. Sci. papers Reports Case studies Contacts Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 29

30 3.6 Seagrass meadows: Influencing factors and discussion on anthropogenic activities that sequester carbon or avoid emissions An overview of biotic and abiotic factors influencing carbon stocks in seagrass meadows was first presented (see Figure 3). It was noted that the type of seagrass species and the depositional environment can be highly variable between and within seagrass habitats, largely influencing carbon stocks (Appendix B). The main abiotic factor influencing carbon stocks in seagrass meadows is geomorphology. Noting that in seagrass meadows 95% of the carbon stocks are in soils. The presentation then discussed interactions between drivers and how these can influence carbon storage. For example, large seagrass meadows of Posidonia found in exposed environments most probably will have low carbon stocks. Figure 3: Factors influencing carbon stocks in seagrass habitats The tables of influencing factors and potential activities were then considered (Table 3). During this process several specific examples were discussed. The seagrass-moorings case study (Rottnest Island in WA) findings included that swing moorings can lead to CO 2 emissions after disturbance of seagrass soil, which could be partially avoided by installing environmentally friendly moorings. Another restoration seagrass case study (Oyster Harbour in WA) was explained in which seagrass restoration and enhanced carbon sequestration was achieved following eutrophication-related losses. There was a discussion around whether the benefits of enhanced seagrass habitats flowed to recreational versus commercial activities and questions of how payments or benefits may flow were raised. Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 30

31 The connected nature of the coastal blue carbon ecosystems and how impacts of activities can flow through tidal marshes and mangroves into seagrass meadows was noted. This led to discussion of catchment scale connectivity and the issues of offsite activities, particularly the difficulty in linking that action to changes in the downstream seagrass carbon stores. Seagrass restoration is exceptionally expensive and not necessarily successful. If restoration is to be undertaken there should be specific guidelines about species and locations. This could thereby diminish opportunities for sequestration enhancement under ERF schemes. Since the majority of carbon stocks in seagrass meadows are found in its soils, it was noted that the protection of these soil stocks to avoid emissions is more relevant. The possibility of raising coral reef heights to assist in lowering hydrodynamic energy and storm impacts on seagrass meadows was noted as having been achieved in other parts of the world. The effects of reducing hydrological connections between habitats were discussed. It was noted that in South Australia seagrass declined due to the total suspended solids (TSS) and therefore perhaps consideration of the ideal balance needed for light conditions and for burial of carbon in combination. The idea of wrack removal from beaches was discussed since this is a widespread activity. The potential carbon implications of wrack removal will depend to a large extent on the fate of the removed wrack. Land application, conversion to biochar or other alternatives that avoid placing the wrack in landfills may reduce potential methane emissions and enhance retention of wrack derived carbon. The ephemeral nature of some seagrass meadows was also noted as important to consider in method development. Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 31

32 Table 3: Seagrass meadows influencing factor and potential anthropogenic activities Seagrass Influencing Factor Mechanism Regulation Legislation Location Jurisdicti on Historic Current Anticipated Scale and magnitude Potential anthropogenic activities Evidence base PHYSICAL Removal of living biomass and disturbance of soil profile 1. Removal of living biomass and exposure of soil C org to oxic conditions. 2. Loss of seagrass canopy entails the loss of C org burial and exposes soils to erosion. 3. Erosion resuspends finegrained (mud) sediments and associated soil C org (export). Lack of burial 4. Change in microbial community and sediment biogeochemistry conductive to C org remineralization. C wealth QLD - Marine Plants Protected via Fisheries Act -Marine Parks - no greater than 1m2 can be impacted without DA. - Fish Habitat Areas - no greater than 1m2 can be impacted without DA. - Coastal Protection and Management Act provides for the regulation of dredging NSW: Work towards mandatory Seagrass friendly moorings -Permit required to impact for > 5 m2 seagrass involving compensatory payment - or require BACI monitoring in the footprint and 50m buffer (Fisheries can apply bonds) VIC Dredging re Port Phillip All states (?) Various states: Guidance EAG7 (PL) framewo rk requires documen tation of seagrass habitats and defines assessme nt of dredging impacts Historic: since WWII Current: along developed coastal areas and estuaries Anticipated: future development s in coastal areas Dredging (Coastal development, Maintenance shipping channels, Construction jetties/marin a, Beach reconstructio n, Export/Impor t (Industry)) WAMSI ha lost at Rottnest, Warnbro and Cockburn Sound (Walker et al 1989; Hastings et al. 1995) 2. 45,000 ha lost due to different impacts including moorings (Walker et al 1992) Mooring 1. Install environmentally friendly moorings for commercial and recreational users (Demers et al. 2013) 2. Exclusion of mooring from seagrass (avoidance plus recovery component) 3.Avoidance of boat scarring/ propeller vessel impacts of anchoring 4. Change in dredging practice to minimise seagrass impacts hence emission avoidance (has been done for dredging in Peel-Harvey estuary, where dredge licence conditions since about 2008 have moved to dredging at time to avoid seagrass flowering and high productivity periods) )Trawling fishing (commercial) Bait/shell collection Harvesting seagrass fibres Papers - Reports - Case studies - Expertise - 1. Walker et al 1989 Aquatic Botany 2. Serrano et al Scientific Reports 3. Hastings et al Ocean & Coastal Management 4. Walker et al 1992 Marine Pollution Bulletin Demers et al 2013 Marine Environmental Research Dredging - Camden Haven and Brunswick Estuary - 4 yrs monitoring. Wamon Lagoon near Tweed River - tidal connectivity/flushing with culvert Effects of Trawling Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 32

