ALBERT

Description: Reducing atmospheric carbon concentration by removing past emissions can extend our rapidly diminishing emission budgets corresponding to the target of limiting the temperature increase to 2 °C above preindustrial levels. Forestation measures to offset carbon emissions have already entered the Kyoto Protocol. Other carbon offset options like ocean iron fertilization or chemically enhanced weathering are currently being analyzed. The analysis and comparison of such options requires determination of the amount of carbon credits generated that can be used for compliance. In our analysis we assess the impact of various accounting methods applied to large-scale sink enhancement projects, taking into account the partly temporary storage characteristics arising from such projects. We apply the various accounting methods to hypothetical large-scale Southern Ocean iron fertilization projects for different durations. From an economic perspective, issuing temporary carbon credits would provide the largest number of carbon credits at an early stage. This is equivalent to the existing tCER regulation under the Kyoto Protocol. Issuing temporary carbon credits for short-term ocean iron fertilization would also benefit the environment, as all credits would have to be replaced in the next commitment period. As some carbon will be stored permanently, this reduces atmospheric carbon concentration.

Description: Despite large uncertainties in the fertilization efficiency, natural iron fertilization studies and some of the purposeful iron enrichment studies have demonstrated that Southern Ocean iron fertilization can lead to a significant export of carbon from the sea surface to the ocean interior. From an economic perspective the potential of ocean iron fertilization (OIF) is far from negligible in relation to other abatement options. Comparing the range of cost estimates to the range of estimates for forestation projects they are in the same order of magnitude, but OIF could provide more carbon credits even if high discount rates are used to account for potential leakage and non-permanence. However, the uncertainty about undesired adverse effects of purposeful iron fertilization on marine ecosystems and biogeochemistry has led to attempts to ban commercial and, to some extent, scientific experiments aimed at a better understanding of the processes involved, effectively precluding further consideration of this mitigation option. As regards the perspective of public international law, the pertinent agreements dealing with the protection of the marine environment indicate that OIF is to be considered as lawful if and to the extent to which it represents legitimate scientific research. In this respect, the precautionary principle can be used to balance the risks arising out of scientific OIF activities for the marine environment with the potential advantages relevant to the objectives of the climate change regime. As scientific OIF experiments involve only comparatively small negative impacts within a limited marine area, further scientific research must be permitted to explore the carbon sequestration potential of OIF in order to either reject this concept or integrate it into the flexible mechanisms contained in the Kyoto Protocol.

Description: Staying within the 2 ° C temperature increase target for climate change requires for ambitious emission reduction targets for the 2012–2020 compliance period. Cost-efficiency is a crucial criterion for the achievement of such targets, requiring analyses of all possible options. Enhancing the oceanic carbon sink via ocean iron fertilization (OIF) provides such an option. Our analysis reveals that the critical unit costs per net ton of CO2 sequestered by OIF range from 22 to 28 USD (price level 2000) in a post-Kyoto compliance scenario. The critical unit costs are defined as those that would make an emitter indifferent between various abatement options. With reference to hypothetical short-term large-scale Southern Ocean OIF we are able to show that seven years of OIF provide a number of credits exceeding those obtainable from global forestation projects lasting 20 years. From an economic perspective, our results indicate that OIF can be considered a potentially viable carbon-removal option. However, further research is needed, especially on adverse side-effects and their ecological and economical consequences. Highlights: ► We analyse a potential large-scale carbon-removal option: ocean iron fertilization. ► We consider market conditions for OIF in a post-Kyoto climate regime. ► We determine the critical unit costs and the critical amounts for OIF. ► OIF may provide new incentives for the negotiation process in further climate agreements. ► Our results lead us to believe that further research on the potential of OIF is warranted.

Description: The ocean regulates the global climate, provides humans with natural resources such as food, materials, important substances, and energy, and is essential for international trade and recreational and cultural activities. Together with human development and economic growth, free access to, and availability of, ocean resources and services have exerted strong pressure on marine systems, ranging from overfishing, increasing resource extraction, and alteration of coastal zones to various types of thoughtless pollution. Both economic theory and many case studies suggest that there is no “tragedy of the commons” but a “tragedy of open access”. With high likeliness, structures of open access are non-sustainable. International cooperation and effective governance are required to protect the marine environment and promote the sustainable use of marine resources in such a way that due account can be taken of the environmental values of current generations and the needs of future generations. For this purpose, developing and agreeing on one Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) specifically for the Ocean and Coasts could prove to be an essential element. The new SDGs will build upon the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and replace them by 2015. Ensuring environmental sustainability in a general sense is one of the eight MDGs but the ocean is not explicitly addressed. Furthermore, the creation of a comprehensive underlying set of ocean sustainability targets and effective indicators developed within a global Future Ocean Spatial Planning (FOSP) process would help in assessing the current status of marine systems, diagnosing ongoing trends, and providing information for inclusive, forward-looking, and sustainable ocean governance

