Questions related to Blue Carbon discussed during the webinar "Steps towards Blue Carbon mitigation under NDCs in Latin America and the Caribbean" 7 July 2020

1. QUESTION 1: Country definition of mangroves under the UNFCCC
Option 1: Are they forests?
Option 2: Are they wetlands?
(does the country have a legal
definition of wetland?)
Implications for reporting guidelines
• IPCC 2006 guidelines for national
GHG inventories
• IPCC 2013 Wetland Supplement
• IPCC 2019 Refinement
All of the above can be used

2. QUESTION 2: is there a need to use the Wetland Supplement for
mangroves?
https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/wetlands/
https://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/2019-refinement-to-the-2006-
ipcc-guidelines-for-national-greenhouse-gas-inventories/
• Wetland supplement is
encouraged but not required
• Choosing either AFOLU or WS
but no mixing of guidelines

3. Guidelines
• Countries can use the IPCC 2006 Guidelines and they
can use the IPCC 2019 Refinement. The latter has not
been adopted by the UNFCCC but countries can use it if
they wish. In many cases, you will find updated default
values in the refinement that can be useful.
• It is encouraged but voluntary to use the Wetland
Supplement 2013. Countries should look at the
methodologies and if they are better than what they
can find in the IPCC 2006 guidelines then it is
recommended to use the wetlands supplement.
• The Wetlands Supplement can be used for any land use
category with drained or rewetted soils and can also be
used for mangroves then mangroves are defined as
forests.

4. QUESTION 3: How to report mangrove emissions/absorptions for
Aboveground Biomass (AGB) with only one measure of stocks?
➢ Emission Factors do not require two-time measurements in the same
place, but measurements before and after different representative
mangrove conditions (e.g. driven by REDD+ activities) but it must be
possible to recognize the different mangrove conditions either through
ground-based sampling or remote sensing.
➢ Stocks must cover a variety of mangrove conditions to capture REDD+
baselines: from conserved mangrove to degraded to logged to
regenerating
Aboveground Carbon (Biomass + necromass)
Belowground Carbon (biomass and soil carbon)
McIvor et al. 2013

5. IPCC provides two generic
methodologies

6. QUESTION 4: How to include soil carbon in mangrove reporting
without soil data?
How to include soil N2O and CH4 mangrove emissions under forest land
reporting?
How to move towards Tier 2 soil Greenhouse Gas emissions for mangroves?
Perez & Vazquez 2010
IPCC guidelines include in some cases
tier 1 default values which can be used.
In some cases, there will be scientific
publications that can help provide
default values.

7. QUESTION 5: REDD+ and FREL/FRL
Selecting specific forest types to run their specific FREL/FRL, possible?
Selecting specific REDD+ activities for specific forest types, possible?
Countries can choose the most relevant REDD+ activities but activities with
higher emissions should be included
e.g. Chile------------ FREL for Deforestation of temperate rainforests
FREL for Degradation of temperate rainforests
FRL for Conservation of forest carbon stocks
FRL for Enhancement of forest carbon stocks
Vietnam has a FREL for reducing emissions from deforestation and reducing emissions from
forest degradation and a FRL for enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
• In both cases Parties made the submission in a single submission
National reporting is encouraged = all forest types included at national scale
Subnational as an interim is allowed. Decision 1/CP.16 paragraph 71 b requests parties
to develop a national FRELs and/or FRLs or if appropriate, as an interim measure a subnational
FREL and/or FRL in accordance with national circumstances.
Note the safeguard on avoiding displacement of emissions

8. QUESTION 5: REDD+ and FREL/FRL
Number of FREL/FRL that countries can report to the UNFCCC under
their REDD+ mechanism? The decision text is FREL and/or FRL
Countries can choose
➢ Chile has reported 4
➢ Brazil has reported 2
➢ Vietnam has reported 2
Are FRL (sources + sinks) for aggregated REDD+ activities and aggregated
forest types encouraged?
Countries can choose
Decision 12/CP.17 annex, bullet C mentions that a country
shall include the reason for omitting a pool and or activity
from the construction of the FEL and or FRL, noting that
significant pools and/or activities should not be excluded.

