Month: August 2022

The method uses the concepts of critical and interacting thresholds to challenge stakeholders in a workshop setting to think about potential non-linear and undesired behavior of their farming system. Following, stakeholders are elicited on desired alternative systems that avoid critical thresholds and thus improve sustainability and resilience . The method is flexible regarding: a. the information sources used as input for the workshop, b. the possibility to include case specific indicators and c. the stakeholder input during the workshop, i.e. alternation of individual input, small group discussions and plenary discussions. We illustrate the usefulness of the approach with an application to the extensive sheep farming system in Huesca, Spain. In this farming system, ongoing, interrelated economic, social as well as environmental developments are increasingly reducing the system’s sustainability and resilience. The proposed methodology presented in this paper extends the Framework of Participatory Impact Assessment for Sustainable and Resilient EU farming systems approach for assessing sustainability and resilience of current systems with participatory assessments on resilience of EU farming systems in the future . FoPIASURE-Farm 1 and 2 are based on the SURE-Farm resilience framework : 1) defining and delineating the farming system, 2) identifying main challenges, 3) assessing farming system functions, 4) assessing the system’s resilience capacities , and 5) assessing the system’s resilience enhancing attributes . While FoPIA-SURE-Farm 1 was mainly aimed at performance levels of main indicators, that represent main functions of the system, and resilience attributes, FoPIA-SURE-Farm 2 includes resilience concepts such as critical thresholds, interactions between thresholds , nft channel and regime shifts . In this paper we define the basis of a farming system as the farms producing the main products of interest in a regional context. Farming system actors included in the farming systems are the producers of main products and other actors that mutually influence one another.

The perceived complementarity of sustainability and resilience is operationalized by distinguishing system challenges, function indicators and resilience attributes. In the context of resilience, challenges relate to the question “resilience to what?”, such as resilience to weather extremes . Function indicators are case-study specific representatives for important system functions, such as “Food production” or “Maintaining natural resources”, as direct metrics for those functions are often not available . In the context of resilience, function indicators relate to the question “resilience for what?”. This relates to sustainability, which is defined as an adequate performance of all system functions across the environmental, economic and social domain . Resilience attributes are characteristics that convey general resilience to a system . These resilience attributes can often be linked to system resources , e.g. natural or social capital, that can only be maintained when system functions are performing adequately. To improve the flexibility of the methodology and the clarity and saliency of participatory input, just like for functions, case-study specific indicators may be used for resilience attributes, as well as for challenges. Based on workshop results, inductions are made about the resilience capacities of the studied farming system . For more details on the concepts used in this study, see Appendix A. FoPIA-SURE-Farm 2 consists of a preparation phase, a participatory workshop and an evaluation phase, and was developed for application and comparison across 11 EU farming systems . In this paper we present six key steps of the methodology . In Step 1, current performance and trends of function indicators and resilience attributes are assessed by the research team in the preparation phase. This assessment can be largely based on FoPIA-SURE-Farm 1 , but other literature can also be used. In Step 2, critical thresholds of important system challenges, function indicators and resilience attributes are assessed by workshop participants. Based on Biggs et al. and Kinzig et al. , we define critical thresholds as the levels at which challenges, function indicators or resilience attributes are expected to cause large and permanent system change. System’s closeness to thresholds is consequently evaluated by the research team based on participants’ comments and literature, e.g. based on ongoing trends identified in Step 1. In Step 3, performance of main function indicators and resilience attributes is assessed when critical thresholds of main challenges would be exceeded.

