Appendix A: NbS Project Typology in ASEAN — Detailed Data Tables
This appendix provides detailed profiles for each of the eight Nature-based Solutions (NbS) typologies used throughout this report. The classification follows Griscom et al. (2017) [1], adapted for the ASEAN context and supplemented with data from Roe et al. (2019) [2], Goldstein et al. (2020) [3], and IUCN (2020) [4]. Each typology is profiled against fourteen standardised fields relevant to banking product structuring, credit risk assessment, and ecosystem accounting.
Overarching Type 1: Forests
Typology 1: Avoided Deforestation (REDD+)
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Typology name | Avoided Deforestation (REDD+) |
| Overarching type | Forests |
| Definition | Reduction of carbon emissions by preventing or reducing the rate of conversion of standing forests to non-forest land uses. Encompasses activities under the UN-REDD framework (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), including jurisdictional and project-level REDD+ [5]. |
| Intervention mode | Conservation / Avoided loss |
| Key ASEAN countries | Indonesia (Kalimantan, Sumatra, Papua), Cambodia (Prey Lang, Cardamom Mountains), Myanmar (Tanintharyi), Malaysia (Sabah, Sarawak) |
| Estimated scale | Approximately 20 million hectares under REDD+ activities across ASEAN as of 2024; Indonesia alone accounts for over 60 registered REDD+ projects covering approximately 8.5 million hectares [6]. Cambodia hosts approximately 15 active projects. Total ASEAN project count exceeds 100. |
| Carbon mitigation potential | 3.6 GtCO2e/year globally (Griscom et al., 2017) [1]; ASEAN share estimated at 0.8-1.2 GtCO2e/year given the region accounts for approximately 15% of tropical deforestation [2]. |
| Co-benefits | Biodiversity conservation (habitat for orangutans, tigers, elephants); watershed protection and hydrological regulation; soil erosion prevention; indigenous and local community livelihood protection; cultural heritage preservation. |
| Typical financing | Voluntary carbon market credits (VCS/Verra, Gold Standard); compliance market linkages (California ARB offsets, CORSIA); sovereign REDD+ results-based payments (Green Climate Fund, Forest Carbon Partnership Facility); bilateral ODA; blended finance facilities (e.g., Livelihoods Funds). |
| Key risks | Permanence: Fire, illegal logging, and policy reversal threaten long-term carbon storage. Leakage: Deforestation may shift to adjacent unprotected areas. Baseline inflation: Over-crediting due to inflated counterfactual deforestation rates has been widely documented [7]. Political risk: Tenure disputes, governance weaknesses, and inconsistent enforcement across jurisdictions. Social risk: Inadequate benefit-sharing with local and indigenous communities. |
| Monitoring approach | Satellite-based remote sensing (Landsat, Sentinel-2, GLAD alerts, Global Forest Watch); LiDAR for biomass estimation; ground-based forest inventory plots; community-based monitoring; third-party verification under VCS or Gold Standard protocols. |
| Example projects | (1) Rimba Raya Biodiversity Reserve, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia — 64,000 ha peat swamp forest, VCS-verified, protecting orangutan habitat [8]. (2) Keo Seima Wildlife Sanctuary REDD+ Project, Cambodia — 292,690 ha, protecting habitat for black-shanked douc langur and other endangered species. (3) Leuser Ecosystem REDD+ Project, Sumatra, Indonesia — critical landscape for Sumatran rhinoceros, tiger, and orangutan conservation. |
| SEEA EA accounts applicable | Ecosystem extent accounts (forest area change); ecosystem condition accounts (canopy cover, biodiversity intactness index); carbon stock accounts (above-ground biomass, soil organic carbon); ecosystem services supply and use accounts (carbon sequestration, water regulation, timber provisioning). |
| Current rating coverage | Sylvera: Comprehensive coverage (largest rated category). BeZero Carbon: Comprehensive coverage. Calyx Global: Comprehensive coverage. Verra Nature Framework: Partial (carbon-focused under VCS, broader ecosystem dimensions under development). |
Typology 2: Reforestation / Afforestation
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Typology name | Reforestation / Afforestation |