9. QUESTION 6: Developing self-standing Blue Carbon reporting and
mitigation independent but connected to REDD+
For Blue Carbon based on mangroves, some countries in the region prefer
to focus on certain REDD+ activities: Conservation + Enhancement of Forest
stocks (= restoration), possible?
➢ Activities with higher emissions need to be included
➢ One monitoring system only for all the REDD+ reporting
➢ Historic Reference, period projection, national circumstances (Decision
12/CP.17 paragraph 9 invites Parties to submit information and rationale of their
FRELs and/or FRLs, including details of national circumstances and if adjusted
include details on how the national circumstances were considered)
Can Conservation + Enhancement of Forest stocks (= restoration), be
reported as separated FRLs?
➢ Countries can choose. Based on the country definition of the activities it
must be able to trach emissions and removals from each activity to avoid
that they count more than one time.
➢ Bhutan have conservation of forest carbon stock in conservation areas, and
sustainable management of forest in the remaining forest area. The FRL value is
reported as one single value.

10. QUESTION 6: Developing self-standing Blue Carbon reporting and
mitigation targets
For technical simplification and targeted policy development, many countries
prefer to have self-standing Blue Carbon Strategies at National or regional
scales with separate emission reporting for:
➢ GHG Inventories: Parties can create a separate row for each forest type or
wetland type where needed, also to be transparent about different
emissions factors Blue Carbon. No separate reporting.
➢ REDD+ and FREL/FRL: Blue Carbon can be a specific FREL or FRL for
specific REDD+ activity but reported under the REDD+. No separate
reporting. There is no Blue Carbon framework under UNFCCC such as the
Warsaw Framework for REDD+.
There can be several scenarios for REDD+ FREL/FRL as starting points for
developing Blue Carbon reporting within the REDD+

11. QUESTION 6: Developing self-standing Blue Carbon reporting and
mitigation targets
Scenario 1: Current REDD+/FREL/FRL is reported as separated forest types
for different REDD+ activities than those chosen by the country for Blue
Carbon
❖ Brazil has FREL for Deforestation in Amazon forests
➢ Creating Blue Carbon for conservation and/or Enhancement of Forest
Carbon Stocks-----------New FREL/FRLs for each activity/aggregated
activities
❖ Many countries have different FREL and/or FRL values for different
activities but then one single aggregated FREL/FRL value for all activities
Chosen REDD+ Activities: Conservation + Enhancement of Forest
stocks (=restoration)

12. QUESTION 6: Developing self-standing Blue Carbon reporting and
mitigation targets
Scenario 2a: Current REDD+/FREL/FRL is reported as aggregated forest
types for different REDD+ activities than those chosen by the country for
Blue Carbon
❖ Suriname has FREL for all forest types for Deforestation and Degradation
➢ Create FREL/FRL for mangroves and the preferred REDD+ activities,
making sure no overlapping areas exist between the current FREL/FRL
and the new mangrove FREL/FRL
➢ If overlapping areas exist (e.g. degradation and enhancement of forest
carbon stocks).
✓ Re-estimation and Re-submission of previous FREL/FRL with new
area distribution where no overlapping exists.
✓ Submission of new Mangrove FRL(s) with non-overlapping areas
among chosen REDD+ activities

13. QUESTION 6: Developing self-standing Blue Carbon reporting and
mitigation targets
Scenario 2b: Current REDD+/FREL/FRL is reported as aggregated forest
types for REDD+ activities including those chosen by the country for Blue
Carbon
❖ Suriname has FREL for aggregated forest types for Deforestation and
Degradation
➢ Create FRL for mangroves for all REDD+ activities, making sure no
overlapping areas exist between the current reported FREL/FRL and the
new mangrove FREL/FRL
✓ Re-estimation and Re-submission of previous FREL/FRL with new
area distribution where no overlapping exists.
✓ Submission of new Mangrove FRL(s) with non-overlapping areas with
the FREL/FRL of non-mangrove categories.