Possibilities of interacting thresholds can be discussed during the workshop and in the evaluation phase, following the framework of Kinzig et al. . Interacting thresholds are thresholds, that, when exceeded, lead to the exceedance of another threshold, i.e. there are cascading effects. In summary, Step 1, 2 and 3 provide an overview of possible system performance in case no adaptations for improved sustainability and resilience are made. Keeping the sustainability and resilience of the current system and the impact of exceeding critical thresholds as a point of reference, Step 4 addresses possible desired changes of the farming system towards the future. Participants can indicate and discuss what alternative systems are possible when challenges would become more severe, and when/how certain function indicators and resilience attributes would improve compared to the current system configuration. Step 5 aims to gain information on the strategies that are needed to realize alternative systems. We indicate these strategies as “future strategies”. Steps 2 to 5 correspond largely to the participatory workshop phase. In the workshop, individual, break-out and plenary sessions are alternated. Individual and break-out sessions are included to ensure that all participants can provide input, which can be used as input for further discussions in plenary sessions. The proposed session format in each step can be changed according to needs of the participants, as long as a balance between individual, break-out and plenary sessions is maintained. In Step 6, in the evaluation phase, researchers evaluate whether desired future systems, i.e. the current system maintained in the future and the alternative systems, are compatible with developments in Shared Social Pathways for European agriculture and hence match exogenous developments at European level. The time horizon for the future is 2030 in all steps. In the next sections we present details of each of the six steps. A pre-selection is made of most important system function indicators and resilience attributes, their qualitative description of performance and developments . Step 1 can be based on FoPIA-SURE-Farm and/or other information sources. Participants individually evaluate the existence of critical thresholds related to function indicators, resilience attributes and challenges . Walker and Salt mention that it is impossible to determine critical thresholds for resilience attributes because they all interact. However, we include resilience attributes as it stimulates thinking about resilience. Moreover, participatory input on thresholds can be interpreted as formulations of potential concerns for which management goals and strategies may be developed . In plenary sessions, individual input is discussed.

Participants are free to discuss and conclude on the relative closeness of their system to critical thresholds. In case closeness of the system to critical thresholds is not indicated by participants, the research team evaluates closeness based on the current performance levels, and magnitude of variation and/or trends. “Not close”, “somewhat close” and “close” to thresholds are defined as respectively unlikely, somewhat likely and likely that the distance to critical thresholds will be trespassed in the coming ten years, based on knowledge on possible variation and/or trends. A fourth category is identified as current levels being already at or beyond the critical threshold . Per identified main challenge, it is evaluated in a participatory forecasting approach what the effect of a change beyond the indicated thresholds would be on main indicators and resilience attributes . For this, the group is split in small groups of participants, each discussing one challenge. First, the expected direction of change of the challenge is clarified. Secondly, the relation between challenge and function indicator or resilience attribute is discussed. In each group, a moderator synthesizes this with a score of –, -, +-, + and ++ alongside arrows from challenges to function indicators and resilience attributes. A + relation implies that if the level of the challenge increases, the function indicator or resilience attribute also increases . Verifications are also made in relation to possible interactions among and between function indicators and resilience attributes. Optionally, the expected impact on the function indicator or resilience attribute is indicated. This impact is scored referring to the expected performance level from 1 to 5, similar to FoPIA-SURE-Farm 1 . In a plenary session, each moderator feeds back the results of the small group in a 1-minute pitch, after which participants can respond. Based on the outcome of questions on critical thresholds and forecasting the impacts of exceeding them, the possibility of interacting critical thresholds is evaluated by researchers in the evaluation phase using the framework of Kinzig et al. . Kinzig et al. specifically assess critical thresholds and cascading effects across scales for alternative future states of agricultural regions. Kinzig et al. distinguish the ecological, as well as the economic and social/cultural domain across the patch, farm and region scale. A good balance between developments in the different domains and levels may improve sustainability and resilience of a system . In systems with strong interactions between system variables at lower levels, vulnerability of the system at the focal level may increase . This is especially the case when variables at lower levels are all aligned with regard to their closeness to critical thresholds . An simultaneous exceedance of critical thresholds at lower levels may result in further cascading effects and ultimately result in an alternative, undesired system state at focal level, hydroponic nft which in this study is the farming system. In the context of this paper we distinguish the environmental, economic and social domains and the field, farm and farming system levels.