33 Seagrass Influencing Factor Mechanism Regulation Legislation Location Jurisdicti on Historic Current Anticipated Scale and magnitude Potential anthropogenic activities Evidence base Bay and Westernport Bay + planning scheme TAS SA WA 1. Number of moorings is restricted? 2. EPA env assessment guidelines #3 (Benthic primary producers) & #7 (Assessment guideline for marine dredging proposals 3. Environ vs. mining for dredging 4. Dredging in estuaries under Waterways conservation Act 1976 requires licence through Dept of Water NT dredging node - timing, intensity, etc to minimise irradiance impacts, change process. Convoluted dredge footprint edges to enable recolonisatio n. (cellulose industry) Beach restoration Construction Marine/jetty Alteration of hydrology Aquaculture Bioturbation Alteration of hydrology/hydrodynamic energy: 1. Construction jetties/marina 3. Boating (propeller) 4. Marine traffic Relocation of anchoring areas Recovery see Pitcher et al 2007 Worm Baiting: Baltais, S. J. (2014). Using OBIA to examine the impact of bait worming on seagrass meadows in Moreton Bay, Australia PHYSICAL Hydrodynamic energy (waves, current, tides, storms, bed shear stress) Erosion or deposition of soil C org 1. Artificial reef/other structures e.g. raising coral reefs to diminish hydrodynamic energy and enhance sedimentation 2. Control water flow 3. Manage stocking densities 4. Urban stormwater discharge so as more diffuse source 5. Shellfish reefs or Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 33

34 Seagrass Influencing Factor Mechanism Regulation Legislation Location Jurisdicti on Historic Current Anticipated Scale and magnitude Potential anthropogenic activities Evidence base mangrove replanting 6. Riparian revegetation PHYSICAL Terrestrial connectivity and sedimentation 1. Land-clearance and agriculture enhance run-off increased the fluxes of sediments (and associated C org ), resulting in enhanced sequestration (burial and NPP) or asphyxia. 2. Reducing the inputs of sediments cause erosion in coastal areas C wealth QLD NSW: VIC TAS SA WA NT 1. Land-use change (agriculture, coastal development) 2. Dredging 3. Alteration of hydrology 4. Beach restoration 5. Tidal influence modification Groundwater use Change in hydrology CHEMICAL Terrestrial connectivity and eutrophication 1. High nutrient loading favour algal growth and trophic cascades in coastal areas, causing algal blooms, hypoxia and loss of seagrasses. Soils are exposed to erosion after canopy loss. 2. Reduced irradiance (epiphyte growth and algal growth in water column) diminishing C wealth QLD NSW: VIC TAS SA WA NT All states? Historic: since European settlement Current: along developed coastal areas and estuaries Anticipated: future development s in coastal areas -Catchment 1. 45,000 ha lost due to different impacts including eutrophication (Walker et al 1992) Agriculture Livestock Land-clearance Sewage/wastewater Industry (superphosphate plants) Aquaculture Groundwater use Change in hydrology (salinity/freshwater inputs) Tidal influence modifications Sulphide concentration Recalcitrance Corg 1. Reduce nutrient loading into coastal areas to Papers - Reports - Case studies - Expertise - Walker et al Marine Pollution Bulletin Work by Sean Collins in SA - nutrient/pesticide impacts on seagrass Peel Harvey estuary case Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 34

35 Seagrass Influencing Factor Mechanism Regulation Legislation Location Jurisdicti on Historic Current Anticipated Scale and magnitude Potential anthropogenic activities Evidence base NPP. 3. Eutrophication organic enriched sediments lead to higher respiratory demand as sediment sulphides inhibit seagrass management using modelling to target nutrient reduction, and direct remediation but fate/cause. -Note pesticide /herbicide indirect effects -Flood gate operation / estuary opening recover seagrasses 2. Improve water treatment before disposal 3. Relocate disposal sites further offshore 4. Reduce sediment loading from run-off CHEMICAL Salinity/freshwater inputs Controlling seagrass distribution (salinity thresholds) and productivity Water legislation acts Intertidal seagrass meadows Manipulate water flow to increase seagrass extent (and avoid methane emission) Peel-Harvey, Vasse Wonnerup where changes in fresh/salt can enhance seagrass (Coorong probably opposite case) BIOLOGICAL Net Primary Production Herbivory Change species distribution Recalcitrance of Healthy country planning re turtles, dugong 1. Revegetation with species higher in lignin. Urchin removal project Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 35

36 Seagrass Influencing Factor Mechanism Regulation Legislation Location Jurisdicti on Historic Current Anticipated Scale and magnitude Potential anthropogenic activities Evidence base Corg Global change Increased storms (run-off) Increased storms (waves) Sea level rise Heat waves Increased sea temperature Ocean acidification Invasive species CONNECTIVITY AMONG THE THREE ECOSYSTEMS: one activity may have impact on more than blue C habitat Any other Influential Factor missing? Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 36

37 3.7 Other contributions Several participants provided useful contributions beyond the provision of information collected when assessing the influencing factors and potential activities. One contribution was a conceptual diagram depicting various scenarios when considering the combination of sea level rise, retreat barriers, and sedimentation that can be found in a recent paper entitled The state of legislation and policy protecting Australia's mangrove and salt marsh and their ecosystem services see: Rogers, K., Boon, P. I., Branigan, S., Duke, N. C., Field, C. D., Fitzsimons, J. A., Kirkman, H., Mackenzie, J. R. & Saintilan, N Marine Policy, 72, Other contributions included various academic papers and reports. Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 37

