Credits generated from reducing impacts on large migratory marine creatures could help unlock funds for implementing the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) across the Global South and North, an academic paper has said.

Migratory sea creatures such as whales, sharks, and turtles provide ecosystem services across regions with considerably different economic ability to pay for biodiversity protection, said researchers in an article led by Ana Sequeira of the Australian National University.

Their movements between developed and less-developed countries’ waters can unlock the potential for financial support for implementing the GBF, said the paper, which was published by journal NPJ Ocean Sustainability last week.

“Credits could be associated with measures taken by industry to reduce impacts on marine megafauna … embedded in biodiversity credits, but as a type specifically related to marine megafauna conservation,” Sequeira told Carbon Pulse.

Financing produced from credits could ensure the global protection of these large sea animals – marine megafauna – while meeting GBF financing goals, the paper said. The international framework aims to increase financial resources across all parties to at least $30 billion per year by 2030, including through assistance from developed to developing countries.

WHALE STRIKES

Measures that alleviate the threats posed by activities from companies based in the Global North could generate credits, with money raised helping companies in the Global South better protect sea creatures, it said.

“For example, a shipping company changing procedures to reduce strikes with whales, such as reducing speed in certain areas or alleviating pressure on areas of ecological importance,” said Sequeira.

The areas of ecological importance for large sea creatures will need to be defined for the market to function, she said. MegaMove, a UN-endorsed team of scientists focused on marine megafauna, is working on this, said Sequeira – its lead coordinator.

“Funding is needed to advance this proposal and create this system, and MegaMove is well positioned to take on this task,” she said.

“Indeed, we are the only group in the world who has the tracking data needed to tackle this problem at global scale.”

Water-related credits have been seen in Australian reef credits and the UK’s nutrient credits, but most companies preparing projects for generating voluntary biodiversity credits for a potential market are based on land as its natural value is relatively easier to measure.

In March, the head of a non-profit said establishing a biodiversity credit market for marine ecosystems would be much more challenging than for land due to ownership issues.

However, in June a paper said ocean conservation credits could reduce the costs of marine protection by up to 98%. Wallacea Trust’s biodiversity credits methodology sets out how to measure nature uplift in reefs.

QUANTIFICATION

The marine megafauna market would rely on cost-benefit estimates of activities affecting the animals, before determining the international flows needed to support GBF implementation. This would require quantification of the value of the animals, the paper said.

“Specifically focusing on the mobile nature of these species, we propose that the identification of marine megafauna values could shed light on the economic value of the ecosystem services they generate,” it said.

Economic valuation can help identify which sustainable uses of animals offer the greatest benefits, guiding conservation priorities.

The relatively niche concept of natural capital accounting, putting a price on the value of nature, has gained traction over the last year. In June, the US suggested pricing ocean biodiversity, spurred by emerging nature markets.

A UNIQUE MECHANISM?

Large sea creatures provide key structural, functional, and cultural services within marine ecosystems, but human activities have led to a third of them being threatened with extinction, the paper said.

Many of the animals travel thousands of kilometres annually between multiple jurisdictions, meaning that area-based protection targets, such as those set out by the GBF aiming to protect 30% of the ocean by 2030, are “likely to offer insufficient protection”, the paper said.

Their migrations “likely present the only nature-based mechanism that connects developed to less developed countries to where financial transfer is needed”.

The animals could be valued with a range of commercially sustainable activities that support livelihoods while improving conservation outcomes.

Last week, a paper found more appropriate indicators are needed to measure progress towards the species target of the GBF.

By Thomas Cox – t.cox@carbon-pulse.com

*** Click here to sign up to our twice-weekly biodiversity newsletter ***