Hugging the Shore: Tackling Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal as a Local Governance Problem

Abstract

This Perspective explores the local governance of ocean-based carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Proposals to enhance the ability of oceans and marine ecosystems to absorb atmospheric CO2 are often discussed as examples of “geoengineering,” but this framing obscures the site-specific nature of most of the suggested interventions. The Perspective outlines some of the key local dimensions of marine CDR as currently imagined, and suggests a framework for increasing local participation in its assessment. Robust processes of local participation are essential to address the place-based conflicts that are bound to emerge if any of the proposed methods of CO2 removal is ever deployed at scale.

Towards Responsible and Informed Ocean-Based Carbon Dioxide Removal: Research and Governance Priorities

“…This event was not approved by any oversight body and was extremely controversial, being viewed by many as a direct breach of the moratorium. Of note, the Haida community of Old Massett, an Indigenous community, decided to sponsor these activities in their coastal waters with the intention of restoring depleted salmon runs and potentially receiving financial returns from carbon credits (Lezaun 2021).…”

“…National and international legal frameworks, while critical to responsible development, will tend to devolve key decisions-such as defining what constitutes "legitimate scientific research" or calculating the relevant "environmental risks"-to technical experts, and offer limited opportunities for public consultation and review (Lezaun 2021).…”

“…Responsible deployment of ocean CDR must include engagement with those potentially affected by the project to inform them of expected impacts and gather input on project design and potential benefits, and explore potential options for project co-development or co-ownership, if applicable. Lezaun (2021) argues that the potential global benefit from CDR should not come at the expense of important local considerations. An example of this is the controversial iron fertilization activities in Haida Gwaii.…”

“…Although the deployment of iron fertilization in Haida Gwaii violated international law and could have had damaging ecological effects from a poorly understood and risky technology, the activities did have support from local stakeholders. The decision by the Haida community of Old Massett to sponsor iron fertilization was driven by a host of complex considerations, including a desire to replenish depleted salmon runs and the prospect of direct financial returns through the sale of carbon credits (Lezaun 2021). Ensuring these viewpoints are part of any global discourse on the risks and benefits of ocean CDR approaches must be part of governance efforts in the future.…”

Blue Carbon Ecosystems in Brazil: Overview and an Urgent Call for Conservation and Restoration

“…For this reason, the conservation and restoration of BC ecosystems (BCEs) are recognized among the key ocean-based activities towards climate change mitigation, adding to global efforts to limit global warming and achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, with numerous co-benefits (Hoegh-Guldberg et al, 2019). The conservation and restoration of BCEs is crucial for marine CO 2 removal (Lezaun, 2021). Therefore, the loss and degradation (e.g., land use changes, trawling activities, changes in water quality, and increasing pollution) of BCEs lead to increases in atmospheric CO 2 emissions (Lovelock et al, 2017;O´Connor et al, 2019) and reductions in biosphere C sinks (net C accumulation in the long term) (Kauffmann et al, 2020), ultimately accelerating global climate change.…”