38 3.8 Final comments/discussion. Where to now? After finalising the tables of influencing factors and activities for each coastal blue carbon ecosystem (Sections 3.4 to 3.6), the workshop ended with a session in which activities with a potential for inclusion in an ERF coastal blue carbon method were summarised and discussed. For inclusion, the activities must deliver real emission abatement above what would occur under a business as usual condition and an ability to quantify the extent and certainty of emission abatement (sequestration or emission avoidance) must be able to be developed. As the workshop progressed through the activity options, it became apparent that the list would be very similar for both mangrove and tidal marsh ecosystems. As a result, the proposed activities for these two coastal blue carbon ecosystems have aggregated together. The activities identified for consideration by the Department for emission abatement methods in mangrove and tidal marsh ecosystems and seagrass ecosystems are presented in Table 4. As part of the subsequent technical report being prepared by the project team, all activities identified in Table 4 will be evaluated on the basis of their scope, opportunities for emission abatement, additionality and integrity using a framework provided by the Department. For each activity, the potential abatement opportunity will be described in accordance with the information requested in the columns of Table 5. The emission abatement integrity will then be scored according to Table 6 and any activities receiving scores 8 will be further described and evaluated according to the information requested in Table 7. The Department will then consider the information presented in the technical report to be submitted in October 2016, including that contained in Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7 to assess whether it will proceed to the development of one or more coastal blue carbon ERF methods. Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 38

39 Table 4: Summary table of activities with the potential to sequester additional carbon or avoid emissions against the business as usual scenario within coastal blue carbon ecosystems Mangroves and Tidal Marshes Re-introduction of tidal flow Changes to walls, culverts, etc. followed by passive or active revegetation. Land-use change Exclusion of grazing, compensating for coastal squeeze in planning Restoration of mangroves and tidal marshes on converted lands Change in species composition Improved biomass production due to enhanced adaptation to local conditions Avoided clearing Revoke or do not act on existing planned clearing activities Offsite management options to impact site processes Nutrient management in catchments to reduce loads into mangroves Catchment water flow management to obtain optimal salinity conditions Seagrass Avoidance of physical disturbance caused by Moorings, dredging, trawling Reef installations to reduce impacts of hydrodynamic energy Changes to river flows, walls, culverts etc. that impact on the amount and energy of water passing over seagrass beds (or potential seagrass beds) Revegetation of impacted seagrass beds and/or creation of new seagrass beds Active or passive revegetation of previously impacted seagrass beds Creation of new seagrass habitat or re-establishment of habitat after physical disturbance activities (e.g. dredging spoil management). Offsite management options to impact site processes. Reduce suspended sediments Nutrient loads, pesticides Change point to diffuse source effects Water flow management Creation of new areas for establishing seagrass beds Freshwater/saltwater mixing to optimise salinity and seagrass growth Wrack management Avoidance of wrack going to landfill Conversion into longer lived products (e.g. biochar) Water flow management around and within mangroves Earthworks to alter water flow within mangroves Altered flooding and associated sedimentation regimes Dredge spoil addition to mangroves to assist with adaptation to sea level rise Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 39

40 Table 5. Framework to be used to describe potential emissions abatement activities Activity/ Category Sequestration or emission avoidance Conditions required Potential participants Potential size of abatement Adverse impacts Additionality Evidence base Describe the specific coastal blue carbon activity that could enhance abatement Explain how the abatement activity will sequester or avoid emissions List the circumstances of conditions under which the activity is to be implemented Identify potential participant groups Estimate the potential volume of the abatement (Mg C) Consider the extent of potential adverse social, environmental or economic impacts Demonstrate how the emission abatement would not occur under the business as usual scenario Provide evidence of potential emission abatement (papers, reports, case studies) Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 40

41 Table 6. Framework for assessing emission abatement integrity. Scores for each integrity requirement item are to be entered as 0, 1, or 2 according to the criteria provided. Integrity requirement Scoring criteria Score Score Justification 1. Undertaking the coastal blue carbon enhancement activity must result in carbon abatement that is unlikely to occur in the ordinary course of events. 2. Estimating the activity's carbon removals, reductions or emissions must be achieved using an approach that is measurable and capable of being verified. 3. Carbon abatement using in ascertaining the carbon dioxide net abatement amount for the activity must be eligible carbon abatement in accordance with the approach outlined in footnote The approaches used for the activity must be supported by clear and convincing evidence 5. Material amounts of greenhouse gases that are emitted as a direct consequence of the activity must be considered. 0 - The enhancement activity is likely to occur regardless of ERF participation. 1 - Based on available course of events information it is not possible to ascertain the likelihood of the activity occurring in the ordinary course of events. 2 - Based on available information, including current practice and existing regulations, it is considered likely that undertaking the activity would be additional to what is likely to occur in the ordinary course of events. 0 - There are currently no recognised measurable or verifiable approaches available to determine carbon removals, reductions or emissions relating to the activity. 1 - There are measurement approaches but they are not currently backed by substantiated evidence. 2 - There are recognised measurable or verifiable approaches backed by peer reviewed literature and validated case studies 0- Carbon abatement from the activity is not eligible carbon abatement. It cannot be counted towards Australia s national greenhouse gas inventory 1 - It cannot be determined if carbon abatement from the activity is eligible carbon abatement. It is uncertain whether the carbon can be counted towards Australia's national greenhouse gas inventory. 2 - Carbon abatement from the activity is eligible carbon abatement and can be counted towards Australia's national greenhouse gas inventory. 0 - There is currently limited or nil clear and convincing evidence to support the coastal blue carbon enhancement activity. 1 -There is supporting evidence but it is not considered to be clear and convincing evidence. 2 - The proposed coastal blue carbon enhancement activity and associated measurement approaches are supported by clear and convincing evidence backed by peer reviewed literature and validated case studies. 0 any material amounts of greenhouse gases emitted through the activity would be unable to be unaccounted for. 1 - It cannot be determined whether there will be material amounts of greenhouse gases emitted as part of the activity 2 - There are demonstrable approaches for ensuring material amounts of greenhouse gases will be able to be accounted for and deducted from net Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 41

42 Integrity requirement Scoring criteria Score Score Justification 6. Estimates, projections or assumptions regarding activity abatement are conservative abatement amounts in carrying out the activity. 0- Estimates, projections or assumptions used to work out the net abatement amount are not conservative. 1 - It cannot be determined whether estimates, projections or assumptions are conservative but the approaches are anecdotally considered conservative. 2 - Estimates, projections or assumptions used to work out the net abatement are supported by peer reviewed literature that demonstrates conservativeness. Total score Footnote 2: To be eligible carbon abatement, the abatement needs to be able to be captured in Australia's nationally reported greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of current national reporting on blue carbon capture and storage, consideration should be given to the IPCC 2006 Guidelines (Volume 4 - AFOLU), and the 20 J 3 Supplementary guidelines on wetlands (Chapter 4 Coastal Wetlands) Note: Where a total score of eight (8) or greater is provided above to a blue carbon enhancement activity being assessed, Part 2 of this document should also be completed for the activity. A score less than eight (8) will only require Part 1 to be completed. Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 42

43 Table 7. Framework to consider requirements and of potential ERF projects built around an activity and to identify appropriate approaches capable of quantifying net emission abatement. To be completed for activities receiving a total score 8 from Table 6. Activity: Enter the activity description Specify a process for identifying the baseline Identifying the baseline List and justify assumptions and uncertainties on which the baseline is based. Describe the steps and/or processes involved in undertaking the abatement activity Identify all emission sources and sinks directly or indirectly affected by the activity Activity area Estimating abatement Double counting Permanence and leakage Monitoring and Reporting Land ownership and legal right to carbon Specify how the coastal blue carbon ecosystem activity area and boundaries would be determined Approaches to calculate baseline emissions and removals. Identify uncertainties and how they may be addressed. Summarise approaches to calculate project activity emissions and removals and outline uncertainties and how they may be addressed. Summarise approaches to calculate net GHG abatement (difference between the baseline and project activity emissions and removals). Summarise approaches for data collection methods for the baseline and project activity emissions and removals. Summarise approaches on how to avoid the double counting of up-stream and down-stream carbon sources that are captured elsewhere in inventory reporting (e.g. carbon entering coastal blue carbon ecosystems from rivers or catchment area). Provide an assessment of factors likely to influence permanence (over 25 and 100 year periods) of the carbon stored as a result of project activity. Outline likely leakages that may eventuate through long term events, environmental or otherwise. Outline the elements of the activity that will be monitored and reported and describe how monitoring and reporting approaches will be undertaken, including frequency of monitoring and standards of monitoring. Outline land access and ownership rights issues that may affect the person who intends to carry out the activity through the ERF. Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 43

44 4 Feedback on the workshop and this report. The project team and the Department of Environment and Energy would appreciate receiving feedback from the workshop participants, both those that attended in person and via the teleconference. Please forward any comments (supportive or critical) to Mark Newnham Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 44

45 Appendices Appendix A. Summary of coastal blue carbon research in Australia from the CSIRO Marine and Coastal Carbon Biogeochemistry Cluster Authors: Oscar Serrano, Jeff Kelleway and Jeff Baldock Acknowledgements: The research presented was mainly supported by the CSIRO Flagship Marine & Coastal Carbon Biogeochemical Cluster. The authors are grateful to Catherine Lovelock, Trisha Atwood, Peter Macreadie, Robert Canto, Stuart Phinn, Ariane Arias-Ortiz, Camila Bedulli, Paul Carnell, Rod Connolly, Paul Donaldson, Alba Esteban, Carolyn J. Ewers, Bradley D. Eyre, Matthew Hayes, Gary A. Kendrick, Kieryn Kilminster, Anna Lafratta, Joe Lee, Paul S. Lavery, Nuria Marbà, Pere Masque, Miguel A. Mateo, Kathryn McMahon, Richard Mount, Peter Ralph, Chris Roelfsema, Mohammad Rozaimi, Radhiyah Ruhon, Cristian Salinas, Jimena Samper- Villarreal, Jon Sanderman, Christian Sanders, Isaac Santos, Chris Sharples, Andrew Steven, Stacey M. Trevathan-Tackett, Carlos M. Duarte, G. Bastyan, D. Kyrwood, G. Davis and J. Bongiovanni for their contributions to this work. Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 45

