Importance of Seaweed in the Climate Change—Seaweed Solution 35
• In the baseline scenario of this ‘Seaweed A/R CDM Project’, it was assumed that the amount of carbon
sequestered would remain stable or decrease due to the degradation of the marine environment,
pollution, and the accumulation of substances such as soil organic matter from fragments of seaweed
litter or dead seaweed in the substrate. Therefore, those reserves would not be considered when
issuing lCER or tCER credits. Instead, we would account for only the upper and lower levels of
biomass in the water column.
• We were allowed to conduct limited investigations into no-credit reservoirs to determine relative
losses. If extraction was required, that amount might then be used during the second period of credit
generation.
• The establishment of a seaweed forest was uniformly implemented to consider genetics, species,
plantation period, and the management system.
C.3 Determining GHG removals by sinks
Monitoring baseline net GHG removals: The purpose of this project was to restore a degraded marine
substrate. Its baseline scenario was written according to a new methodology. Variability in the carbon
sink was set to zero when no seaweed vegetation was present; the expected carbon sink of seaweeds in
the upper and lower layers of the water column would fluctuate according to the amount of vegetation
that grew. The project participants were to use five-year fixed-term credits and reforestation would not be
required. Therefore, we could not record net GHG removal by sinks at the baseline.
Monitoring the physical boundaries for project activities: A field survey was conducted at each location
along the project boundaries where reforestation/plantation activities were to be performed. Geographical
locations were established for each study area via GPS (each corner of the polygon with latitude and
longitude) after any alterations were verified by the DOE. The actual project borders were confirmed as
matching those described in Section A. When the actual border was located outside of the boundaries,
additional information was provided (see Section A).
The legal justification was recognized for why this particular marine substrate was selected for the
project, and the baseline scenario demonstrated how it was implemented in the marine space. Changes to
the boundaries were reported to the DOE during the project period for verification. If those boundaries
were to change during the crediting period, any damage to the seaweed forests had to be reported and the
boundaries for that location were to be modified. Subsequent verification was to be done by the DOE.
Those damaged areas would be removed from project consideration and their corresponding CER credits
withdrawn. If seaweed forest construction at the marine substrate failed in any project area, it was to be
replaced, and that region would be immediately superseded.
Monitoring the establishment and management of the coastal forest: To ensure the quality and execution
of plantation activities, the following observations were to be made within three years of constructing the
seaweed forests. This was to include harvest (location, size, and species), fertilization (species, location,
and amount and type of fertilizer), and inspection and verification. Reforestation or re-sowing would
occur after the marine substrate was harvested, and factors that promoted the best natural recruitment of
seaweeds were to be considered.
Data for actual net GHG removals by sink, obtained through the pilot survey: To achieve pre-stratification,
the devastated coastal areas were divided into regions of poor vegetation versus fertile areas, based on
estimates of biomass production within the project boundaries. Buoys were installed within the farm
structure in order to calculate the actual area according to on-board GIS coordinates. However, some
modifications were made to the shape of the structure due to the influence of tides. The goal in sampling
was to count and measure all of the fronds along a 1-m rope. When more than 30 individuals were
found, only the 30 largest were measured. Physiological changes, in terms of photosynthetic activity,
were monitored monthly using the Diving-PAM.
Over the period, divers were to collect and determine the wet weights of seaweed specimens, using
an electronic balance (up to 0.1 g accuracy). Total leaf lengths and widths were measured with a tape
• In the baseline scenario of this ‘Seaweed A/R CDM Project’, it was assumed that the amount of carbon
sequestered would remain stable or decrease due to the degradation of the marine environment,
pollution, and the accumulation of substances such as soil organic matter from fragments of seaweed
litter or dead seaweed in the substrate. Therefore, those reserves would not be considered when
issuing lCER or tCER credits. Instead, we would account for only the upper and lower levels of
biomass in the water column.
• We were allowed to conduct limited investigations into no-credit reservoirs to determine relative
losses. If extraction was required, that amount might then be used during the second period of credit
generation.
• The establishment of a seaweed forest was uniformly implemented to consider genetics, species,
plantation period, and the management system.
C.3 Determining GHG removals by sinks
Monitoring baseline net GHG removals: The purpose of this project was to restore a degraded marine
substrate. Its baseline scenario was written according to a new methodology. Variability in the carbon
sink was set to zero when no seaweed vegetation was present; the expected carbon sink of seaweeds in
the upper and lower layers of the water column would fluctuate according to the amount of vegetation
that grew. The project participants were to use five-year fixed-term credits and reforestation would not be
required. Therefore, we could not record net GHG removal by sinks at the baseline.
Monitoring the physical boundaries for project activities: A field survey was conducted at each location
along the project boundaries where reforestation/plantation activities were to be performed. Geographical
locations were established for each study area via GPS (each corner of the polygon with latitude and
longitude) after any alterations were verified by the DOE. The actual project borders were confirmed as
matching those described in Section A. When the actual border was located outside of the boundaries,
additional information was provided (see Section A).
The legal justification was recognized for why this particular marine substrate was selected for the
project, and the baseline scenario demonstrated how it was implemented in the marine space. Changes to
the boundaries were reported to the DOE during the project period for verification. If those boundaries
were to change during the crediting period, any damage to the seaweed forests had to be reported and the
boundaries for that location were to be modified. Subsequent verification was to be done by the DOE.
Those damaged areas would be removed from project consideration and their corresponding CER credits
withdrawn. If seaweed forest construction at the marine substrate failed in any project area, it was to be
replaced, and that region would be immediately superseded.
Monitoring the establishment and management of the coastal forest: To ensure the quality and execution
of plantation activities, the following observations were to be made within three years of constructing the
seaweed forests. This was to include harvest (location, size, and species), fertilization (species, location,
and amount and type of fertilizer), and inspection and verification. Reforestation or re-sowing would
occur after the marine substrate was harvested, and factors that promoted the best natural recruitment of
seaweeds were to be considered.
Data for actual net GHG removals by sink, obtained through the pilot survey: To achieve pre-stratification,
the devastated coastal areas were divided into regions of poor vegetation versus fertile areas, based on
estimates of biomass production within the project boundaries. Buoys were installed within the farm
structure in order to calculate the actual area according to on-board GIS coordinates. However, some
modifications were made to the shape of the structure due to the influence of tides. The goal in sampling
was to count and measure all of the fronds along a 1-m rope. When more than 30 individuals were
found, only the 30 largest were measured. Physiological changes, in terms of photosynthetic activity,
were monitored monthly using the Diving-PAM.
Over the period, divers were to collect and determine the wet weights of seaweed specimens, using
an electronic balance (up to 0.1 g accuracy). Total leaf lengths and widths were measured with a tape