| Overarching type | Forests |
| Definition | Establishment of forest on land that was previously forested but cleared (reforestation) or on land that has not historically supported forest cover (afforestation). Includes both natural regeneration and active planting with native or mixed species [1]. |
| Intervention mode | Restoration / Enhancement |
| Key ASEAN countries | Philippines (National Greening Program), Vietnam (Five Million Hectare Reforestation Programme legacy; mangrove and upland reforestation), Indonesia (FOLU Net Sink 2030 targets), Thailand (community forestry reforestation), Myanmar (degraded teak and dry zone areas). |
| Estimated scale | Philippines National Greening Program targeted 1.5 million hectares (2011-2028); Vietnam has reforested approximately 2.5 million hectares since 2000; Indonesia targets 600,000 ha/year under its FOLU Net Sink roadmap [9]. Total ASEAN reforestation/afforestation activity estimated at 1-2 million hectares annually across government and private programmes. |
| Carbon mitigation potential | 10.1 GtCO2e/year globally from reforestation (Griscom et al., 2017) [1]; ASEAN tropical conditions offer high sequestration rates of 5-15 tCO2e/ha/year in early growth phases [2]. Regional potential estimated at 0.5-1.0 GtCO2e/year. |
| Co-benefits | Soil stabilisation and erosion control; watershed rehabilitation; biodiversity habitat creation (when native species are used); timber and non-timber forest product production; rural employment and livelihood diversification; aesthetic and recreational value. |
| Typical financing | Government reforestation budgets; carbon credit revenues (ARR methodology under VCS, CDM A/R); green bonds (e.g., Philippines Green Bond Programme); impact investment; community forestry grants; corporate sustainability commitments (e.g., restoration pledges). |
| Key risks | Execution risk: High seedling mortality, inadequate species selection, and poor site preparation can result in project failure. Monoculture risk: Commercially driven plantations may not deliver biodiversity co-benefits. Permanence: Young forests are vulnerable to fire, drought, and pest outbreaks. Land tenure: Competing claims on degraded or idle land. Time horizon: Carbon removals materialise over decades, creating maturity mismatch with short-term financing. |
| Monitoring approach | Satellite imagery time-series (canopy cover gain); drone surveys for survival rate assessment; ground-based growth plots and allometric measurements; species composition inventories; community monitoring of planting areas. |
| Example projects | (1) Hineleban Foundation native species reforestation, Bukidnon, Philippines — restoring indigenous tree species on Mt. Kitanglad buffer zone. (2) LandBank One Million Trees Project, Philippines — commercial reforestation linked to rural banking. (3) Nam Ngum River Basin reforestation, Laos — watershed-focused reforestation with carbon credit component. |
| SEEA EA accounts applicable | Ecosystem extent accounts (forest area gain); ecosystem condition accounts (species composition, canopy structure, age class distribution); carbon stock accounts (growing stock, biomass accumulation); ecosystem services accounts (carbon removal, water regulation, erosion control). |
| Current rating coverage | Sylvera: Partial coverage (fewer ARR projects rated than REDD+). BeZero Carbon: Partial coverage. Calyx Global: Partial coverage. Verra Nature Framework: Limited (emerging methodology). |
Typology 3: Improved Forest Management (IFM)
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Typology name | Improved Forest Management (IFM) |
| Overarching type | Forests |
| Definition | Activities that increase carbon stocks or reduce carbon emissions within managed forests through changes in management practices. Includes reduced-impact logging (RIL), extended rotation lengths, conversion from conventional to sustainable timber harvesting, and enrichment planting within production forests [1]. |
| Intervention mode | Conservation / Enhancement (hybrid) |
| Key ASEAN countries | Malaysia (FSC/PEFC-certified concessions in Sabah, Sarawak, Peninsular Malaysia), Indonesia (production forest concessions in Kalimantan and Sumatra), Myanmar (teak management), Vietnam (plantation forest management), Laos (production forest areas). |
| Estimated scale | Malaysia has approximately 4.7 million hectares of certified sustainable forest management; Indonesia has approximately 2.6 million hectares of FSC-certified forests [10]. Total ASEAN IFM-eligible production forests estimated at 30-40 million hectares, though only a fraction generate carbon credits. |
| Carbon mitigation potential | 0.4 GtCO2e/year globally (Griscom et al., 2017) [1]; ASEAN potential estimated at 0.05-0.15 GtCO2e/year given the extent of managed tropical production forests [2]. |
| Co-benefits | Maintenance of forest structure and biodiversity in production landscapes; reduced soil compaction and erosion from RIL; sustained timber revenue streams; improved worker safety; water quality protection in logging catchments. |
| Typical financing | Timber revenue premiums from certified sustainable wood; IFM carbon credits (VCS IFM methodology); green bonds linked to sustainable forestry; FSC/PEFC certification premium markets; government incentives for sustainable forestry practices. |
| Key risks | Baseline complexity: Establishing credible counterfactual management scenarios is methodologically challenging. Market dependency: Sustained demand for certified timber is required. Concession tenure: Government concession renewals may not be guaranteed. Monitoring burden: RIL compliance requires detailed operational monitoring. Additionality concerns: Whether management changes are truly additional or business-as-usual improvements. |
| Monitoring approach | Timber harvest records and reduced-impact logging compliance audits; annual allowable cut tracking; forest inventory permanent sample plots; remote sensing of canopy disturbance and recovery; third-party FSC/PEFC audits; VCS verification cycles. |
| Example projects | (1) Deramakot Forest Reserve, Sabah, Malaysia — 55,083 ha FSC-certified forest with documented reduced-impact logging practices. (2) Nanga Merit IFM Project, Sarawak, Malaysia — community forestry IFM with carbon credit generation. (3) PT Suka Jaya Makmur RIL-C (Reduced Impact Logging for Carbon) project, West Kalimantan, Indonesia. |
| SEEA EA accounts applicable | Ecosystem extent accounts (production forest area maintained as forest); ecosystem condition accounts (stand structure, basal area, species richness); carbon stock accounts (standing timber volume, biomass trends); ecosystem services accounts (timber provisioning, carbon retention, water regulation). |
| Current rating coverage | Sylvera: Limited coverage (smaller project pipeline). BeZero Carbon: Limited coverage. Calyx Global: Limited coverage. Verra Nature Framework: Not specifically covered beyond VCS IFM methodology. |
Overarching Type 2: Agriculture & Grasslands
Typology 4: Agroforestry
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Typology name | Agroforestry |
| Overarching type | Agriculture & Grasslands |
| Definition | Integration of trees and shrubs into agricultural landscapes, including alley cropping, silvopasture, multi-strata agroforestry, shade-grown systems (coffee, cacao), and home gardens. Combines agricultural production with tree-based carbon sequestration and ecosystem service provision [1]. |
| Intervention mode | Restoration / Enhancement |
| Key ASEAN countries | Indonesia (shade-grown coffee in Sumatra and Sulawesi, cacao agroforestry in Sulawesi), Vietnam (multi-strata systems in Central Highlands), Philippines (integrated rice-tree systems, coconut-based agroforestry), Thailand (integrated farming in the northeast), Myanmar (home garden systems). |
| Estimated scale | Indonesia has an estimated 13-15 million hectares of agroforestry systems; Vietnam has approximately 3 million hectares; Philippines approximately 5 million hectares under various agroforestry configurations [11]. ASEAN total estimated at 30-40 million hectares across diverse systems. Limited carbon market registration: fewer than 30 projects generating credits. |
| Carbon mitigation potential | 0.7 GtCO2e/year globally from agroforestry expansion and improvement (Griscom et al., 2017) [1]; ASEAN potential estimated at 0.1-0.25 GtCO2e/year, with sequestration rates of 2-8 tCO2e/ha/year depending on system type [12]. |