46 1. Overview Over the past four years, the CSIRO Marine and Coastal Carbon Biogeochemistry Cluster (Cluster), composed by a team of experts from eight Australian universities and research organisations, together with the CSIRO, have advanced our understanding of the organic pools and fluxes of carbon for Australian vegetated coastal environments. The Cluster team has collated existing and new Australian coastal carbon data and is closer to establish a new carbon inventory consisting of the sources, stocks and flows of carbon in Australian coastal environments. Cluster members have advanced our process understanding of the changes in carbon cycling resulting from natural and anthropogenic change, providing data for improved models of evaluate carbon fluxes in the Australia coastal environment. This data underpins the assessment of the sequestration potential for each of these ecosystems as well as its vulnerability, and will be used by the CSIRO to enhance their modelling capacity to predict national coastal carbon budgets. The Coastal Carbon Cluster has fostered vital scientific research into strategies to strengthen our blue carbon economy and prevent future excessive greenhouse gas emissions. It has delivered comprehensive analyses of carbon flow in Australian coastal ecosystems to address a major gap in existing biogeochemical and ecological models evaluating carbon fluxes in the marine environment (integrated via CSIRO models), and has provided essential information to deliver first order blue carbon estimates for Australia. In particular, the Cluster team investigated carbon sequestration, stoichiometry and stores potential of Australian coastal vegetated ecosystems, including dataset compilations (i.e. carbon stocks and burial rates in standing biomass and soil pools for mangroves, tidal marshes and seagrasses), addressing inter- and intra-habitat variability, the identification of biological and geochemical drivers of carbon storage, and the potential loss of carbon stores after disturbance. Studies reporting blue carbon storage increased 25-fold over the last 5 years, and the Cluster team largely contributed to this increase over the last four years, with 40% of worldwide publications on blue carbon based in Australia (Figure 1). Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 46

47 Figure 1. History of number of publications on blue carbon research worldwide (solid line) and in Australia (dashed line) for seagrass, mangrove and tidal marsh ecosystems. Preliminary regional inventories using data assimilation to assist model uncertainties of blue carbon ecosystem service have been developed for Australia. It has been found that disturbance and/or management actions to blue carbon ecosystems can cause change in carbon storage, demonstrating the potential of blue carbon habitats for ERF eligibility. A risk assessment tool addressed to managers and policy makers has been developed, which presents a risk assessment framework that provides a process to assess the likelihood of CO 2 emissions resulting from disturbance of coastal vegetated ecosystems (Table 1 and Figure 2). These advances in knowledge allow informed decision-making for planning, policy and management of our coastal assets. These achievements have been possible due to multi-disciplinary expertise and collaborative approach of all Cluster members. Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 47

48 Table 1. Risk matrix of CO 2 emissions with varying carbon stocks and rates of C org remineralisation. The risk of CO 2 emissions vary with soil C org stock and the rate of remineralisation, which varies from very low to very high depending on environmental conditions. The risk of CO 2 emissions varies from Low (blue, scores 1-4), Moderate (green, 5-9), Moderately high (yellow, 10-12), High (orange, 15-16) and Extreme (red, 20-25). Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 48

49 Figure 2. Conceptual model for the potential remineralisation of organic carbon following disturbance of blue carbon habitats. BOX 1: Coastal Carbon Cluster Outcomes A digital Corg inventory on the sources, stocks and flows of carbon in Australian blue carbon habitats A process understanding of changes in Corg cycling resulting from natural and anthropogenic change that can be used to underpin assessment of sequestration potential, ecosystem status and vulnerability. Estimated Corg sequestration rates including the application of blue carbon and other strategies for carbon burial. Improved methods to estimate blue carbon stocks. Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 49

50 BOX 2: Tidal marsh Research summary Over 50 sediment cores were sampled and studied for C org stocks and accumulation rates in South Australia, Western Australia, New South Wales and Victoria. Some assessments included vegetation types and geographic settings. Targeted studies were carried out to investigate C org quality and sources in soil pools. The compilation of primary data is now being used as a basis to further CSIRO models, to improve our understanding of tidal marshes in the Australian carbon budget. Key findings Estimates of C org stocks and accumulation rates in tidal marsh habitats in Australia. Understanding of spatial variability in C org stocks and accumulation rates. Understanding of drivers and rates of change around vegetation shifts (changes in spatial and temporal shifts in tidal marsh distribution and their associated C org stocks). Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 50

51 BOX 3: Mangrove Research summary Over 100 sediment cores were sampled and studied for C org stocks and accumulation rates in South Australia, Western Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. C org stocks and fluxes in South Australia and Western Australia were assessed, including regional assessments specifically in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. C org stock and flux data of mangroves in the Northern Territory were collated from the literature and through new Cluster driven fieldwork assessments. Mapping of spatio-temporal variations in mangrove environments was carried out, including scaling to include C org estimate maps. Organic C org stocks and accumulation rates were assessed in sediment cores. Some assessments included vegetation types and geographic settings. Targeted studies were carried out to investigate carbon quality and source (and age) of C org stocks. The compilation of primary data is now being used as a basis to further CSIRO models, to improve our understanding of mangroves in the Australian carbon budget. Key findings There is natural (temporal) compositional variation in mangroves between different habitats (i.e. changes from tidal marsh/mangrove habitats). Estimates of C org stocks and accumulation rates in Australian mangrove habitats. Understanding of spatial variability in C org stocks and accumulation rates. Knowledge of drivers and rates of change in vegetation shifts (changes in spatial and temporal shifts in mangrove distribution and their associated carbon stocks). Origin of C org contributing to soil C org stocks (allochthonous versus autochthonous). Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 51

