Conservation versus commodification: synthesizing stakeholders’ perceptions of the blue carbon credit ecosystem

Conservation of blue carbon (BC) ecosystems, consisting of both the vegetation and the subsoil thereof, has historically lagged behind terrestrial forests due in part to their scientific, socio-economic, and political incongruities. Private buy-in and a whole-of-society approach is necessary to catalyze conservation. However, the involvement of diverse stakeholders begs the question: is conservation their true aim? Or has the commodification of carbon formed a disconnect between monetization and protection of BC ecosystems? In this paper, we present a conceptual link among stakeholders of BC projects and their roles across the project stages, synthesized from semi-structured interviews among actors within the BC credit ecosystem. Thirteen stakeholder categories are identified, with involvement spanning eight project stages from pre-feasibility studies to carbon credit retirement. Stakeholders closer to the supply-side of credits are more aware of conservation but need further awareness of the carbon credit cycle and vice versa for the demand-side. Overall, our findings indicate that conservation is secondary to commodification for most stakeholders. The project developer is the main actor that interacts with and is cognizant of the roles of other stakeholders, thereby having decision-making power in steering participation levels of other stakeholders. It became apparent that the project developer has broad-reaching consequences over the outcomes of the carbon project, implying that their perceptions and receptions regarding commodification versus conservation matters the most. We put forth the following recommendations for better governance of BC projects, amongst others: establishment of nationwide legal frameworks, improved participation of local communities, and institutional accreditation of stakeholders.