In a forecasting approach for improved sustainability, results are largely based on dominant trends and causal mechanisms that often lead to low sustainability. Solutions for improved sustainability, therefore, ideally need to break these trends and causal mechanisms . In this part of the workshop, we therefore shift from a forecasting approach to a back casting approach. A back casting approach has greater problem-solving capacities in long term challenges, because it is concerned less with what is likely to happen and more with what is desirable in the future . Picturing future systems may stimulate system actors to widen their perspectives and improve their understanding of the concept of sustainability . In this study, the back casting approach is focused on alternative farming systems that have improved performance of function indicators and resilience attributes . To identify these alternative systems, all participants are asked to write on post-its alternative systems they desire if challenges cross thresholds and/or functions need improvement. This ensures that stakeholders can give their own input and are not directly influenced by others. If input is low, thinking can be stimulated among participants by presenting alternative systems that are identified by the research team in the preparation phase. Based on the post-its, several alternative future systems are identified in a plenary session. These alternative systems may be combinations of suggestions of different participants. Some may be adaptations and some transformations of the current system. After giving them a name, per alternative system, one small group of participants is formed to further discuss which main function indicators and resilience attributes will change. In addition, changes in land use, sectors, objectives and other relevant aspects may be discussed. Participants in small groups also discuss the enabling conditions, i.e. how challenges and other drivers should change in order to be able to reach these alternative systems. Small groups consist of at least one moderator from the research team and three participants. In the evaluation phase, enabling conditions are categorized by researchers under the following domains: agronomic, economic, environmental, institutional, social. Taking alternative systems as the points of reference, the back casting approach is continued by identifying strategies to realize the alternative systems, in the small groups. A strategy is seen and communicated to workshop participants as a “plan of action, or part of it, implemented by actors within and outside the farming system to maintain or reach a desired farming system in 2030”.

The possibility of trading soil carbon credits has also been studied, and credits for carbon sequestration by agriculture have begun to be traded in voluntary markets . However, there currently are no reports on the market size of soil credits or credit prices. The potential of oceanic blue carbon as a source of credits through protection in offshore areas has been highlighted recently, but there is currently a lack of scientific knowledge and policy experience on this topic . Hutto et al.discusses phytoplankton, kelp, fish, and whales as oceanic blue carbon . The role of carbon removal and storage in the transport of kelp and phytoplankton biomass to deep-sea sediments and in the dead fall of fish and whales to the deep sea has been become increasingly recognized. In turn, carbon accumulated in the upper layers of deep-sea sediments may be released into the atmosphere when they are disturbed by bottom-trawl fishing.Preventing the loss of marine blue carbon through trawling by establishing marine protected areas and increasing the amount of marine blue carbon deposited by increasing the number of fish and whales could lead to the creation of blue carbon credits. Several voluntary carbon markets have certified blue carbon offset methodologies and implementation protocols. These markets are almost all for mangroves and salt marshes. To the best of our knowledge, there is no voluntary market for seagrass meadows, macroalgal beds, and macroalgae farming, although their CO2 uptake potentials are large. Here, we review three blue carbon offset credit projects being implemented in Japan in seagrass meadows,ebb and flow tray including the world’s first three projects that incorporate macroalgal beds and macroalgae farming.

Specifically, the blue carbon offset credit projects include: the project in Yokohama City, the world’s first; the project in Fukuoka City, the second such project in Japan; and the first Japanese national governmental demonstration project. Then, we show the challenges encountered in implementing these projects in terms of people, goods, money, and mechanisms, and how the problems were solved. Finally, we discuss issues and directions for future project expansion. The socioeconomic aims of blue carbon initiatives include improving the capital value and economic benefits of SCEs, improving their cost effectiveness as public works, and promoting local business. The economic benefits include economic incentives, including carbon offset credits , payments for ecosystem services , and income from funds. Historically, carbon offset credits have been implemented using a top-down approach. Here, international markets are first established, and credit markets at the national and local government levels are subsequently created. However, in the new framework adopted at COP21 in 2015, which is legally binding after 2020 as part of the Paris Agreement, mitigation measures are undertaken in a unique way by each country, and the basic policy includes a mutual verification mechanism . Thus, to implement the new framework of the Paris Agreement, both global and local climate change countermeasures will be promoted. In addition, the use of monetary incentives to appeal to the private sector requires a bottom-up approach in which markets are newly established at the spatial scale of local governments and privately led projects are developed. For the social implementation of carbon credit schemes, independent methods for the measurement, reporting, and verification of credits are needed. These methods involve accurate, objective, and quantitative measurements of carbon based on scientific and technological knowledge, transparent reporting, and verification.