52 Mangrove carbon stocks are large, but variable. Variation may by driven by species composition, spatial and geomorphic settings. Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from disturbed habitats can be very large. Mangrove carbon stocks can be controlled by biological factors (i.e. top-down predator control). Assumptions cannot be made about coverage, as mangrove coverage is extremely variable. This may be driven by climate, fire and encroachment for example. Knowledge of drivers of mangrove expansion within the intertidal zone, and rates of carbon storage associated with vegetation change. Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 52

53 BOX 4: Seagrass Research summary Over 300 seagrass cores were studied around Australia (except for the NT) to determine their carbon stocks, accumulation rates and how these vary among different habitats, and in response to physical and chemical disturbances. More fine-scale regional assessments were carried out in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Areas such as Moreton Bay (Queensland) and world-heritage listed Shark Bay (Western Australia) have been extensively studied. Targeted studies characterised the types of carbon, together with biogeochemical factors driving C org storage, and examined environmental proxies for carbon content. In some cases, seagrass carbon sequestration processes (i.e. microbial degradation, bioturbation and decomposition) were defined and quantified. The compilation of primary data is now being used as a basis to further CSIRO models, to improve our understanding of seagrass in the Australian carbon budget. Key findings Australia has some of the largest average seagrass C org stocks relative to other countries (e.g. Shark Bay alone contains 1 2% of the total global seagrass stocks). Variability in C org stocks and accumulation rates due to habitat (depositional environment, water depth) and among species of seagrass. Disturbance (moorings, eutrophication) affect C org stocks and accumulations rates. Biological drivers of carbon stock change, including top-down predator control, bioturbation, bacterial diversity, seagrass tissue type and degradation. Quantification of the contribution of seagrass biomass (i.e. detritus, roots) to the soil C org pool in seagrass habitats. Mapping (spatial extent) of seagrass habitats need to be improved. Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 53

54 2. Blue carbon hotspot in Australia Australia has 15,300 km 2 of tidal marshes, 10,500 km 2 of mangrove forests and 125,500 km 2 of seagrass meadows (Geoscience Australia, 2005; Mount et al. 2008; Giri et al. 2011; Coles et al. 2015; Lavery et al and references therein). The estimated carbon storage in Australian coastal vegetated habitats (i.e. within 151,400 km 2 of tidal marsh, mangrove and seagrass) in both living biomass and 1 m-thick soil deposits was 1,722 Tg C org (196 Tg C org and 1,526 Tg C org, respectively; Table 1). Annual soil C org accumulation rates were estimated at 5.5 Tg C org yr -1 (Table 1). Australian seagrasses host relatively high C org stocks in soil and living biomass (1,035 and 22 Tg C org, respectively) compared to tidal marsh (234 and 16.6 Tg C org ) and mangroves (257 and 158 Tg C org ; Table 1). The majority of C org stocks in seagrass and tidal marsh habitats are found in soils (98% and 93%, respectively), while C org stocks in mangrove ecosystems were distributed in both soil (62%) and living biomass (48%) pools. Seagrass habitats accumulate 2- to 6-fold higher C org on an annual basis (3.5 Tg C org yr -1 ) compared tidal marsh and mangrove ecosystems (0.5 Tg C org yr -1 and 1.4 Tg C org yr -1, respectively; Table 1). Table 1. Total area occupied by coastal vegetated ecosystems (km 2 ) in Australia. Estimates of total C org stock in living biomass, soil C org stock and soil C org burial rates for the three ecosystems in Australia. Australian mangroves host relatively high C org stocks in soil and living biomass per unit area (25.1 and 12.5 kg C org m -2, respectively) and soil C org burial rates (126 g C org m -2 yr -1 ) compared to tidal marshes (16.8 and 1.96 kg C org m -2 and 38.6 g C org m -2 yr -1 ) and seagrasses (11.2 and 0.19 kg C org m -2 and 36.0 g C org m -2 yr -1 ; Table 2). Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 54

55 Table 2. Estimates of total C org stock in living biomass, soil C org stock and soil C org burial rates per unit area (m -2 ) for the three ecosystems in Australia. The vast majority of tidal marsh and mangrove habitats in Australia are found in tropical regions (62% and 73%, respectively; Table 3). The tropical tidal marsh classification includes extensive high intertidal salt flats that can be covered with cyanobacterial mats and sparse woody chenopods. Mangrove forests in the tropics are highly diverse and can reach heights up to 30 m. Seagrasses cover a larger area in subtropical and tropical regions (39% and 33%, respectively). The soil C org storage capacity (stocks and accumulation rates) of tropical tidal marshes and mangroves are 3- to 18-fold and 3- to 132-fold higher than in other bioregions, respectively (Table 3). Seagrass meadows from subtropical regions hold 2 to 7-fold higher C org stores than seagrasses from other regions. Table 3. Total area occupied by coastal vegetated ecosystems (km 2 ) within bioregion in Australia. Estimates of total C org stock in living biomass, soil C org stock and soil C org burial rates for the three ecosystems within Bioregions in Australia. Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 55