Description: The ocean regulates the global climate, provides humans with natural resources such as food, materials, important substances, and energy, and is essential for international trade and recreational and cultural activities. Together with human development and economic growth, free access to, and availability of, ocean resources and services have exerted strong pressure on marine systems, ranging from overfishing, increasing resource extraction, and alteration of coastal zones to various types of thoughtless pollution. International cooperation and effective governance are required to protect the marine environment and promote the sustainable use of marine resources in such a way that due account can be taken of the environmental values of current generations and the needs of future generations. The high seas deserve particular attention since they suffer from a number of regulatory shortcomings due to the basic structures set out under international law. Against this backdrop, developing and agreeing on a focussed Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) specifically for the Ocean and Coasts could prove to be an essential element to provide guidance and a framework for regional implementation agreements.

Description: Highlights • European Union Blue Growth is assessed by set of 18 indicators for 15 EU coastal states. • The results put into question that the EU has achieved comprehensive blue growth. • Unsustainable development is in particular driven by increasing fishing mortality. Abstract The Sustainable Development Goal for the oceans and coasts (SDG 14) as part of the 2030 Agenda can be considered as an important step towards achieving comprehensive blue growth. Here, we selected a set of 18 indicators to measure progress against SDG 14 for 15 EU coastal countries in the Baltic and the North Sea and the Atlantic Ocean since 2012. In our assessment we distinguish between a concept of weak and strong sustainability, assuming high and low substitution possibilities, respectively. Our results indicate that there are countries which managed to achieve sustainable development under both concepts of sustainability (most notably Estonia, achieving the strongest improvement), but that there are also countries which failed to achieve sustainable development under both concepts (most notably Ireland and Belgium, experiencing the strongest decline). Unsustainable development is in particular driven by increasing fishing mortality and reduced willingness to set total allowable catch in accordance with scientific advice.

Description: The European Union cap-and-trade emissions trading system (EU ETS) faces two challenges in the context of the European Green Deal. First, to meet the Paris temperature target, emissions in the energy and industrial sectors must fall to net-zero and then even become net-negative. Second, there is a concern that excessive CO2 price spikes and volatility on this path will jeopardize the political acceptance and support for emissions trading as a climate policy instrument. Conditional supply of carbon removal credits (CRCs) to support dynamic carbon price caps would make it possible to stabilize the market in the transition from positive to net-negative emissions trading while keeping the net-emissions path unchanged. CRCs would be assigned for carbon removal achieved for example with methods like Direct Air Carbon Capture and Storage or Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage and would be used by companies under the EU ETS to compensate for their emissions. However, we suggest that there would be no direct exchange between emitting companies under the EU ETS and carbon removal companies, i.e., the demand and supply side of CRCs, during an initial phase. Instead, we suggest assigning an institutional mandate to for example a carbon central bank (CCB) to organize the supply of CRCs. Under this mandate, carbon removal would be procured, would be translated into a corresponding number of CRCs, and a fraction of it could be auctioned to the market at a later point in time, provided that market prices exceed a certain (dynamic) price cap.

Description: To limit global warming to 1.5 °C, vast amounts of CO2 will have to be removed from the atmosphere via Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). Enhancing the CO2 sequestration of ecosystems will require not just one approach but a portfolio of CDR options, including so-called nature-based approaches alongside CDR options that are perceived as more technical. Creating a CDR “supply curve” would however imply that all carbon removals are considered to be perfect substitutes. The various co-benefits of nature-based CDR approaches militate against this. We discuss this aspect of nature-based solutions in connection with the enhancement of blue carbon ecosystems (BCE) such as mangrove or seagrass habitats. Enhancing BCEs can indeed contribute to CO2 sequestration, but the value of their carbon storage is low compared to the overall contribution of their ecosystem services to wealth. Furthermore, their property rights are often unclear, i.e. not comprehensively defined or not enforced. Hence, payment schemes that only compensate BCE carbon sequestration could create tradeoffs at the expense of other important, often local, ecosystem services and might not result in socially optimal outcomes. Accordingly, one chance for preserving and restoring BCEs lies in the consideration of all services in potential compensation schemes for local communities. Also, local contexts, management structures, and benefit-sharing rules are crucial factors to be taken into account when setting up international payment schemes to support the use of BCEs and other nature- or ecosystem-based CDR. However, regarding these options as the only hope of achieving more CDR will very probably not bring about the desired outcome, either for climate mitigation or for ecosystem preservation. Unhalted degradation, in turn, will make matters worse due to the large amounts of stored carbon that would be released. Hence, countries committed to climate mitigation in line with the Paris targets should not hide behind vague pledges to enhance natural sinks for removing atmospheric CO2 but commit to scaling up engineered CDR.