The submission of greenhouse gas inventories to the UNFCCC Convention Secretariat is based on the MRV principle. Mitigation of climate change by storing atmospheric CO2 in the sea via natural systems can be achieved by three approaches: creating new target ecosystems ; reducing the declineof target ecosystems through restoration and conservation; and improving the management of target environments and ecosystems . Various guidelines for measuring carbon storage and CO2 uptake by blue carbon ecosystems and for creating credits for blue carbon have been developed. Australia has included blue carbon ecosystems in its national greenhouse gas accounts. The Australian Government’s Emissions Reduction Fund has developed comprehensive guidelines for that purpose. Other organizations that have produced guidelines include the IPCC , Conservation International, UNESCO, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, UNEP and the Center for International Forestry Research, and the Verified Carbon Standard , which is an independent carbon trading certification body in the United States. In Japan, guidance documents describing measurement methods for seagrass meadows, tidal flats, embayments, and port facilities have been prepared. The voluntary market credit system is operated and managed mainly by the US and Europe, with rules created by Verra , Gold Standard , and Plan Vivo . Plan Vivo, for example, has created the world’s first community-based blue carbon credit for the conservation and regeneration of mangrove forests in the Gazi region of Kenya. The project, Mikoko Pamoja, includes the Kenya National Marine Fisheries Research Institute and British and American organizations as actors and funders. However, one challenge remains—Plan Vivo’s methodology does not include sediment, which is a major carbon reservoir. Verra, formerly known as the Verified Carbon Standard , has been working to develop methodologies for blue carbon ecosystems. In 2015, it published a methodology that can be adapted to the restoration of seagrass beds and salt marshes.

In September 2020, Verra extended the methodology to the conservation of wetlands . VM0007 has been used to register the world’s first project on the conservation of mangrove ecosystems, including sediments, in Cispat´ a, in the Gulf of Morroquillo, Colombia; the project is supported by Conservation International and Apple. In May 2021, Apple purchased 17,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalents to offset its comprehensive carbon footprint for fiscal year 2020. In Pakistan’s Sindh Province, a 60- year conservation and regeneration project for 350,000 ha of mangrove forests has also applied to offer offsets and is currently being verified by Verra. However, projects targeting seagrass beds and salt marshes using VM0033 have not been registered to date. In the following section, we review three blue carbon offset credit projects for seagrass meadows, macroalgal beds, and macroalgae farming in Japan . Overall, members of the Japanese public are supportive of blue carbon projects. One possible reason for this support is that various related entities participate in the conservation and restoration projects to generate carbon offset credits; hence, the credit buyers may be more sympathetic to the projects as a whole, rather than just the carbon credits themselves. There are many stakeholders, such as managers, users, and implementers of conservation activities, in the same marine areas. Conflicts can arise, for example, between participants in marine leisure and conservation activities, but mediation between stakeholders by municipalities and other groups such as the Hakata Bay NEXT Conference may be a factor in the success of these blue carbon projects. Nevertheless, to realize a successful project, it is necessary to manage and invest human, material, and financial resources under an appropriate system or mechanism. Therefore, we extracted and compared these elements for each project. In March 2011, Yokohama City formulated the “Yokohama City Action Plan for Global Warming Countermeasures” based on the Yokohama City Ordinance on the Conservation of Living Environment. As part of the global warming countermeasure projects in this plan, the city has been working on using its own certified credits through the Yokohama Blue Carbon Project. Even though scientific knowledge on blue carbon is scarce and social implementation has been slow, Yokohama City was the first entity in the world to establish its own system and promote measures against global warming in the sea area. Meanwhile, Fukuoka City formulated the Hakata Bay Environmental Conservation Plan in January 2008 with the aim of conserving water quality and promoting the conservation, regeneration, and creation of the rich natural environment of Hakata Bay. In 2016, the second plan was formulated with the objectives of preserving a habitat where abundant macroalgae and seagrasses grow, expanding their growing areas, and providing habitat where young fish can grow. The Japanese national government has established the CIP system of government-approved private corporations and related laws to promote collaboration among industry, government, academia, and the private sector. As explained in Section 3.3, JBE utilizes this CIP system and works with companies, local governments, NGOs, NPOs, and other organizations to promote research and study in an environment fostering cross-industrial cooperation. Human resources are critically important to the success of these projects. In the case of the Yokohama Blue Carbon Project, the following can be considered as success factors with regard to the people involved. First, Yokohama City, as a model city, had already been implementing a wide variety of measures to combat global warming in coastal areas through partnerships among industry, 4×8 flood tray government, academia, and private organizations.