| Co-benefits | Agricultural diversification and climate resilience; improved soil fertility and structure; pollination services; microclimate regulation (shade); dietary diversity and food security; timber and non-timber product income diversification; reduced agrochemical dependence. |
| Typical financing | Agricultural development loans; carbon credit revenues (VCS community-based projects); government agricultural extension programmes; value chain financing (certified shade-grown coffee/cacao premiums); microfinance; impact investment in sustainable agriculture. |
| Key risks | Fragmentation: Smallholder-dominated landscapes create high aggregation and transaction costs. Measurement complexity: Heterogeneous systems are difficult to measure accurately using standard carbon accounting approaches. Competing land uses: Pressure to convert to monoculture cash crops (palm oil, rubber). Time lag: Full carbon sequestration potential takes 10-20 years to materialise. Market access: Smallholders may lack access to premium markets for sustainably produced commodities. |
| Monitoring approach | Farm-level tree inventories; allometric models adapted for agroforestry species; satellite-based canopy cover estimation in agricultural landscapes; soil carbon sampling; farmer self-reporting validated by extension workers; cooperative-level aggregation. |
| Example projects | (1) Trees for Global Benefit (ECOTRUST), Uganda model replicated in ASEAN context — smallholder agroforestry carbon credits. (2) Livelihoods Fund vanilla agroforestry, Madagascar model applicable to ASEAN spice systems. (3) CommuniTree Program concept — community-based reforestation and agroforestry (analogous projects in Indonesia and Philippines). |
| SEEA EA accounts applicable | Ecosystem extent accounts (tree cover in agricultural land); ecosystem condition accounts (agrobiodiversity, soil organic matter, canopy complexity); ecosystem services accounts (crop provisioning, carbon sequestration, pollination, water regulation); thematic accounts for agricultural ecosystem types. |
| Current rating coverage | Sylvera: Minimal coverage. BeZero Carbon: Minimal coverage. Calyx Global: Minimal coverage. Verra Nature Framework: Not explicitly covered (falls between agriculture and forestry categories). |
Typology 5: Soil Carbon Management
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Typology name | Soil Carbon Management |
| Overarching type | Agriculture & Grasslands |
| Definition | Practices that increase soil organic carbon stocks in agricultural and grassland soils, including cover cropping, no-till or reduced tillage, crop rotation diversification, biochar application, composting, and improved grazing management. Encompasses the "4 per 1000" initiative concept of annual soil carbon stock increase [1]. |
| Intervention mode | Restoration / Enhancement |
| Key ASEAN countries | Thailand (rice paddy soil management, upland crop systems), Vietnam (intensive rice system modifications, sustainable intensification), Indonesia (degraded agricultural soils in Java and Sulawesi), Philippines (upland farming systems), Myanmar (dry zone agricultural soils). |
| Estimated scale | ASEAN rice paddies alone cover approximately 48 million hectares [13]; total cropland exceeds 90 million hectares. Soil carbon management projects generating verified credits in the region remain limited, with fewer than 10 registered projects as of 2024. The potential addressable area is vast but largely untapped for carbon finance. |
| Carbon mitigation potential | 0.7 GtCO2e/year globally from cropland soil carbon management, plus 0.15 GtCO2e/year from grassland management (Griscom et al., 2017) [1]; ASEAN potential estimated at 0.1-0.2 GtCO2e/year, with sequestration rates of 0.3-1.5 tCO2e/ha/year depending on practice and soil type [14]. |
| Co-benefits | Improved soil fertility and water-holding capacity; enhanced crop yields and resilience to drought; reduced erosion and sedimentation; decreased fertiliser requirements; improved water quality in downstream systems; farmer livelihood enhancement. |
