Conservation versus commodification: synthesizing stakeholders’ perceptions of the blue carbon credit ecosystem
Farhah N. Rosli , Raja Yana , Mohammad Rozaimi
Anthropocene Coasts ›› 2025, Vol. 8 ›› Issue (1) : 34
Conservation versus commodification: synthesizing stakeholders’ perceptions of the blue carbon credit ecosystem
Conservation of blue carbon (BC) ecosystems, consisting of both the vegetation and the subsoil thereof, has historically lagged behind terrestrial forests due in part to their scientific, socio-economic, and political incongruities. Private buy-in and a whole-of-society approach is necessary to catalyze conservation. However, the involvement of diverse stakeholders begs the question: is conservation their true aim? Or has the commodification of carbon formed a disconnect between monetization and protection of BC ecosystems? In this paper, we present a conceptual link among stakeholders of BC projects and their roles across the project stages, synthesized from semi-structured interviews among actors within the BC credit ecosystem. Thirteen stakeholder categories are identified, with involvement spanning eight project stages from pre-feasibility studies to carbon credit retirement. Stakeholders closer to the supply-side of credits are more aware of conservation but need further awareness of the carbon credit cycle and vice versa for the demand-side. Overall, our findings indicate that conservation is secondary to commodification for most stakeholders. The project developer is the main actor that interacts with and is cognizant of the roles of other stakeholders, thereby having decision-making power in steering participation levels of other stakeholders. It became apparent that the project developer has broad-reaching consequences over the outcomes of the carbon project, implying that their perceptions and receptions regarding commodification versus conservation matters the most. We put forth the following recommendations for better governance of BC projects, amongst others: establishment of nationwide legal frameworks, improved participation of local communities, and institutional accreditation of stakeholders.
Carbon projects / Carbon markets / Nature-based solutions / Payment for ecosystem services / Project lifecycle
| [1] |
|
| [2] |
|
| [3] |
|
| [4] |
|
| [5] |
|
| [6] |
Black SJ (2018) Carbon markets under the Kyoto protocol: lessons learned for building an international carbon market under the Paris agreement. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/650081545377054720/Carbon-Markets-Under-the-Kyoto-Protocol-Lessons-Learned-for-Building-an-International-Carbon-Market-Under-the-Paris-Agreement |
| [7] |
Broughel J (2023) The dangers of government efforts to monetize nature. Forbes. Retrieved 10 June 2025 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesbroughel/2023/08/10/the-dangers-of-government-efforts-to-monetize-nature/ |
| [8] |
|
| [9] |
|
| [10] |
|
| [11] |
|
| [12] |
|
| [13] |
|
| [14] |
|
| [15] |
Forest Trends’ Ecosystem Marketplace (2025) State of the voluntary carbon market 2025. Forest Trends Association, Washington, DC. https://www.forest-trends.org/publications/2025-state-of-the-voluntary-carbon-market/ |
| [16] |
|
| [17] |
|
| [18] |
Hajjar R, Molnar A (2015) Decentralization and community based approaches. In: Forests, business and sustainability (pp. 132–152). Taylor and Francis. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315771397-8/decentralization-community-based-approaches-reem-hajjar-augusta-molnar |
| [19] |
|
| [20] |
He Y, Hu Y, Xie S, Li C, Xu M, Chen X (2022) Risk and impacts associated with marine carbon sink projects: an example from Guangdong, China. J Coast Res 39(2). https://doi.org/10.2112/jcoastres-d-22-00041.1 |
| [21] |
|
| [22] |
Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (2024) Core carbon principles assessment framework: version 1.1. https://icvcm.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/CCP-Book-V1.1-FINAL-LowRes-15May24.pdf |
| [23] |
International Finance Corporation (2023) Deep blue: opportunities for blue carbon finance in coastal ecosystems. International Finance Corporation, Washington, DC. https://www.ifc.org/content/dam/ifc/doc/2023-delta/deep-blue-opportunities-for-blue-carbon-finance-in-coastal-ecosystems-optimized.pdf |
| [24] |
Jaffer S, Dales M, Ferris P, Swinfield T, Sorensen D, Message R, Keshav S, Madhavapeddy A (2024) Global, robust and comparable digital carbon assets. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.1458 |
| [25] |
Jennerjahn, TC, Ardli, ER, Boy J, Heyde J, Lukas MC, Nordhaus I, Sastranegara MH, Máñez KS, & Yuwono E (2021) Mangrove ecosystems under threat in Indonesia. In: Jennerjahn TC, Rixen T, Irianto HE, Samiaji J (eds) Science for the Protection of Indonesian Coastal Ecosystems (SPICE), Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 251–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815050-4.00004-3 |
| [26] |
Johnson TP (2014) Snowball sampling: introduction. In: Wiley StatsRef: statistics reference online. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118445112.stat05720 |
| [27] |
|
| [28] |
Kumari P, Singh JK, Pathak B (2020) Potential contribution of multifunctional mangrove resources and its conservation. In: Patra JK, Mishra RR, Thatoi H (eds) Biotechnological Utilization of Mangrove Resources Academic Press, Oxford, pp 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-819532-1.00001-9 |
| [29] |
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
Males J, Michaelowa A, Honegger M, Poralla M, Winkler M, Dalfiume S, Nayak A (2023) International carbon markets for carbon dioxide removal. PLoS Climate 2(5). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000118 |
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
Martin-Ortega J, Mesa-Jurado MA, Pineda-Vazquez M, Novo P (2019) Nature commodification: ‘a necessary evil’? An analysis of the views of environmental professionals on ecosystem services-based approaches. Ecosyst Serv. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100926 |
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
|
| [39] |
Nellemann C, Corcoran E, Duarte CM, Valdés L, De Young C, Fonseca L, Grimsditch G (2009) Blue carbon. A rapid response assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal |
| [40] |
|
| [41] |
Parker L (2010). Climate change and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS): looking to 2020. In: The European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme: climate and aviation considerations, pp 1–28. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R41049.pdf |
| [42] |
|
| [43] |
|
| [44] |
|
| [45] |
|
| [46] |
|
| [47] |
|
| [48] |
|
| [49] |
|
| [50] |
Scorzelli R, Murgante B, Manganelli B, Scorza F (2024) SEEA and ecosystem services accounting: a promising framework for territorial governance innovation. In: Lecture notes in civil engineering, pp 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-54096-7_8 |
| [51] |
|
| [52] |
|
| [53] |
|
| [54] |
|
| [55] |
Swinfield T, Toye Scott E (2025) Scientific credibility for high-integrity voluntary carbon markets. Cambridge Open Engage. https://doi.org/10.33774/coe-2025-f0j70-v2 |
| [56] |
The Economist (2017) Defining emerging markets. Retrieved 3 March 2025 from https://www.economist.com/special-report/2017/10/05/defining-emerging-markets |
| [57] |
|
| [58] |
|
| [59] |
Verra (2022) VCS program guide (version 4.1). https://stg.verra.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/VCS-Program-Guide-v4.2.pdf |
| [60] |
World Bank (2024) State and trends of carbon pricing 2024 |
| [61] |
World Economic Forum (2020) What are carbon credits and how can they help fight climate change? Retrieved 3 March 2025 from https://www.weforum.org/stories/2020/11/carbon-credits-what-how-fight-climate-change/ |
| [62] |
World Wildlife Fund (2020) First things first: avoid, reduce … and only after that–compensate. Retrieved 2 March 2025 from https://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?362819/First-Things-First-Avoid-Reduce--and-only-after-thatCompensate |
| [63] |
|
| [64] |
|
The Author(s)
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |