A Multidirectional Approach to Mangrove Conservation

WORKING FROM THE MIDDLE: A MULTIDIRECTIONAL

APPROACH TO MANGROVE CONSERVATION

A Thesis submitted to the faculty of

San Francisco State University

In partial fulfillment of ' l o \ ° \ the requirements for

, MW the Degree

Master of Science

Marine Science

Abigail Taylor Mohan

San Francisco, California

May 2019 Copyright by Abigail Taylor Mohan 2019 CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL

I certify that I have read Working from the Middle: a Multidirectional Approach to

Mangrove Conservation by Abigail Taylor Mohan, and that in my opinion this work meets the criteria for approving a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree Master of Science in Biology: Marine Science at San Francisco State University.

Professor

Department of Geography & Environment

Professor

Department of Biology

S b f l - £ . 1 -

Steve Crooks, Ph. D.

Principal, Silvestrum Climate Associates

Wetland Science & Coastal Management WORKING FROM THE MIDDLE, A MULTIDIRECTIONAL APPROACH TO MANGROVE CONSERVATION

Abigail Taylor Mohan San Francisco, California 2019

Mangrove ecosystems are at continued risk of degradation and deforestation through anthropogenic activity. Mangroves once covered 75% of tropical coastlines, and only 30 - 50% of this habitat currently remains. These ecosystems provide important benefits for the local communities, including supporting livelihoods and providing resources. Through the long-term sequestration of carbon, mangroves are essential to global goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Although mangrove conservation and restoration are often recognized community or government goals, the lack of data and resources can hamper success. By analyzing approaches used across pilot conservation and restoration sites in Madagascar and Ecuador, lessons learned can highlight successful approaches that can be replicated and scaled up. This research analyzes how the influence of top-down (government or policy driven) and bottom-up (community-led) approaches impacted project outcomes. This case study comparison uses interviews with key experts, along with the Driver. Pressure, State, Impact and Response framework, to better understand the role national and local entities play in mangrove conservation and restoration. The most effective approach considers the underlying drivers of mangrove loss and includes a multidirectional approach to align government goals and community needs.

Tect representation of the content of this thesis. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Lalao Aigrette and Leah Glass of Blue Ventures and Montserrat Alban

of Conservation International Ecuador, for sharing their experience. I would like to thank the Institutional Review Board for San Francisco State University for their approval to

conduct this research. Thank you to my thesis committee, Dr. Ellen Hines, Dr. Karina

Nielsen, and Dr. Steve Crooks for guiding me through this process. Thanks to Dr. Moritz

Von Unger and Dr. Igino Emmer from Silvestrum Climate associates for their time

conducting personal interviews. Special thanks to Dr. Christine May for her guidance,

mentorship, and unwavering support.

v TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Table...... vii

List of Figures...... viii

List of Appendices...... ix

Introduction...... I

Ecosystem Services...... 1

Carbon Sequestration...... 3

Carbon Markets...... 4

DPSIR 5

Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up...... 8

Methods...... 9

Case Study: Madagascar...... 10

Tsimipaika Bay...... 11

Tahiry Honko...... 13

Case Study: Ecuador...... 16

El Morro Mongrove Reserves...... 19

El Salado Reserves...... 19

Cerritos de los Morrenos...... 20

6 de Julio Crabbers and Crabbers of Balao...... 20

Interviews...... 20

Results...... 21 Discussion...... 28

References...... 33

Appendices...... 43

vi LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. DPSIR components of mangrove decline at the study site locations in Madagascar and Ecuador. Adapted from Baldwin et al...... 22 2. Mangrove ecosystem services of relevance to study site locations in Madagascar and Ecuador...... 24 3. Challenges and Benefits of project actions at case study locations in Madagascar and Ecuador. Adapted from Gaymer et al...... 26 LIST OF FIGURES

Figures Page 1. Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response Framework...... 7 2. Tsimipaika Bay, Madagascar ...... 12 3. Tahiry Honko, Madagascar...... 14 4. Gulf of Guayaquil, Ecuador...... 18 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

1. Survey Questions...... 32 1

Introduction

Mangroves improve human well-being and are integral to the daily life of adjacent communities (L6pez-Angarita, Roberts, Tilley, Hawkins, & Cooke, 2016;

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Mangroves are the salt-tolerant trees, shrubs, palms, and ground ferns found growing along the margins of estuaries and along the intertidal zone of marine coastal environments (Windham-Myers, Crooks, & Troxler,

2019). The benefits mangroves provide include building materials for homes, food security from fisheries and shelter from coastal storms (Diaz et al., 2018; Jones,

Ratsimba, Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, Cripps, & Bey, 2014). Mangroves once covered 75% of tropical coastlines. Today, only 30- 50% remains (Laffoley & Grimsditch, 2009;

Sanderman et al., 2018; Windham-Myers, Crooks, & Troxler, 2019) due to deforestation and conversions to aquaculture, agriculture, and urban land use (Barbier, 2016). This research focuses on the challenges, successes, and limitations faced by mangrove restoration and conservation projects conducted in Ecuador by Conservation International and in Madagascar by Blue Ventures, both internationals non-governmental organizations

(NGOs). This research analyzes how the influence of top-down and bottom-up approaches of the projects benefited or limited their outcomes.

Ecosystem Services

Mangrove forests provide a wealth of ecosystem goods and services that improve human welfare (Atkins, Burdon, Elliott, & Gregory, 2011; Costanza et al., 1997; 2

Martinez-Harms & Balvanera, 2012). For example, mangrove forests provide resources such as food or timber, climate regulation, improved water quality, protection from damaging coastal storms, shoreline stabilization, as well as promoting cultural, recreational, and spiritual values (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Mangrove forests also increase fishery production and biodiversity (Borger et al., 2014). Ecosystem changes on a small or large scale can have lasting impacts on the natural capital an ecosystem provides (Costanza et al., 1997), where natural capital is the flow of services or goods between an ecosystem and the people that rely on that ecosystem (Arkema et al.,

2017; Costanza et al., 1997; Dickson et al., 2014). The ecosystem services (ES) mangroves provide that directly improve community well-being are substantial, varied, and well documented (Dale, Knight, & Dwyer, 2014; Himes-Comell, Pendleton, &

Atiyan, 2018).

Information quantifying or qualifying ES for specific locations is not always available, especially over varied spatial and temporal scales (Costanza et al., 2014). For example, the historic rate of mangrove loss, or the change in fishery biodiversity associated with that loss, at a restoration site can be lacking. In many instances basic data, for example the socio-economic role mangroves play for the local community is not available (Herr, von Unger, Laffoley, & McGivem, 2017). To improve restoration and conservation outcomes, ES should be mapped, and valuations assigned during project inception, and monitored over the course of the project to better align ES benefits with conservation goals (Burkhard, Kroll, Nedkov, & Muller, 2011, Schulp et al., 2014). 3

Understanding the economic and social benefits provided by mangrove restoration can maximize the flow of natural capital to low-income communities living near restoration areas (Torres & Hanley, 2016). Mangrove restoration is the act of assisting in the recovery of a degraded or damaged system (Lewis & Brown, 2014).

When communities actively participate in the restoration process, their awareness of the benefits they receive increases and it can change the way they use and interact with their surrounding landscape (Bayraktarov et al., 2016; IUCN & Blue Ventures, 2016; Olander

& Ebeling, 2011).

Carbon Sequestration

An ES of importance to the global community is the role mangroves play in carbon sequestration. Mangroves are essential to the global communities’ goal of achieving reduced greenhouse gas emissions as they are important carbon sinks in both the long and short term (Himes-Comell et al., 2018). Mangroves account for 14% of the carbon sequestration by the global ocean (Donato et al., 2011). Carbon is stored in the soil biomass and in the dead roots of mangrove trees (Alongi, 2014). For centuries, dredging and logging of mangroves has released sequestered carbon to the atmosphere, creating a source of carbon emissions (Murray, Pendleton, Jenkins, & Sifleet, 2011).

Financing of mangrove restoration can be enacted through global and national carbon markets (Ahmed & Glaser, 2016; Herr, Trines, Howard, Silvius, & Pidgeon,

2014; Thomas, 2014). The sequestration and long-term storage of carbon in ocean or coastal ecosystems is commonly referred to as blue carbon (Howard, Hoyt, Isensee, 4

Pidgeon, & Telszewski, 2014; Martin, Landis, Bryson, Lynaugh, & Lutz, 2016;

Windham-Myers, Crooks, & Troxler, 2019). The global value of carbon sequestration and the local value of ES can link small-scale restoration projects with global-scale climate mitigation activities and help a country align with international climate policy frameworks and goals (Beaumont, Jones, Garbutt, Hansom, & Toberman, 2014;

Pendleton et al., 2012; Zarate-Barrera & Maldonado, 2015). Restoring or preventing the degradation of mangrove forests through conservation can have a net positive impact on carbon emissions. Although restoration efforts can be expensive (Bayraktarov et al.,

2016; Possingham, Bode, & Klein, 2015), the long-term ecosystem goods and services provided by the mangroves can be greater than restoration cost (Barbier, 2016; Barbier et al., 2011; Failler & Pan, 2007; Salem & Mercer, 2012).

Carbon Markets

Two pathways to finance restoration projects from the voluntary carbon market are Verified Carbon Standards (VCS, https://verra.org/) and Plan Vivo Systems and

Standard (http://www.planvivo.org/). Voluntary carbon markets allow corporations and individuals to purchase carbon credits to offset greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The market value of a carbon credit is based on the standards and methodology used to measure the amount of carbon stored in soil or biomass for a specific project, and the projected increase in carbon storage the project is anticipated to produce over time

(Crooks et al., 2015; Howard et al., 2014). 5

The VCS is a scientifically rigorous method that creates a baseline measurement of the amount of carbon lost from deforestation, compared to the amount sequestered through restoration and conservation (von Unger & Emmer, 2018). VCS also considers sea level rise and other potential drivers of deforestation in the local community (Crooks et al., 2015; Verified Carbon Standard, 2014b, 2015). This VCS approach relies on precise measurements of carbon stock changes over a given area, allowing a project to capture the full potential revenue stream available through selling carbon credits (Emmer,

Igino, 2018, Principal Carbon Project Development, Silvestrum Climate Associates,

Netherlands). However, achieving the VCS standard can be expensive, time consuming, and labor intensive; VCS may be better suited for large-scale projects with long-term commitments (Verified Carbon Standard, 2014a). The Plan Vivo Systems standard certifies community-based forestry projects. Plan Vivo Systems standard is aimed at smaller-scale projects and awards payments through carbon sequestered or avoided emissions and a range of non-carbon benefits (e.g. biodiversity protection, water infrastructure, climate adaptation). This is less rigorous and comprehensive than VCS but can be better suited for smaller-scale projects (Huxham et al., 2015; von Unger &

Emmer, 2018).

DPSIR

The DPSIR (driver, pressure, state, impact, and response) framework has been adopted to structure environmental problems across social and natural sciences (Baldwin et al., 2016; Bell, 2012; Ness, Anderberg, & Olsson, 2010; Oesterwind, Rau, & Zaiko, 6

2016). The framework includes drivers (global, regional, local, social, or economic) which exert pressures on the environment (Baldwin et al., 2016). These pressures lead to a change in the state of the environment, which then leads to changes in the quality or functioning of the environment, causing impacts on the welfare or well-being of natural systems and people. Responses are actions taken by groups or individuals to prevent, compensate, or adapt to changes in the state of the environment (Atkins et al., 2011; Ness et al., 2010).

When trying to integrate environmental problems (GHG emissions, sea level rise, pollution filtering), human needs (building materials, firewood, food sources) and political goals (GHG targets) using the interdisciplinary DP SIR framework as a method to analyze a project can ensure that solutions address the underlying causes and impacts a change in policy or Denavior will have on a community and the environment (Baldwin et al., 2016). Correctly using a DPSIR framework is dependent on understanding the big picture drivers of society and changes to the environment (Ehara et al., 2018). The basis for this understanding can differ depending on a country’s governance structure. 7

Figure 1: Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response framework. Adapted from Oesterwind et al., 2016 8

Top-down vs. Bottom-up

A centralized or top-down approach to mangrove conservation project management is generally government and policy driven (Gaymer et al., 2014). This approach can increase understanding and awareness for key decision-makers and help break down barriers to conservation by changing the conversation and the legislative agenda at national and ecosystem scales (Toonen et al., 2013). However, the decisions made can be strongly influenced by economic and political motivations which might create results that are different than the needs and interests of a local community (Gaymer et al., 2014; Teh, Teh, Hines, Junchompoo, & Lewison, 2015).

A bottom-up approach to mangrove conservation project management is community driven (Datta, Chattopadhyay, & Guha, 2012). This approach can maximize local community rights and directly impact the community that benefits from ecosystem services of mangroves. However, the approach could fail to change some of the underlying drivers that led to the need for mangrove restoration Gaymer et al., 2014) .

A comparison of these two approaches is valuable because a one-size-fits-all approach does not work for all scales of interventions as countries vary in regulatory and governance structure (Toonen et al., 2013). Identification of key lessons and strategies from both approaches will benefit future conservation efforts. The largest unknowns relate to the valuation of ES and how to translate these services into sustainable revenue streams that can support future conservation and restoration (Herr et al., 2017), or PES

(Lau, 2012; Locatelli et al., 2014; Murray et al., 2011). 9

Methods

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) Blue Forests Project includes seven pilot projects to demonstrate mangrove restoration and conservation in a manner that can be replicated and scaled up. This four-year project began in 2014 as an initiative of the

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), funded by GEF. In collaboration with

Blue Forests, the research presented here uses the DPSIR framework, a comparison of top-down and bottom-up mangrove restoration for two pilot projects in Madagascar and

Ecuador, to inform and improve mangrove ecosystem management protection and capacity.

Blue Forests partnered with Blue Ventures in Madagascar and Conservation

International in Ecuador. Blue Forests supported the work already being done by the long-term in-country partners with financial support and access to an international network of experts and other practitioners working on small-scale pilot mangrove projects. This network allowed the work already happening to access a wider variety of resources. By creating this network of practitioners and supporting pilot projects, the pathway for replicating and scaling up mangrove conservation and restoration would be improved. The rationale for selecting Madagascar and Ecuador as the two projects for comparison was the clear contrast in project approach and intended mechanisms for long term financing. Ecuador focused on payments for ecosystem services through the Socio

Manglar program and Madagascar focused on financing through carbon markets. The projects also contrasted in their primary goals and their approach (top-down vs. bottom- 10

up) making them suitable for comparing how these approaches influenced project outcomes.

Case Study: Madagascar

Madagascar has approximately 278,078 ha of mangroves along its coast (Wylie,

Sutton-Grier, & Moore, 2016). Since 1990, more than 20% of the mangrove ecosystems have been heavily degraded or deforested (IUCN & Blue Ventures, 2016). Poverty within communities adjacent to mangrove forests is the primary driver of mangrove loss and degradation. Impoverished local communities use slash and bum practices to convert mangrove forests to small agriculture plots, and the mangrove trees are used for wood or charcoal. Over 95% of household fuel sources come from mangrove firewood (IUCN &

Blue Ventures, 2016).

In two locations, Blue Forests partnered with Blue Ventures, an international non-profit organization focused on rebuilding tropical fisheries through supporting seasonal fishing closures and management (Figures 2 & 3) (Gough et al., 2009). These projects were community-driven and sought to integrate carbon financing as a sustainable mechanism for conservation and restoration. Building on their previous work, Blue

Ventures incorporated community needs and socioeconomic drivers into the restoration process (Benson, Glass, Jones, Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, & Rakotomahazo, 2017; Jones et al., 2016; Wylie et al., 2016). 11

Tsimipaika Bay

Tsimipaika Bay is in the northwest coast of Madagascar, with a sub-humid tropical climate and more than 24,000ha of mangroves (Figure 2). This location has an established mangrove conservation zone where no harvesting occurs, zones of reforestation where mangroves are planted and being reestablished, and a zone where some mangroves are harvested for household use, but in a controlled manner. Nearby mountains protect the shoreline from heavy mountain winds and high precipitation during the wetter months (November-April), creating a suitable climate for tall, lush mangroves to flourish (T. Jones et al., 2016).

The local fishery supports subsistence catch and a modest daily income for the local communities Blue Ventures worked with the local community to create

Madagascar’s first fishery management plan to help ensure a long-term sustainable fishery. The collaborative plan development process created high levels of buy-in from the local community (Glass, Leah, 2018, Global Strategic Lead- Mangrove Conservation,

Blue Ventures, Madagascar).

The high humidity and flowering mangroves promote beekeeping and honey production, a non-consumptive ES of mangroves that can provide sustainable livelihoods.

Blue Ventures is working with the community to explore export options for the honey.

The scenic beauty of this area is also conductive ecotourism. However, the region lacks the appropriate infrastructure to support tourism. The community are working with the international carbon markets and VCS to build a project that would restore enough 12

mangroves and decrease the drivers to fulfil the requirements of the VC S. The revenue associated with this project can cont oute to a reduc- on in the overall poverty of the adjacent communities. 12

Tsimipaika n Bay

MADAGA - A* faltjryHonko

3 0 0

Mangrove Reforestation ’ langrove Conservation Mangrove Forest Management

N i Kflanr'etd

Figure 2: Tsimipaika Bay, Madagascar 14

Tahiry Honko Project

The southwest of Madagascar is home to the Bay of Assassins, part of the

Velondriake Marine Protected Area (MPA) (Figure 3). The Bay of Assassins is surrounded by 1,300 ha of mangroves and ten villages that depend on fishing for their livelihoods. The main driver of mangrove loss is timber over-harvesting to support locai house construction and the production of lime kilns. Local population numbers have been increasing due to the incomes derived from the fisheries, and declining incomes inland from local agriculture. This increase in population has increased the demand for lime, a common building material, resulting in more clearcutting of the mangrove forests to build lime kilns (Scales, Friess, Glass, & Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, 2017).

The local fisheries have grown in recent years with the development of foreign export markets from international fishing corporations, particularly China (Harris, 2007).

However, to promote fisheries management, the MPA restricts commercial fishing and enforces temporary and permanent reserves.

The Tahiry Honko Plan Vivo Project encompasses the mangroves surrounding the

Bay of Assassins. Tahiry Honko means “preserving mangroves” in Vezo, the local language. The ten villages are participating in the Tahiry Honko project (roughly 3,000 people) (Figure 3). Representatives from each community established 210 ha of reforestation zones, 330 ha of permanent reserves, and annual quotas for how many mangrove trees each household can sustainably harvest. Blue Ventures hopes to begin selling carbon credits through Plan Vivo by the end of 2019 (Blue Ventures, 2014; 15

Rocliffe & Harris, 2016). The carbon project includes a protocol for carbon credit allocation to the local villages. This will help foster sustainable forest management and help the government achieve progress towards their REDD+ programs (Aigrette, Lalao,

2018, National Blue Forest Programme Lead, Blue Ventures, Madagascar). 15

Tsimipaiha — Bay

Xafi^yHarrko <*

~ ~ i kjkjmotfirs % 3 0 0 4

5 Bay of Assassins Velondriake Marine Protected Area

* t A* * ■ Mangrove Reforestation

Mangrove Conservation Mangrove Forest Management • Villages

1 i Kilometers,

Figure. 3: Tahiry Honko, Madagascar 17

Case Study: Ecuador

In Ecuador. Blue Forests partnered with Conservation International, an international non-profit organization with a presence in Ecuador since 2001.

Conservation International has worked closely with the Minister of the Environment, coastal managers, and directly on the ground with five fishing communities in the Gulf of

Guayaquil (Figure 4). The Gulf of Guayaquil is the largest estuary in the country and is recognized as the most important estuary on the coast of South America due to the contribution of environmental goods and services (Twilley et al., 2001; Alban,

Montserrat, 2018, Manager of Environmental Services, Conservation International,

Ecuador).

Ecuador currently has approximately 157,000 ha of mangroves, although 27.6% of its mangrove forests were lost between 1969 and 2006 (IUCN & Cl Ecuador, 2016).

The main drivers of mangrove degradation are coastal development and shrimp aquaculture. Globally, shrimp aquaculture accounts for 80% of mangrove loss (IUCN &

Cl Ecuador, 2016; Kauffman et al., 2017). Although there is a high market value for shrimp, the value of lost ecosystem services related to mangrove removal is not borne by the shrimp industry. In most instances, maintaining mangroves can produce more economic benefits for local communities than converting the land for shrimp aquaculture

(Tallis & Polasky, 2009). In addition, this land conversion releases sequestered carbon from mangrove soils into the atmosphere and these emissions are not accounted for in the carbon footprint of the harvested shrimp (Kauffman et al., 2017). 18

To address the loss of mangroves and promote conservation, the Ecuadorian government developed a 5-phase mangrove protection plan that sets aside conservation areas covering 20% of the country, including 30-40% of the total area of remaining mangroves (IUCN & Cl Ecuador, 2016). Conservation International, in partnership with

Socio Manglar, focused on conserving 41,000 ha across five locations while providing direct economic incentives to the local commur- ss that commiT to support the conservation program (de Koning, 2014; IUCN & Cl Ecuador, 2016). Program implementation includes technical and financial support from Blue Forests and oversight by the Ministry of Environment of Ecuador. The Undersecretary of Coastal Marine

Management will be responsible for monitoring compliance. 18

ICA PANAMA VENEZUELA

COLOMBIA

ECUADOR P Gulf of Guayaquil

PERU

Kilometers 0 375

V- 4A D E L« 1 V IlSKSLf &Efi

l& L A P U N A

• Fishing Ports

| El Morro Mangroves Reser t

Q Salado Mongroves Reserve

| 6 de Julio

| Crabbers de Balao

| Cerritos de los Morrenos

Mangroves Gulf of Guayaquil

5.5 11 16.5 Kilometerseters* A A T < 3 Figure 4: Gulf of Guayaquil, Ecuador 20

£1 Morro Mongrove Reserve

Puerto Morro is a small fishing village in the El Morro Mongrove Reserve on the western shore of the Port of Guayaquil. This area was designated a Marine Protected

Area on September 13,2007. There are four species of mangroves in this area, white mangroves (Laguncularia racemose), red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle), black mangroves (Avicennia germinans), and jeli or button mangroves (Conocarpus erectus).

Unique to this area are the many women fishers. Local ecotourism visiting Isla of Las

Fragatas (Frigate Island) is popular and enhanced by the frigate birds (Fregata magnificens) nesting on the island and bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) that swim around the island. Due to infrastructure limitations, international visitors are limited. This location is a part of the Socio Manglar program. Puerto Morro is one of two government designated MPAs in the Gulf of Guayaquil.

El Salado Mongroves

Further inland near the city of Guayaquil, Ecuador’s largest city, are the El Salado

Mongroves. This area, the second government designated MPA, is primarily used by urban recreational fishers and was designated an MPA on July 6, 1987. There are four species of mangroves in this area, white mangroves (Laguncularia racemose), red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle), black mangroves (Avicennia germinans), and jeli or button mangroves (Conocarpus erectus). Due to the proximity of Guayaquil, these mangroves have been degraded behind the shoreline by coastal development, although the remaining mangrove areas are protected. There are problems with pollution runoff 21

from the city upstream, making the pollution filtering ES of the mangroves critical to downstream communities.

Cerritos de los Morrenos

An island in the Gulf of Guayaquil, Isle de Morrenos, has a small year-round population of subsistence fishers. Communities on this very isolated island struggle with access to many services such as healthcare and law enforcement as the city of Guayaquil is an hour and a half boat ride away. Often children leave school at a young age to start fishing within the mangroves.

6 de Julio Crabbers and Crabbers of Balao

On the southern side of the Port of Guayaquil are the 6 de Julio and Crabbers of

Balao fishing concessions. This is a small subsistence agriculture and fishing community near Naranjal, Ecuador. This side of the Gulf is more humid, which leads to bigger mangroves and larger crabs that fetch a high market value in Guayaquil. There is not as much shrimp aquaculture pressure here, instead inland from the mangroves there are banana and cacao farms. When the fishery is closed for crab molting and breeding seasons, fishermen can find alternate work at the inland farms.

Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with three project managers from

Conservation International (Ecuador) and Blue Ventures (Madagascar), and four experts affiliated with the projects and blue carbon. This established a baseline understanding of the driving factors affecting ES, and the unique challenges and benefits created by top- 22

down and bottom-up approaches. The DPSIR framework was used to compare how each project addressed mangrove degradation.

A standardized interview protocol was used to gather information from project managers and staff, allowing for a comparison of responses across projects (see supplementary materials). Participants were asked to discuss the overall project objectives, role of ES, use of data and economic evaluations, role of climate mitigation, end users and community, and the successes and challenges faced during project implementation.

Open-ended interviews solicited expertise from carbon standard experts with experience in the project locations, blue carbon policy experts and government officials that developed and informed policies relevant to the projects.

Results

The interview responses are organized into three tables: Table 1 presents a Driver-

Pressure-State-Impact-Response framework summary of the case study locations and the actions taken by the projects in those locations. Table 2 shows the varied ES priorities across locations. Table 3 identifies the challenges and benefits experienced by the two projects, framed within a comparison of top-down or bottom-up approach. Table 1 DPSIR components of mangrove decline at the study site locations in Madagascar and Ecuador. Adapted from Baldwin et al (2 0 1 6 ).

Driven Anthropogenic forces Prcssare: Demand on the State: PhysicalA>iological Impact: Consequences on Response: Actions society DPSIR causing ecosystem decline. environment from human chemical changes in the people and the environment could do to develop positive activity. environment. from sate change. change in ecosystem stale. Tahiiy -Loss of inland farming job -Increased population creates -Decreased mangrove forest -Increased fisheries exploitation -Create management plan Honko creates increased population demand for housing, especially due to clearing for timber to can cause livelihood decline preserving areas that are growth coated in lime create lime kiln leading to reduc'd economic import""! (O fisheries 68 -Outside investment in fisheries -Increased lime production -Reduced mangroves impacts status -Look for alternative sources of O 3 export creates demand for mangrove life cycles of fisheries housing materials a timber ■3cs Tsimipaika -Poverty led to overharvesting of -Reduced mangrove habitat -Decreased fisheries habitat -Decreased food security -Develop fisheries management Bay mangroves plan -Create VCS for funding stream to support reduced harvesting of mangroves Puerto -Historic shrimp aquaculture -Shrimp industry outflow -Pools will not regenerate -Less sanitary fishing -Enforcement of aquaculture Morro pools chemicals into water mangroves without active conditions pond size. -Illegal increase in size of oools restoration -Reduced fisheries are.. -Funding stream to restore by aquaculture industry ibandoned aquaculture ponds

El Salado -Nearby urban coastal -Reduced mangroves from -Reduced fisheries habitat -Less sanitary fishing -Limit development of coastline Mongroves development of Guayaquil urban development -Reduced water quality conditions -Restore mangroves (^population 22 million) -Pollution runoff from -Reduced coastal protection Guayaquil sanitation

Cerritos de -Lack of resources (materials, -Reliance on mangroves for -Cyclic persistent poverty -Poorer health, lower educatinr -Increase access to healthcare, [os water, electricity) increases materials level for children who leave resources (water, electricity, Morrenos dependence on mangrove school tc work in mangroves education) orovisioninp earlier

6 de Julio -Historic shrimp aquaculture -Fishing industry -Reduced fisheries catch for .-Reduced livelihoods -Create fisheries management Crabber1, P°°k members of the association plan -Exploitation of fisheries from protecting the mangroves fishers outside of association

Crabbers o f -Historic shrimp aquaculture -Fishing industry -Reduced fisheries catch for -Reduced livelihoods -Create fisheries management Balao pools members of the association plan -Exploitation of fisheries from protecting the mangroves fishers outside of association

u>to 24

Using the DPSIR framework illustrated that project goals and process reduced mangrove loss and created the appropriate responses to improve the environment (Table

1). For example, in Ecuador the primary driver of mangrove loss is shrimp aquaculture. A top-down approach to mangrove conservation would require a change in industry actions more than a change in individual actions. Table 1 illustrated the impact that dependence on outside materials and the high rate of poverty had on the communities in Cerritos de los Morrenos and the need for improved fishery management plans to the 6 de Julio and

Crabbers of Balao fishing concessions.

In contrast, in Madagascar, mangrove loss was driven by the needs and actions of local communities (Table 1). A bottom-up approach that addressed individual and community dependence on mangroves in a more sustainable manner would have reduced drivers of mangrove loss. Table 1 illustrates that Tsimipaika Bay was more affected by poverty, while Tahiry Honko experienced more population growth and pressure from commercial fishing industries. Table 2: Ecuador Madagascar Mangrove Mangrove ecosystem services of relevance to study site locations in Madagascar and Ecuador. L/i o t 26

Although mangroves provided similar ES at most locations, the ES that was most important varied depending on the geography or makeup of the nearby community. In addition, the value of an ES changed if the intended benefactors were international

(carbon market participants) or local (community members). Table 2 shows how ES varied bv location and the relative dependence of the communities living nearby on the mangrove ES. Using the information gathered in the key informant interviews the highest priority ES for each location was identified. Additional relevant ES for each area was also identified. In Madagascar, the community was directly dependent on the provisioning services of mangrove trees for firewood and building materials. In Ecuador the communities were dependent on the habitat mangroves provided for the fisheries.

Biodiversity and scenic beauty were valued and recognized at all locations. However, scenic beauty was prioritized in areas that currently support ecotourism or that have the potential to develop an ecotourism industry, for example Tsimipaika Bay in Madagascar and Puerto Morro in Ecuador. The biggest barrier to creating ecotourism industries at both locations was infrastructure (e.g., hotels, restaurants, roadways, access). Table 2 also illustrates that of the case studies, only Tahiry Honko highly valued the storm protection mangroves provide, because this community is in an area of cyclone activity. Table 3: Challenges and benefits o f project actions at case study locations in Madagascar and Ecuador, Adapted from Gaymer et al. (2014)

Challenges Benefits

- Land and water tenure rights for communities participating in carbon -Government negotiations can resolve carbon rights o f local communities with REDD+ financing from CS unclear, these rights must be granted from the project, guide and decree regulation in place, once established local communities can use national government (top-down) financing to improve (bottom-up future project management)

-Lack o f local enforcement o f project regulations is limiting for creating -Project provided training for extensive data collection. This developed local expertise long-torn change. Project will require additional funding and labor to (ISO local staff) to improve capacity for scaling up within region, as well as the creation enhance local enforcement (continued outside assistance needed) o f Blue Forest patrols to support local enforcement o f mangrove restrictions. g? Bottom-Up -Socio-economic status o f local community data allows for future comparison of change in ■3 •Pressure on fisheries from outside commercial sources provide income community status. and livelihoods (need regulation o f outside fishing industries to come -Baseline fisheries assessment and comprehensive carbon stock surveys allow the from top-down) community to track progress and remain eligible for future carbon financing.

-High buy in o f local fisheries management plan allows for locally led management

-Conversation for Blue Carbon ecosystems changing at national level, potential for future consuming and often repetitive with turnover and election cycles. NAMA action as a result o f targeted and consistent communication and engagement at the national leveL -Limited resources to develop communication strategies with local communities, 71% o f survey respondents haa no knowledge o f NGOs. -Socio Manglar successful and trusted payments for ecosystem services program. Communities know what they get Well-regulated model for payments for ES. Funded -Community has high level o f distrust o f Minister o f Environment from from State and private donors. ■§ Top-Down previous programs that did not lead to change. This will reduce O3 community buy-in and support o f top-down changes created from -Pathway paved with government to approach shrimp aquaculture industry, this could lead 111 project activities. to large stale future restoration and reparation actions.

- Low level o f leadership within community. Dependent on outside help for basic supplies (water, garbage, doctors). 28

Table 3 shows how navigating the tensions between land and water rights was a barrier to creating a truly bottom-up project structure in Madagascar, as the project was unable to work directly with the government. The bottom-up, community-driven creation of Madagascar’s first fishery management plan in Tsimipaika Bay was an example of a successful approach that can be replicated in additional communities.

The United Nations Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest

Degradation (REDD+) program creates a mechanism for reducing GHG emissions. The program creates a financial value for the carbon stored in the forests of developing countries. Under this program, a Daseline carbon emission is established for each country based on the emissions from forested areas. Depending on each country’s definition of a forest, mangroves may be excluded from the baseline. For example, if a forest is described as trees above 3m in height, and the local variety of mangroves is less than this height, the carbon sequestered by that country’s mangroves would be excluded from their

REDD+ program. As a result, a blue carbon mangrove project would not be eligible to receive funding. If a country adopts a carbon baseline based solely on terrestrial forests, the baseline would not account for the carbon sequestered by mangroves and mangrove soils (Stephen Crooks et al., 2014; von Unger & Emmer, 2018). Therefore, nations with a

REDD+ strategy must ensure that mangroves are defined as forests and able to receive carbon financing within a REDD+ project. Madagascar provides an example of successfully incorporating a mangrove carbon project within a nested REDD+ strategy. 29

The top-down approach in Ecuador changed the baseline level of knowledge and agenda of the representatives of the Ministry of the Environment and other governmental staff. Table 3 shows how the lack of awareness or trust of the local communities from government and NGOs undermined these national efforts at the local level.

Discussion

The contrast between the conservation and restoration projects in Ecuador and

Madagascar enable a comparison to better understand the dynamics of top-down and bottom-up project management, including an exploration of these projects filtered through the DPSIR framework. The insights gained may be valuable for future blue carbon projects (Crooks et al., 2019). To improve a mangrove conservation or restoration project, the drivers of mangrove loss need to be addressed. For this to be done effectively, gaps in socio-economic data about the communities living near mangroves need to be filled (McLaughlin, McKenna, & Cooper, 2002; Phan, Brouwer, Hoang, & Davidson,

2018).

Table 1 presented how the projects used socio-economic data to identify the drivers of mangrove loss and the community needs at each location. With this knowledge, local approaches that addressed the underlying causes of mangrove decline were identified and acted upon. For example, in Tahiry Honko, increased local income was identified as a pressure leading to mangrove loss because of the demand for lime kilns constructed of mangrove timber. Creating a sustainable mangrove timber plantation to meet this need could change a driver of loss at this location. 30

Effective projects examine the project location and needs holistically, including the before (drivers) and after (response) of the project implementation. Both project sites prioritized filling gaps in socio-economic data to better understand how mangroves benefit communities. Greater understanding of the socio-economic status of the community clarified where site locations are situated in the conservation and restoration cycle.

Table 1 identified the dependence of communities on the materials from mangroves as a critical driver to the community’s well-being at both project locations in

Madagascar. Blue Ventures worked with the Malagasy government to establish forest management plans in Tsimipaika Bay and Tahiry Honko. This plan allowed for sustainable forestry practices, thus enabling communities to harvest mangrove wood for household needs. In addition, Blue Ventures provided support and training in resource governance and the development of fuelwood and timber plantations to meet local market demand with sustainable alternatives (Blue Ventures, 2014; T G. Jones et al., 2016). This benefited not only the immediate community but also supported the long-term resilience of mangrove habitat. Forestry plans must also account for national programs, such as

REDD+. A multidirectional approach would work with the government to ensure that planning was aligned with agency goals and community needs to protect community rights and enhance opportunities for mutual success.

Ecuador started with a gap analysis to identify how local communities in the project area interacted and depended on the mangroves, and then prioritized actions. 31

Conservation International partnered with a local university and surveyed the communities where small-scale fisheries were the primary sources of income in mangrove areas in the Gulf of Guayaquil. This survey addressed how community members interacted and valued the mangroves, how they perceived the NGO’s that worked in the area, and how partic' lation in a government program (for example the payment for ecosystem services model Socio-Manglar provided) would be received.

Table 1 shows the socio-economic cycles of the different communities. By gathering information about how mangroves were used and perceived by the community, Ecuador was able to present this information to Ministers and other government officials. In a top- down structured society, the government, often in partnership with large industries, can gain continued support for programs like Socio-Manglar, create pathways for the shrimp industry to change behaviors, or fund restoration. As in Madagascar, a multidirectional approach would engage simultaneously with government/industry and local communities.

The resulting pathway to restoration would be aligned with government/industry goals

(target conservation, reparations for aquaculture) and improve community welfare

(increase fisheries catch from increased mangrove area). This alignment could ensure that measures taken to remediate the impacts of shrimp aquaculture on Ecuador’s mangroves also address the poverty and infrastructure needs of the communities in the Gulf of

Guayaquil.

The large variety of ES that mangroves provide are well documented and methods to value them are varied (Mukherjee et al., 2014). However, the value and priority of an 32

ES varies by project needs and place. The priorities shown in Table 2 were derived from tne communities or targets identified by the project managers.

Storm protection from mangroves was more important to Tahiry Honko than to

Tsimipaika Bay, as it is located in a part of the coast vulnerable to cyclones. In contrast, ecotourism has a greater potential in Tsimipaika Bay (Glass, Leah, 2018, Global Strategic

Lead Mangrove Conservation, Blue Ventures, Madagascar). Understanding these differing priorities can help direct the use of resources more efficiently. For example, in

Tahiry Honko, a focus on mangrove restoration would increase protection from storm impacts. In Tsimipaika Bay, resources need to be directed towards creating infrastructure that could support an ecotourism industry. Both of these actions would improve the well being of communities living near the mangroves while providing benefits that support top-down infrastructure.

Top-down approaches can improve many of the study site locations in Ecuador

(Table 1). Targeted mangrove restoration to increase pollution filtering near El Salado could be incorporated into sewer treatment plans. Improved roads would facilitate market access for fishing associations participating in Socio Manglar mangrove conservation.

Restoration of abandoned shrimp aquaculture ponds would improve fishery habitat and potential increase fish populations, increasing the potential income of the communities that depend on the fisheries, and reducing the pressure on the fisheries (Beitl, 2014).

These examples show how often bottom-up actions must work with a top-down structure. 33

Table 3 shows the successes and challenges faced in each country or site.

Conservation International in Ecuador worked directly with the Ministers of the

Environment and coastal planners to develop information that was relevant for decision makers. This involved a considerable investment in time spent communicating the project stages and educating staff about aspects of the project. The engagement time also increased with turnover from election cycles. While repeated efforts can be frustrating and draining on limited resources, the potential long-term payoffs were significant.

Conservation International is currently focused on educating local communities about the benefits of mangrove concessions and continuing to work on building trust.

However, some communities are not as familiar with the NGO’s work, and without a targeted communication strategy, there were missed opportunities. For example, Puerto

Morro has a high number of women fishers. These women would have received payments from Socio Manglar if they had organized into a fishing association and applied to monitor an area of mangroves. However, the women that fish in this area did not choose to take advantage of this opportunity. Building a foundation of trust and communicating benefits in a more targeted manner could have increased their willingness to participate in the program. Communication strategies have to be varied and can take a long time to achieve. By creating multiple communication streams through a multidirectional approach long-term impact would increase with more stakeholder engagement and buy in. 34

The data presented here suggest that project success can be impacted by the actions of both the local community and the national government. When all ecosystem services are considered, effective multidirectional management can help a project overcome bottom-up or top-down challenges.

i 35

References

Ahmed, N ., & Glaser, M. (2016). Coastal aquaculture, mangrove deforestation and blue carbon emissions: Is REDD+ a solution? Marine Policy, <5<5(January), 58-66. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.01.011 Aigrette, L. (2018, October 3). Personal interview

Alban, M. (2018, August 23). Personal interview.

Alongi, D. (2014). Carbon Cycling and Storage in Mangrove Forests. Annuual Review of Marine Science, 6, 195-219. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-010213- 135020 Arkema, K., Griffin, R., Maldonado, S., Silver, J., Suckale, J.. & Guerry, A. D. (2017). I 'iking social, ecological, and physical science to advance natural and nature-based protection for coastal communities. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci, 1399(The Year in Ecology and Conservation Biology), 5-26. httpsV/doi.org/lO.l 11 l/nyas.13322 Atkins, J. P., Burdon, D., Elliott, M. & Gregory, A. J. (2011). Management of the marine environment: Integrating ecosystem services and societal benefits with the DPSIR framework in a systems approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62, 215-226. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2010.12.012 Baldwin, C., Lewison, R. L., Lieske, S. N., Beger, M., Hines, E., Dearden, P .,... Junchompoo, C. (2016a). Using the DPSIR framework for transdisc* jlinary training and knowledge elicitation in the Gulf of Thailand. Ocean and Coastal Management, 134, 163-172. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.09.005 Baldwin, C., Lewison, R. L., Lieske, S. N., Beger, M., Hines, E., Dearden, P .,... Junchompoo, C. (2016b). Using the DPSIR frameworjc for transdisciplinary training and knowledge elicitation in the Gulf of Thailand. Ocean and Coastal Management, 134,163-172. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.09.005 Barbier, E. (2016). The protective service of mangrove ecosystems: A review of valuation methods. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 109(2), 676-681. 36

https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.01.033 Barbier, E. B. (2016). Valuation of Mangrove Restoration. In Oxford Research Encylopedia o f Environmental Science (Vol. 1, pp. 1-25). Oxford University Press. https://d0i.0rg/l 0.1093/acrefore/97801993 89414.013.458 Barbier, E., Hacker, S., Kennedy, C., Koch, E., Stier, A., & Silliman, B. (2011). The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecological Monographs, 81(2), 169-193, Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/23047554 Bayraktarov, E., Saunders, M., Abdullah, S., Mills, M., Beher, J., Possingham, H .,... Lovelock, C. (2016). The cost and feasibility of marine coastal restoration. Ecological Applications, 26(4), 1055-1074. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-1077 Beaumont, N., Jones, L., Garbutt, A., Hansom, J. & Toberman, M. (2014). The value of carbon sequestration and storage in coastal habitats. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 137, 32-40. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecss.2013 11.022 Beitl, C. M. (2014). Adding Environment to the Collective Action Problem: Individuals, Civil Society, and the Mangrove-Fishery Commons in Ecuador. World Development, 56, 93-107. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.10.026 Bell, S. (2012). DPSIR = A Problem Structuring Method? An exploration from the ‘“Imagine”’ approach. European Journal o f Operational Research, 222, 350-360. https://d0i.0rg/l 0.1016/j .ejor.2012.04.029 Benson, L., Glass, L., Jones, T. G., Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, L., & Rakotomahazo, C. (2017). Mangrove carbon stocks and ecosystem cover dynamics in southwest Madagascar and the implications for local management. Forests, 8(6), 1-21. https://d0i.0rg/l 0.3390/f8060190 Blue Ventures. (2014). Tahiry Honkc: Community Mangrove Carbon Project, Southwest Madagascar. London, United Kingdom. Borger, T., Beaumont, N. J., Pendleton, L., Boyle, K. J., Cooper, P., Fletcher, S .,... Austen, M. C. (2014). Incorporating ecosystem services in marine planning: The role of valuation. Marine Policy, 46, 161-170. 37

Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., & Muller, F. (2011). Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators, 21, 17-29. https://d0i.0rg/l 0.1016/j .ecolind.2011.06.019 Costanza, R., D’Arge, R., Groot, R. De, Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B .,... Van Den Belt, M. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253-260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0 Costanza, R., De Groot, R., Sutton, P., Van Der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I Tume% R. K. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 2 6 ,152-158. https://d0i.0rg/l 0.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002 Crooks, S., Mohan, A., Herr, D., von Unger, M., Himes-Comell, A., Neumann, C .,... Kurvits, T. (2019). Blue Forests Project: Policy Pathways, Carbon analysis and Ecosystem Services Toolkit. Crooks, S.. Mohan, A., von Unger, M., Herr D., Pendleton, L., Nys, C Kurvits, T. (2019). Lessons Learned for Advancing and Upscaling Projects: Experience o f the Blue Forest Project Small Scale Interventions. Crooks, Stephen, Eaton, J., Greening, H., Howard, J., Murdiyarso, D., & Myers, D. (2015). Coastal Blue Carbon in Practice A manual for using the VCS Methodology for Tidal Wetland and Seagrass Restoration VM0033. Crooks, Stephen, Orr, M., Emmer, I., Von Unger, M., Ben, B., & Murdiyarso, D. (2014). UNEP and CIFOR. Guiding principles for delivering coastal wetland carbon projects. Nairobi, Kenya. Dale, P. E ... Knight, J . M., & Dwyer, P. G. (2014). Mangrove rehabilitation: a review focusing on ecological and institutional issues. Wetlands Ecology Management, 22, 587-604. https://doi.Org/10.100//sl 1273-014-9383-1 Datta, D., Chattopadhyay, R. N., & Guha, P. (2012). Community based mangrove management: A review on status and sustainability. Journal o f Environmental Management, 107, 84-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjenvman.2012.04.013 38

de Koning, F. (2014). Appendix 17 Component 2. a Application o f the Blue Forests methodologies and approaches through small-scale interventions Ecuador Blue Forest Project. Diaz, S., Pascual, U., Stenseke, M., Martin-Lopez, B., Watson, R., Molnar, Z .,... Shirayama, Y. (2018). Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science, 559(6373), 270-272. https://doi.Org/10.l 126/science.aap8826 Dickson, B., Blaney, R., Miles, L., Regan, E., van Soesbergen, A., Vaananen, E .,... Martin, M. (2014). Towards a global map o f natural capital: Key ecosystem assets. Nairobi, Kenya. Retrieved from http://wcmc.io/towards_a_global map_of_natural capital Donato, D. Kauffman, B., Murdiyarso, D., Kumianto, S., Stidham, M., & Kanninen, M. (2011). Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nature Geoscience, 4(5), 293-297. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeol 123 Ehara, M., Hyakumura, K., Sato, R., Kurosawa, K., Araya, K , Sokh, H., & Kohsaka, R. (2018). Addressing Maladaptive Coping Strategies of Local Communities to Changes in Ecosystem Service Provisions Using the DPSIR Framework. Ecological Economics, 149(June 2016), 226-238. https://d0i.0rg/l 0.1016/j .ecolecon.2018.03.008 Emmer, I. (2018, October 19). Personal Interview.

Failler, P., •&. Pan, H. (2007). Global value, full value and societal costs: Capturing the true cost of destroying marine ecosystems. Social Science Information, 46( 1), 109— 134. https://d0i.0rg/l0.1177/0539018407073660 Gaymer, C., Stadel, A., Ban, N.: Carcamo, F., Iema, J., & Lieberknecht, L. (2014). Merging top-down and bottom-up approaches in marine protected areas planning: Experiences from around the globe. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 24(S2), 128-144. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2508 Glass, L. (2018, October 16). Personal interview. 39

Gough, C., Thomas, T., Humber, F., Harris, A., Cripps, G. and Peabody, S. (2009). Vezo Fishing: An Introduction to the Methods Used by Fishers in Andavadoaka Southwest Madagascar. Blue ventures (Vol. 44). Harris, A. (2007). “To live with the Sea” Development of the Velondriake Community - Managed Protected Area Network, Southwest Madagascar. Madagascar Conservation & Development, 2(1), 43-49. https://doi.org/10.4314/mcd.v2il.44129 Herr D, Trines, E., Howard, J., Silvius, M., & Pidgeon, E. (2014). Keep it Fresh or Salty: An introductory guide to financing wetland carbon programs and projects. Gland, Switzerland IUCN, Cl and WI. https://doi.org/DOI: 10.2305/IUCN.CH.2014.02.en Herr, Dorothee, von Unger, M., Laffoley, D., & McGivem, A. (2017). Pathways for implementation of blue carbon initiatives. Aquatic Conservation Marine Freshwater Ecosystems, 27(SI), 116-129. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2793 Himes-Comell, A., Pendleton, L., & Atiyah, P. (2018). Valuing ecosystem services from blue forests: A systematic review of the valuation of salt marshes, sea grass beds and mangrove forests. Ecosystem Services, 30, 36—48. https://d0i.0rg/l 0.1016/j .ecoser.2018.01.006 Howard, J., Hoyt, S., Isensee, K., Pidgeon, E., & Telszewski, M. (2014). Coastal Blue Carbon: Methods for assessing carbon stocks and emissions factors in mangroves, tidal salt marshes, and seagrass meadows. Arlington, Virginia, USA. Huxham, M., Emerton, L., Kairo, J., Munyi, F., Abdirizak, H., Muriuki, T., ... Briers, R. A. (2015). Applying Climate Compatible Development and economic valuation to coastal management: A case study of Kenya’s mangrove forests. https://d0i.0rg/l 0.1016/j .jenvman.2015.04.018 IUCN, & Blue Ventures. (2016). National Blue Carbon Policy Assessment. Madagascar. IUCN and Blue Ventures. IUCN, & Cl Ecuador. (2016). National Blue Carbon Policy Assessment Ecuador. IUCN and Cl Ecuador. Jones, T. G., Glass, L., Gandhi, S., Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, L., Carro, A., Benson, L .,... 40

Cripps, G. (2016). Madagascar’s mangroves: Quantifying nation-wide and ecosystem specific dynamics, and detailed contemporary mapping of distinct ecosystems. Remote Sensing, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8020106 Jones, T., Ratsimba, H. R., Carro, A., Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, L., Glass, L., Teoh, M...... Andriamahefazafy, M. (2016). The Mangroves of Ambanja and Ambaro Bays, Northwest Madagascar: Historical Dynamics, Current Status and Deforestation Mitigation Strategy. In S. Diop (Ed.), Estuaries: A Lifeline o f Ecosystem Services in the Western Indian Ocean (pp. 67-85). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, https://d0i.0rg/l 0.1007/978-3-319-25370-1 Jones, T., Ratsimba, H. R., Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, L., Cripps, G. & Bey, A. (2014). Ecological Variability and Carbon Stock Estimates of Mangrove Ecosystems in Northwestern Madagascar Trevor. Forests, 5(1), 177-205. https://d0i.0rg/l 0.3390/f5010177 Kauffman, B., Arifanti, V., Hernandez Trejo, H., del Carmen Jesus Garcia, M., Norfolk, J., Cifuentes, M .,... Murdiyarso, D. (2017). The jumbo carbon footprint of a shrimp: carbon losses from mangrove deforestation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 15(4), 183-188. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1482 Laffoley, D., & Grimsditch, G. (2009). The Management o f Natural Coastal Carbon Sinks (Vol. 53). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Lau, W. W. Y. (2012). Beyond carbon: Conceptualizing payments for ecosystem services in blue forests on carbon and other marine and coastal ecosystem services. Ocean and Coastal Management, 53(2013 \ 5-14. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2012.03.011 Lewis, R., & Brown, B. (2014). Ecological Mangrove Rehabilitation: A Field Manual for Practitioners. Restoring Coastal Livelihoods Program. Locatelli, T., Binet, T., Kairo, J. G., King, L., Madden, S., Patenaude, G .,... Huxham, M. (2014). Turning the Tide: How Blue Carbon and Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) Might Help Save Mangrove Forests, https://doi.org/10.1007/sl3280-014- 41

0530-y Lopez-Angarita, J.. Roberts, C., Tilley, A., Hawkins, J., & Cooke, R. (2016). Mangroves and people: Lessons from a history of use and abuse in four Latin American countries. Forest Ecology and Management, 368, 151-162. https://d0i.0rg/l 0.1016/j .foreco.2016.03.020 Martin, A., Landis, A., Bryson, E., Lynaugh, C., & Lutz, S. (2016). Blue Carbon - Nationally Determined Contributions Inventory. Appendix to: Coastal blue carbon ecosystems. Opportunities for Nationally Determined Contributions. Arendal, Norway. Martinez-Harms, M. J., & Balvanera, P. (2012). Methods for mapping ecosystem service supply: a review. International Journal o f Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services & Management, 8 , 1-2. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.663792 McLaughlin, S., McKenna, J., & Cooper, J. A. G. (2002). Socio-economic data in coastal vulnerability indices: Constraints and opportunities. Journal o f Coastal ResearchCoastal Research, (36), 487-497. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis (Vol. 5). Washington D.C.: Island Press. https://d0i.0rg/l 0.1196/annals. 1439.003 Mukherjee, N., Sutherland, W. J., Dicks, L., Huge, J., Koedam, N., & Dahdouh-Guebas, F. (2014). Ecosystem Service Valuations of Mangrove Ecosystems to Inform Decision Making and Future Valuation Exercises. PLoS ONE, 9(9), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1371/joumal.pone.0107706 Murray, B., Pendleton, L., Jenkins, A,, & Sifleet, S. (2011). Green Payments for Blue Carbon: Economic Incentives for Protecting Threatened Coastal Habitats. Durham, NC. Nelson, G. C., Bennett, E., Berhe, A. A., Cassman, K. G., Defries, R., Dietz, T .,... Zurek, M. (2005). Drivers of Change in Ecosystem Condition and Services. In Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Scenarios (Millennium, pp. 173-222). 42

Washington D.C.: Island Press. Ness, B., Anderberg, S., & Olsson, L. (2010). Structuring problems in sustainability science: The multi-level DPSIR framework. Geoforum, 41(3), 479-488. https://d0i.0rg/l 0.1016/j.geoforum.2009.12.005 Oesterwind, D., Rau, A., & Zaiko, A. (2016). Drivers and pressures - Untangling the terms commonly used in marine science and policy. Journal o f Environmental • Management, 181, 8-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/jjenvman.2016.05.058 Olander, J ., & Ebeling, J. (2011). Building Forest Carbon Projects Step-by-Step Overview and Guide. Wahington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.forest- trends.org/wp-content/uploads/imported/building-forest-carbon-projects_step-by- step_final_7-8-l 1-pdf.pdf Pendleton, L., Donato, D., Murray, B., Crooks, S., Jenkins, W. A., Sifleet, S Baldera, A. (2012). Estimating Global “ Blue Carbon’” Emissions from Conversion and Degradation of Vegetated Coastal Ecosystems. PLoS ONE, 7(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/joumal.pone.0043542 Phan, T.-H. D., Brouwer, R., Hoang, L. P., & Davidson, M. D. (2018). Do payments for forest ecosystem services generate double dividends? An integrated impact assessment of Vietnam’s PES program. Plos One, 13(8), e0200881 https://d0i.0rg/l 0.137 l/joumal.pone.0200881 Possingham, H., Bode, M., & Klein, C. (2015). Optimal Conservation Outcomes Require Both Restoration and Protection. PLoS Biology, 13( 1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1371/joumal.pbio.1002052 Rocliffe, S., & Harris, A. (2016). Blue Ventures Report: Experiences o f periodic closures in small-scale invertebrate fisheries (Vol. 44). London, UK. Salem, M., & Mercer E. (2012). The Economic Value of Mangroves: A Meta-Analysis. Sustainability, 4, 359-383. https://doi.org/10.3390/su4030359 Sanderman, J., Hengl, T., Fiske, G., Solvik, K , Adame, M. F., Benson, L Landis, E. (2018). A global map of mangrove forest soil carbon at 30 m spatial resolution. 43

Environmental Research Letters, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabelc Scales, I. R., Friess, D. A., Glass, L. & Ravaoarinorotsihoarana, L. (2017). Rural livelihoods and mangrove degradation in south-west Madagascar: lime production as an emerging threat. Oryx, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605316001630 Schulp, C. J. E., Burkhard, B., Maes, J., Vliet, J. Van, Verburg, P. H., & Yue, G. H. (2014). Uncertainties in Ecosystem Service Maps: A Comparison on the European Scale. PLoS ONE, 9(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/joumal.pone.0109643 Tallis, H., & Polasky, S. (2009). Mapping and Valuing Ecosystem Services as an Approach for Conservation and Natural-Resource Management. Annals o f the New York Academy o f Sciences, 1162( The Year in Ecology and Conservation Biology), 265-283. https://doi.Org/10.l 111/j. 1749-6632.2009.04152.x Teh, L., Teh, L., Hines, E., Junchompoo, C., & Lewison, R. (2015). Contextualising the coupled socio-ecological conditions of marine megafauna bycatch. Ocean and Coastal Management, 116, 449-465. https://d0i.0rg/l 0.1016/j .ocecoaman.2015.08.019 Thomas, S. (2014). Blue carbon: Knowledge gaps, critical issues, and novel approaches. Ecological Economics, 107,22-38. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.028 Toonen, R., Wilhelm, T. A., Maxwell, S., Wagner, D., Bowen, B., Sheppard, C .,... Friediander, A. (2013). One size does not fit all: The emerging frontier in large-scale marine conservation. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 77(1-2), 7-10. https://d0i.0rg/l 0.1016/j .marpolbul.2013.10.039 Torres, C., & Hanley, N. (2016). Communicating research on the economic valuation of coastal and marine ecosystem services. Marine Policy, 75, 99-107. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.10.017 Twilley, R. R., Cardenas, W.. Rivera-Monroy, V. H., Espinoza, J., Suescum, R., Armijos, M. M., & SolOrzano, L. (2001). The Gulf of Guayaquil and the Guayas River Estuary, Ecuador. In S. U. & K. B. (Eds.), Coastal Marine Ecosystems o f Latin America. Ecological Studies (Analysis and Synthesis) (144th ed.). Berlin, Germany: 44

Sringer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://d0i.0rg/https://d0i.0rg/l 0.1007/978-3-662- 04482-7_18 Verified Carbon Standard. (2014a). VM0024 Methodology for Coastal Wetland Creation. Verified Carbon Standard. (2014b). VM0027 Methodology for Rewetting Drained Tropical Peatlands. Verified Carbon Standard. (2015). VM0033 Methodology for Tidal Wetland and Seagrass Restoration. von Unger, M., & Emmer, I. (2018). Carbon Market Incentives to Conserve, Restore and Enhance Soil Carbon. Arlington, VA, USA. Retrieved from www.nature.org Von Unger, M. (2018, November 2). Personal interview

Windham-Myers, L., Crooks, S., & Troxler, T. (2019). A Blue Carbon Primer: The State o f Coastal Wetland Carbon Science, Practice, and Policy. Boca Raton, London, New York: CRC Press Taylor and Francis Group, LLC. Wylie, L., Sutton-Grier, A., & Moore, A. (2016). Keys to successful blue carbon projects: Lessons learned from global case studies. Marine Policy, 65, 76-84. https://d0i.0rg/http://dx.d0i.0rg/10.1016/j .marpol.2015.12.020 Zarate-Barrera, T., & Maldonado, J. (2015). Valuing Blue Carbon: Carbon Sequestration Benefits Provided by the Marine Protected Areas in Colombia. PLoS ONE, 1-22. https://d0i.0rg/l 0.1371 /joumal.pone.0126627 43

Appendix 1: Survey Questions

Goal: To synthesize lessons learned from small scale interventions completed under the GEF Blue Forests project in 5 locations: Abu Dhabi, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mozambique, and Ecuador. This will aid in refining Blue Forests methodology to inform future projects and support scaling the number and size of future mangrove restorations. Interview the small-scale interventions regarding lessons they learned from doing ecosystem service assessment and valuation. Use: Responses will be used for the lessons learned report for Blue Forests deliverables. Data collected from this confidential survey will also be used for completion of a master’s degree in Marine Science at San Francisco State University for Abby Mohan. The information gathered will be used for research on mangrove restoration and will be about ecosystem services. You have been invited to participate because of your affiliation with GEF Blue Forests. You must be 18 years of age or older to participate. There are no risks or benefits to you in participating in this survey. You may choose to participate or not. You may answer only the questions you feel comfortable answering, and you may stop at any time. If you do not wish to participate, you may simply return the blank survey, with no penalty to yourself. If you do participate, completion and return of the survey indicates your consent to the above conditions. Your decision wnether to participate in this research will have no influence on your present or future status at San Francisco State University. Section 1: Overall Objective 1) What were you trying to achieve in the overall project? Section 2: General Ecosystem Services 1) What was the general level of awareness of ecosystem services for the stakeholders in the project? How did you ascertain this? 2) Were ecosystem services considered in the creation and organization of the project? If so, how were they integrated? 44

3) Do people who visit the mangroves have a spiritual connection or is it only scenic beauty? 4) How did you do an ecosystem service assessment and valuation? Section 3: Ecosystem services data and toolkits 1) Did you use any toolkits? Why or why not? 2) Did you use ecosystem service data in your project creation? 3)Where did the data come from (local or non-local)? What type of data was it? 5) Did you gather your own data? What methods did you use to do so (survey, GIS etc.)? 6) Did you create a toolkit from your project? No, why not? Section 4: Ecosystem services: Economics and Benefits 1) Was the economic valuation or impact of ecosystem services assessed? 2) Did you use economic data in comparison with other land use options (for example compare economic value of shrimp aquaculture with improved fishery stocks)? 3) Were ecosystem services used in looking at different scenarios and impact pathways to create the project? Section 5: Climate mitigation as an ecosystem service 1) Was climate mitigation an ecosystem service of particular interest in your project? 2) Where did you go to source carbon standards for the project? 3) Was climate mitigation a financial mechanism for funding the project? Section 6: End users and community 1) Who did you work with to create and structure the project (local leaders, community, government etc.)? 2) Government gives concessions, who is eligible? Is concession only for fisherman? 3) If association identifies problem (i.e. gathering wood) how is that enforced? 4) What was the level of awareness of the local community about the project? 5) To what degree was the project planning and assessment shared with community stakeholders? 6) How close do you work with local community? Can they develop local capacities? = 45

7) How did you choose whom you interacted with to plan the project? 8) Is there an ecotourism industry that gets citizens in the water exploring to further the connection with the ecosystem? Section 7: Successes of the project 1) What was the greatest contributor to success in the way the project was designed? 2) Were there any unexpected outcomes that emerged that were helpful? 3) How did ecosystem services help you advance the intervention? Section 8: Challenges of the project 1) What challenges emerged? What challenges didn’t you expect? 2) What barriers (regulatory, cultural, financial) did you face to changing business as usual? 3) What difficulties did you face in finding or applying ecosystem service information? 4) Regarding conflict with aquaculture market value how does that lay out? 5) How long do concessions last? Can they be renewed? Is there a possibility of a concession area being converted to aquaculture? 6) What advice would you provide to others? Section 9: Outcomes 1) Now that the project has finished, how do you see the ES or CS benefits impacting the community and region? On what timescale are you anticipating these benefits? 3) Is there anything else you would like to tell us? Section 10: Scaling Up 1) What have you learned from this process that will inform increasing the number and size of future interventions? 2) What do you think will be barriers in scaling up future interventions? 3) What successes do you think can be easily scaled up?