4.6 Review

Turning the Tide: How Blue Carbon and Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) Might Help Save Mangrove Forests

期刊

AMBIO
卷 43, 期 8, 页码 981-995

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13280-014-0530-y

关键词

Mangroves; PES; Carbon credits; Environmental justice; Carbon standards; Natural; Hazards

资金

  1. Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation Programme (ESPA) [NE/I002952/1, NE/I003401/1]
  2. Department for International Development (DFID)
  3. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
  4. Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
  5. Natural Environment Research Council [1118918, NE/I003401/1, NE/I002952/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. NERC [NE/I003401/1, NE/I002952/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this review paper, we aim to describe the potential for, and the key challenges to, applying PES projects to mangroves. By adopting a carbocentric approach,'' we show that mangrove forests are strong candidates for PES projects. They are particularly well suited to the generation of carbon credits because of their unrivaled potential as carbon sinks, their resistance and resilience to natural hazards, and their extensive provision of Ecosystem Services other than carbon sequestration, primarily nursery areas for fish, water purification and coastal protection, to the benefit of local communities as well as to the global population. The voluntary carbon market provides opportunities for the development of appropriate protocols and good practice case studies for mangroves at a small scale, and these may influence larger compliance schemes in the future. Mangrove habitats are mostly located in developing countries on communally or state-owned land. This means that issues of national and local governance, land ownership and management, and environmental justice are the main challenges that require careful planning at the early stages of mangrove PES projects to ensure successful outcomes and equitable benefit sharing within local communities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据