359
Furthermore, conservation, restoration, and utilization of blue carbon are simply
those of SCEs while focusing on the carbon cycling, which is the basis of a variety
of ecosystem services. In other words, by conserving, restoring, and utilizing SCEs,
it is possible to combine food provision and other ecosystem services (co-benefits)
and contribute to food security, ecosystem integrity, and biodiversity, as noted in
items (3) to (5). In this way, blue carbon resources are actually closely linked to
marine ecosystems and biodiversity. Therefore, in the following sections we will
outline contents related to blue carbon within the international framework on
biodiversity.
Finally, climate action by non-Party stakeholders (i.e., taking a bottom-up
approach) noted in (6) is consistent with the contents of measures against global
warming led by cities and municipalities explained in Chap. 12 (Nobutoki et al.
2018). The limitations of conventional international frameworks in the UNFCCC
and IPCC (i.e., use of the top-down approach) on climate change measures are
expected to be overcome by using this new approach.
Although utilization of blue carbon is becoming an international trend, how
many countries actually mention the use of blue carbon or SCEs in their NDCs? To
answer this, a survey was conducted in 2016 (Herr and Landis 2016; Martin et al.
2016) (Fig. 13.5). Of the 151 countries that ratified the Paris Agreement, 28 (19%)
refer to the use of blue carbon or SCEs for climate change mitigation and 59 countries (39%) refer to their use for climate change adaptation.
Fig. 13.5 Countries that refer to the utilization of shallow coastal ecosystems or blue carbon in
their Nationally Determined Contribution of the Paris Agreement (as of 2016). Those that mention
only the mitigation effect are shown in light blue, only the adaption effect are shown in medium
blue, and both effects are shown in dark blue (Based on Herr and Landis 2016)
13 The Future of Blue Carbon: Addressing Global Environmental Issues
Furthermore, conservation, restoration, and utilization of blue carbon are simply
those of SCEs while focusing on the carbon cycling, which is the basis of a variety
of ecosystem services. In other words, by conserving, restoring, and utilizing SCEs,
it is possible to combine food provision and other ecosystem services (co-benefits)
and contribute to food security, ecosystem integrity, and biodiversity, as noted in
items (3) to (5). In this way, blue carbon resources are actually closely linked to
marine ecosystems and biodiversity. Therefore, in the following sections we will
outline contents related to blue carbon within the international framework on
biodiversity.
Finally, climate action by non-Party stakeholders (i.e., taking a bottom-up
approach) noted in (6) is consistent with the contents of measures against global
warming led by cities and municipalities explained in Chap. 12 (Nobutoki et al.
2018). The limitations of conventional international frameworks in the UNFCCC
and IPCC (i.e., use of the top-down approach) on climate change measures are
expected to be overcome by using this new approach.
Although utilization of blue carbon is becoming an international trend, how
many countries actually mention the use of blue carbon or SCEs in their NDCs? To
answer this, a survey was conducted in 2016 (Herr and Landis 2016; Martin et al.
2016) (Fig. 13.5). Of the 151 countries that ratified the Paris Agreement, 28 (19%)
refer to the use of blue carbon or SCEs for climate change mitigation and 59 countries (39%) refer to their use for climate change adaptation.
Fig. 13.5 Countries that refer to the utilization of shallow coastal ecosystems or blue carbon in
their Nationally Determined Contribution of the Paris Agreement (as of 2016). Those that mention
only the mitigation effect are shown in light blue, only the adaption effect are shown in medium
blue, and both effects are shown in dark blue (Based on Herr and Landis 2016)
13 The Future of Blue Carbon: Addressing Global Environmental Issues