56 The vast majority of blue carbon habitats and C org stocks (in soil and living biomass) and C org burial rates are found in Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australia (Table 4). Table 4. Total area occupied by coastal vegetated ecosystems (km 2 ) within States in Australia. Estimates of total C org stock in living biomass, soil C org stock and soil C org burial rates for the three ecosystems within States in Australia. Data with * is preliminary. Australia holds around 12% of blue carbon habitats worldwide (8% of tidal marshes, 7-8% of mangrove forest and 21-71% of seagrass meadows), encompassing a large proportion of global coastal vegetated ecosystems within Earth s climatic bioregions. The C org storage within Australian coastal vegetated ecosystems constitutes around 7-12% of worldwide blue carbon storage (Duarte et al. 2013), placing Australia among the nations with the largest potential to benefit from developing blue carbon-focussed climate change mitigation schemes, along with other nations like Indonesia and Brazil. Destruction and degradation of natural ecosystems is responsible for approximately 12-20% of the CO 2 released to the atmosphere (Le Quéré et al. 2009). Recent coastal development (i.e. population growth, oil, gas, coal and iron ore exports and associated infrastructure) and global change in Australia is causing a net decline in the area of tidal marshes, mangroves and seagrasses, estimated at 1-3% yr -1 (e.g. Waycott et al. 2009). Loss of coastal vegetated ecosystems results in erosion of sediments and, potentially, the remineralization of the sedimentary C org accumulated over millennia, which may then contribute to increasing atmospheric CO 2 and ocean acidification (McLeod et al. 2011; Pendleton et al. 2012; Marbà et al. 2015). Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 56

57 Blue carbon strategies build on the opportunity to avoid or mitigate CO 2 emissions through the conservation and restoration of coastal vegetated ecosystems (Nellemann et al. 2009; McLeod et al. 2011). We estimate that present rates of coastal vegetated ecosystems loss in Australia (around 2% yr -1 ) could result in 4 to 14 Tg C org yr -1 at risk of being remineralized relieasing CO 2 (Table 5); assuming that 25-75% C org stores in living biomass and 1 m soil deposits are remineralized after disturbance (Lovelock et al. 2011; Macreadie et al. 2013; Coverdale et al. 2013; Kauffman et al. 2014). Table 5. Estimates of C org stocks at risk of remineralization according to blue carbon habitat loss rates in Australia. Growing human populations and activities across many of the world s coastlines are associated with increasing impacts on coastal ecosystems (Lotze et al. 2006), and thus enhanced levels of protection and restoration of coastal vegetated ecosystems could constitute a mechanism to offset Australian CO 2 emissions while enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem services. The inclusion of the restoration of blue carbon ecosystems in Australia within Australia s Emission Reduction Fund scheme could potentially reduce Australian CO 2 emissions by 3% per annum. Sustainable management of Australia s marine environment is a high priority for the Australian Government and requires an informed understanding of the ecological and economic significance of natural resources. The Australian government is planning to establish an International Partnership for Blue Carbon after the climate conference in Paris 2016, and this study provides key data for the implementation of blue carbon-based climate change mitigation policies to enhance protection and restore blue carbon ecosystems. Our comprehensive estimates of blue carbon stocks and sequestration across Australia climatic bioregions can be used to obtain preliminary estimates (i.e. IPCC Tier 1 or 2) of blue carbon stocks and sequestration in other countries (IPCC, 2007). The destruction of blue carbon ecosystems may also increase greenhouse gas emissions (i.e. methane and nitrous oxide; ref) and the reduction of coastal protection, biodiversity and fisheries. The Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 57

58 economic and ecological significance of blue carbon ecosystems therefore greatly exceeds their CO 2 storage capacity alone, with further studies required to comprehensively estimate their real value. 3. Conclusion The estimates of coastal blue carbon stocks and accumulation around Australia derived from the Cluster are amongst the most comprehensive in the world, along with a detailed understanding of the processes responsible for sequestering carbon. The Coastal Carbon Cluster has collated and analysed new and existing Australian coastal carbon data to deliver a process understanding of changes in carbon cycling resulting from natural and anthropogenic change that can now be used to underpin assessments of the sequestration potential of our blue carbon habitats. An accessible database was created to store this new Australian carbon inventory that consists of sources, speciation, stocks and flows of carbon in Australian coastal environments. In a low carbon economy, we need to be confident in our ability to estimate carbon sources, sinks and their rates of change. CSIRO is the world leader in biogeochemical modeling and the CSIRO Wealth from Oceans Flagship develops and applies coupled hydrodynamic, biogeochemical and ecological models in both ocean and coastal regions. Coastal Carbon Cluster outcomes will enhance these CSIRO models to address issues of national importance such as ocean acidification, carbon sequestration potential of our coastal assets and primary productivity and deliver better predictions for national coastal carbon budgets. 4. References Coles RG, Rashee MA, McKenzie LJ, Grech A, York PH, Sheaves M, McKenna S, Bryant C (2015). The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area seagrasses: managing this iconic Australian ecosystem resource for the future. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 153, A1-A12. Coverdale TC, Bertness MD, Altieri AH (2013) Regional ontogeny of new England salt marsh dieoff. Conservation Biology 27, Duarte CM, Losada IJ, et al. (2013) The role of coastal plant communities for climate change mitigation and adaptation. Nat Clim Change 3: Geoscience Australia Coastal Waterways Geomorphic Habitat Map Data. In: AUSTRALIA, G. (ed.). Giri, C., Ochieng, E., Tieszen, L. L., Zhu, Z., Singh, A., Loveland, T., Masek, J. & Duke, N Global Distribution of Mangroves USGS (2011). UNEP-WCMC. IPCC (2007) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M et al. (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 58