| Typical financing | Agricultural development programmes; government subsidies for sustainable farming practices; emerging soil carbon credit markets (Verra VM0042, Gold Standard soil carbon methodology); results-based payments; corporate supply chain sustainability programmes; green bonds linked to regenerative agriculture. |
| Key risks | Reversibility: Soil carbon gains can be quickly reversed by changes in management (e.g., return to tillage). Measurement uncertainty: Soil carbon is spatially heterogeneous and expensive to measure directly. Saturation: Soils approach carbon equilibrium, reducing sequestration rates over time. Adoption barriers: Farmers may face short-term yield penalties or require upfront investment. MRV costs: High per-hectare monitoring costs relative to carbon volumes. |
| Monitoring approach | Direct soil sampling and laboratory analysis (benchmark and periodic re-sampling); soil spectroscopy (near-infrared and mid-infrared); remote sensing proxies (vegetation indices as indicators of soil health); farmer practice records and verification; modelling approaches (RothC, DNDC, DayCent) calibrated with field data. |
| Example projects | (1) International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) Alternate Wetting and Drying (AWD) programme across ASEAN — reduces methane emissions and can improve soil carbon in rice systems. (2) Land Degradation Neutrality Fund investments in soil restoration across Southeast Asia. (3) Soil carbon projects under the Thailand Carbon Neutral Network. |
| SEEA EA accounts applicable | Ecosystem condition accounts (soil organic carbon content, soil health indicators, soil biodiversity); ecosystem services accounts (soil formation and composition regulation, crop provisioning, water purification); thematic accounts for agricultural and cropland ecosystems. |
| Current rating coverage | Sylvera: Not covered. BeZero Carbon: Not covered. Calyx Global: Not covered. Verra Nature Framework: Minimal (emerging soil carbon methodologies under VCS, not yet integrated into NbS-specific ratings). |
Overarching Type 3: Wetlands & Coastal
Typology 6: Mangrove Restoration / Conservation
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Typology name | Mangrove Restoration / Conservation |
| Overarching type | Wetlands & Coastal |
| Definition | Conservation of existing mangrove forests to prevent carbon emissions from conversion and degradation, and restoration of degraded or lost mangrove ecosystems through replanting, hydrological rehabilitation, and natural regeneration facilitation. Mangroves are among the most carbon-dense ecosystems on Earth, storing 3-5 times more carbon per hectare than terrestrial forests [15]. |
| Intervention mode | Conservation / Avoided loss AND Restoration / Enhancement |
| Key ASEAN countries | Indonesia (largest mangrove estate globally at approximately 3.3 million hectares), Myanmar (Ayeyarwady Delta), Vietnam (Mekong Delta, northern coast), Philippines (extensive coastline with degraded mangrove areas), Thailand (Gulf of Thailand, Andaman coast), Malaysia (Peninsular and Borneo coasts). |
| Estimated scale | ASEAN holds approximately 42% of the world's mangrove forests, totalling roughly 6.5 million hectares [16]. Indonesia alone has committed to rehabilitating 600,000 hectares of mangroves by 2024 under its national programme. Vietnam has successfully restored over 200,000 hectares since the 1990s. Total registered mangrove carbon projects in ASEAN number approximately 25-35. |
| Carbon mitigation potential | 0.02 GtCO2e/year globally from mangrove conservation, plus significant restoration potential (Griscom et al., 2017 conservative estimate) [1]; more recent estimates suggest 0.1-0.15 GtCO2e/year when including soil carbon stocks [15]. ASEAN potential: 0.04-0.07 GtCO2e/year given the region's dominant share of global mangrove area. Per-hectare rates: 6-8 tCO2e/ha/year sequestration; avoided emissions of 20-50 tCO2e/ha/year from preventing conversion. |
| Co-benefits | Coastal protection from storm surge, waves, and erosion (estimated US$65,000/ha/year in avoided damages in high-risk areas [17]); nursery habitat for commercially important fish and shrimp species; water filtration; biodiversity support (migratory birds, marine species); community livelihoods (artisanal fisheries, eco-tourism); cultural significance. |