Its citizens have developed a sense of identity and civic pride in the sea through the promotion of the “Ocean City Yokohama” policy. Successive Yokohama City officials have been enthusiastic about the project. As a result of all these factors, Yokohama City was able to pioneer its own scheme ahead of the rest of the world despite having incomplete scientific knowledge about blue carbon and a general lack of social implementation. Importantly, the very positive attitude of both credit creators and credit users toward the environment matched the purpose of this project. In the case of Fukuoka City, various entities, including private citizens, citizen groups, fishers, businesses, educators, and the government, have successfully worked together toward the conservation and creation of marine ecosystems. A foundation had been laid for cooperation among industry, government, academic, and private-sector entities. Furthermore, the Hakata Bay NEXT Conference was established to promote collaboration among these various stakeholders. JBE has been led by people who have supported local government initiatives. Notably, the representatives of the Japanese national government have been also hosting blue carbon study groups and discussion committees for several years. In addition, the JBE supports collaborative work with companies, local governments, NGOs, NPOs, and other organizations to promote research and study.In the case of Yokohama City, eelgrass restoration was conducted at Sea Park Yokohama. The Sea Park is a sandy beach artificially created by the City of Yokohama in 1988; it is owned by the City of Yokohama. Eelgrass restoration activities started here in about 2001, and the continued efforts led to the recovery of the eelgrass beds. The fact that the sea area within the Hakkeijima Sea Paradise in Yokohama could be used as a field for a demonstration experiment of macroalgae farming was another important factor in the project’s success. In the case of Fukuoka City, the formation of a place where citizens could familiarize themselves with the water was planned around 1989 as part of the port administration. Against this background, the maintenance and management of natural eelgrass beds and the creation of macroalgal beds on bio-symbiotic blue infrastructure have been implemented in the waters of Hakata Port. In the case of JBE, a sea area in the Port of Yokohama was selected as the first demonstration site for the J-Blue Credit. Restoration of eelgrass beds has been carried out in this sea area since 2013. In addition, a macroalgal bed creation experiment conducted by the government from2010 to 2012 resulted in the formation of a Sargassum bed, and fishers are now harvesting while managing the resource. Financing is critically important for any project. In the case of Yokohama City, the project was selected as a CNCA Innovation Fund project and was able to proceed using foreign funding. Over time, additional funding was secured from Yokohama City . Furthermore, the sale of credits generated income for the project implementer. In the case of Fukuoka City, financial resources were secured through the creation of a new funding scheme that utilized port charges. With the establishment of the blue carbon offset system, a framework was created through which companies can purchase eelgrass as part of their CSR activities or ESG management, thereby financially supporting the activities of the Hakata Bay NEXT Conference. Costs for the founding of the JBE and the national demonstration project were minimized by streamlining administrative procedures and personnel.