14. QUESTION 6: Developing self-standing Blue Carbon reporting and
mitigation targets
Scenario 3: Current REDD+/FREL/FRL is reported as aggregated forest
types for all REDD+ activities, including those chosen by the country for
Blue Carbon
❖ Panama has FRL for aggregated forest types for all REDD+ activities
➢ Separate mangroves from other forest types, choose preferred REDD+
activities (e.g. conservation + enhancement of forest carbon stocks),
develop their FRL(s) making sure there are no overlapping areas between
the mangrove FREL/FRL and the remaining FREL/FRL for the other forest
types.
✓ Re-estimation and Re-submission of FREL/FRL with all forest types
except mangroves and new distribution of areas with no overlapping.
✓ Submission of new Mangrove FRL(s) with non-overlapping areas
among chosen REDD+ activities

15. Results-based payments
• There is no restriction on the number of FRELs and/or FRLs a
Party may submit to the UNFCCC for technical assessment.
• The UNFCCC decisions generally offer some flexibility for
Parties to accommodate national circumstances, and a
stepwise approach is specially mentioned in the decisions.
• However, if a country is considering results-based payments
then it should also consider whether the financing entities
have any additional requirements. More than one FREL/FRL
could create problems in terms of displacements.

16. QUESTION 6: Developing self-standing Blue Carbon reporting and
mitigation targets
Scenario 1: Current REDD+/FREL/FRL is reported as separated forest types
for different REDD+ activities than those chosen by Blue Carbon
❖ Brazil has FREL for Deforestation in Amazon forests
➢ Creating Blue Carbon for all REDD+ activities-----------New FRL for the
aggregated activities
Chosen REDD+ Activities: All REDD+ activities

17. QUESTION 6: Developing self-standing Blue Carbon reporting and
mitigation targets
Scenario 4: Current REDD+/FREL/FRL is reported as aggregated forest
types for all REDD+ activities, including those chosen by Blue Carbon
❖ Panama has FRL for aggregated forest types for all REDD+ activities
➢ Separate mangroves from other forest types, choose preferred REDD+
activities (e.g. conservation + enhancement of forest carbon stocks),
develop their FRL(s) making sure there are no overlapping areas between
the mangrove FREL/FRL and the remaining FREL/FRL for the remaining
forest types.
✓ Re-estimation and Re-submission of FREL/FRL with all forest types
except mangroves and new areas distribution with no overlapping.
✓ Submission of new Mangrove FRL(s) with non-overlapping areas
among chosen REDD+ activities

18. QUESTION 7: Can countries include their REDD+ targets in their NDCs
(e.g. 2020 NDC resubmission)
NDCs are nationally determined, thus countries are free to do
whatever they prefer, as long as the ambition doesn’t fall below the
previous NDC. However, countries must ensure that they can track
the progress towards the target they defined.
• Decision 4/CMA.1 – Information to facilitate clarity, transparency
and understanding

19. QUESTION 8: Considerations on Blue Carbon reporting and mitigation
Under the UNFCCC and voluntary markets
➢ Currently, Art 6 of the Paris Agreement on carbon markets is still fully
undefined and therefore countries have not yet decided on how to deal
with double accounting and the technicalities around this topic. For now,
there is no guidance.
Art. 6 includes art. 6.2 (cooperative approaches), art. 6.4 (mechanism) and 6.8 (non-market
approaches)
➢ Topics under discussion under Art 6 of the PA include:
• the registry – how to track and how to avoid double counting –
corresponding adjustments, how to take into account different NDCs
• the use of international transferable mitigation outcomes (ITMOs)
• activity included, use of older activities e.g. from the Kyoto Protocol
• real, additional, measurable, permanence,
• governance, share of proceeds and many other elements.