59 Kauffman, J. B., Heider, C., Norfolk, J., & Payton, F. (2014) Carbon stocks of intact mangroves and carbon emissions arising from their conversion in the Dominican Republic. Ecological Applications, 24(3), Lavery, P. S, M. A. Mateo, O. Serrano, M. Rozaimi (2013) Variability in the carbon storage of seagrass habitats and its implications for global estimates of Blue Carbon ecosystem service. PLoS ONE 8(9):e Le Quéré, C. et al. (2009) Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Nature Geosci. 2, Lotze HK, Lenihan HS, Bourque BJ et al. (2006) Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal areas. Science, 312, Lovelock CE, Feller IC, Ruess RW (2011) CO 2 efflux from cleared mangrove peat. PLOS One, 6(6): e doi: /journal.pone ; Macreadie PI, Hughes AR, Kimbro DL (2013) Loss of Blue Carbon from coastal salt marshes following habitat disturbance. PloS One, 8(7), e Marbà, N., Arias-Ortiz, A., Masqué, P., Kendrick, G.A., Mazarrasa, I., Bastyan, G.R., Garcia- Orellana, J. and Duarte, C.M. (2015) Impact of seagrass loss and subsequent revegetation on carbon sequestration and stocks. Journal of Ecology McLeod E, GL Chmura, S Bouillon, et al. (2011) A Blueprint for Blue Carbon: Towards an improved understanding of the role of vegetated coastal habitats in sequestering CO 2. Front Ecol Environ 9: Mount, R., Bricher, P. & Newton, P National Intertidal/Subtidal Benthic (NISB) Habitat Map Data. In: University of Tasmania, Department of Climate Change & Audit, N. L. A. W. R. (eds.). Nellemann C, Corcoran E, Duarte CM et al. (2009) Blue Carbon. A Rapid Response Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal. 80 pp; Pendleton L, Donato DC, Murray BC, et al. (2012) Estimating Global Blue Carbon emissions from conversion and degradation of vegetated coastal ecosystems. PLoS ONE 7(9): e43542; Waycott, M. et al. (2009) Accelerating loss of seagrasses across the globe threatens coastal ecosystems. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 106, (2009). Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 59

60 Appendix B. Workshop presentations B.1 DoEE presentation in Session 1 Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 60

61 Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 61

62 Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 62

63 B.2 CSIRO Coastal Carbon Cluster presentation in Session 2 Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 63

64 Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 64

65 Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 65

66 Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 66

67 B.3 ERF Influencing factors for mangroves and tidal marshes in Session 3 Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 67

68 Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 68

69 Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 69

70 B.4 ERF Influencing factors for tidal marshes in Session 4 Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 70

71 Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 71

72 Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 72

73 B.5 ERF Influencing factors for seagrass meadows in Session 5 Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 73

74 Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 74

75 Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 75

76 Appendix C. Influencing factors Technical review of opportunities for coastal blue carbon ecosystem enhancement Part 1 of the Project Report will assess literature and knowledge of Australia s blue carbon coastal ecosystems including identifying key blue carbon ecosystems that have potential for carbon sequestration and / or emissions avoidance resulting from ecosystem protection, rehabilitation and/or ecosystem conversion. It will identify existing and ongoing sources of ecosystem degradation and rehabilitation including human induced degradation, removal or land use changes, and existing management practices influencing factors. For each influencing factor identified, the Project Report will detail and provide substantiating evidence for the following: a) Identify the influencing factor and associated cause. b) How does the influencing factor affect either the carbon sequestered in the ecosystem or the greenhouse gases released by the ecosystem? c) Is the influencing factor regulated under any legislation (federal/state/local)? If yes, provide the context. d) In what Australian location/s and jurisdiction/s does the influencing factor occur? e) Is the influencing factor historic, current or anticipated? f) Is the influencing factor permanently or temporarily affecting the blue carbon ecosystem? g) Where data exists, what is the recognised extent of the affected areas (km2), and where do these occur? (This could be demonstrated with assistance of a map) In simpler terms, influencing factors are anything that has, is, or is anticipated to impact carbon stocks (sequestration or emission). These are natural or human induced/influenced environmental drivers. Influencing factors can be grouped into the following categories, with some examples of influencing factors included for each: Influencing factors from coastal development. For example: modifying coastal habitats, barriers to flow, dredging and dredge disposal. Influencing factors from land-based run-off. For example: nutrient/sediment/pesticide run-off, sediment run-off, terrestrial discharge, Influencing factors from direct use. For example: incompatible uses, dredging and dredge disposal, seafloor damage, extraction of vegetation Influencing factors from climate change. For example: altered weather patterns, sea level rise, sea temperature increase The context of the influencing factor is important e.g. fire in its normal context is an influencing factor. An activity could then be used to alter an influencing factor of fire by eliminating, altering or accelerating it. Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 76

77 Appendix D. GoogleDocs Instructions Go to on your PC or go via the Google app on your mobile or tablet and click on blue button centre of screen, Go to Google Docs. Either log in or create your google account, by enter your address and click on Create account You will see a Welcome screen two options, take a tour of Google Docs or get the apps, the last option is to close this screen and you will be in Google docs. If using CHROME 1. Install Office Editing for Docs extension see screen below (files is several Mb) Go to this link.. Click add to Chrome top right corner and click Add extension on the screen that pops up A screen will confirm that the extension has been added. Close that tab to return to Google Docs and click Okay, got it! If you need help at any time for Docs go to You will receive an invitation to the documents we will collaborate on during the meeting. 1 These instructions have been prepared using Google Chrome as a browser, contact toni.cannard@csiro.au if you need further assistance. Coastal Blue Carbon Emissions Reduction Opportunities 77