| Typical financing | Blue carbon credits (VCS methodology VM0033 for tidal wetlands); government restoration programmes; climate adaptation finance (Green Climate Fund, Adaptation Fund); green and blue bonds; bilateral development aid; corporate coastal resilience investments; blended finance (e.g., Mirova Natural Capital, Blue Ventures). |
| Key risks | Permanence: Coastal development pressure, aquaculture expansion (particularly shrimp farming), and sea-level rise threaten long-term persistence. Restoration failure: Mangrove planting projects have historically had high failure rates (50-80%) when hydrological conditions are not properly restored [18]. Measurement complexity: Below-ground (soil) carbon stocks are large but difficult and expensive to quantify. Governance: Overlapping jurisdiction between forestry, fisheries, and coastal management agencies. Climate exposure: Extreme weather events, changing sediment dynamics. |
| Monitoring approach | Satellite remote sensing (Sentinel-1 SAR for mangrove extent through cloud cover; Sentinel-2 optical for condition); drone mapping for restoration site monitoring; soil coring for carbon stock quantification; community-based monitoring of planting survival and growth; fisheries catch data as ecosystem service proxy; third-party VCS/Gold Standard verification. |
| Example projects | (1) Mikoko Pamoja, Kenya — pioneering community-based mangrove carbon project; model replicated in Vietnam and Myanmar. (2) Yagasu Foundation Mangrove Conservation and Rehabilitation Project, North Sumatra, Indonesia — VCS-registered, combining conservation and restoration. (3) Tahiry Honko Mangrove Conservation Project, Madagascar — community-managed, with replication potential for ASEAN community-based approaches. Vietnam Red Cross mangrove planting programmes along the northern coast providing both climate adaptation and carbon benefits. |
| SEEA EA accounts applicable | Ecosystem extent accounts (mangrove area, shoreline extent); ecosystem condition accounts (canopy height, species composition, sediment accretion rate, tidal connectivity); carbon stock accounts (above-ground biomass, below-ground biomass, soil organic carbon to depth); ecosystem services accounts (coastal protection, nursery habitat, carbon sequestration, water filtration, fisheries provisioning). |
| Current rating coverage | Sylvera: Partial coverage (growing interest but limited project pipeline). BeZero Carbon: Partial coverage. Calyx Global: Partial coverage. Verra Nature Framework: Partial (VM0033 methodology exists; broader ecosystem dimension rating emerging). |
Typology 7: Peatland Rewetting / Conservation
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Typology name | Peatland Rewetting / Conservation |
| Overarching type | Wetlands & Coastal |
| Definition | Conservation of intact tropical peatlands to prevent drainage and associated carbon emissions, and restoration of degraded peatlands through canal blocking, rewetting, and re-vegetation. Tropical peatlands store enormous carbon stocks (up to 6,000 tCO2e/ha in deep peat deposits) and their drainage causes massive emissions through oxidation and fire [19]. |
| Intervention mode | Conservation / Avoided loss AND Restoration / Enhancement |
| Key ASEAN countries | Indonesia (approximately 13.4 million hectares of peatland, primarily in Sumatra and Kalimantan — the world's largest tropical peatland estate), Malaysia (approximately 2.6 million hectares, primarily in Sarawak), Brunei, Thailand (peninsular), Myanmar, Vietnam (limited areas), Philippines (limited). |
| Estimated scale | Southeast Asia holds approximately 25 million hectares of tropical peatland, representing approximately 56% of the global tropical peat area [19]. Indonesia's Peatland Restoration Agency (BRG/BRGM) has targeted 2.67 million hectares for restoration since its establishment in 2016. Approximately 15-25 peatland carbon projects are registered in ASEAN under VCS and other standards. |
| Carbon mitigation potential | 0.8 GtCO2e/year globally from peatland conservation and rewetting (Griscom et al., 2017) [1]; ASEAN potential is disproportionately large at an estimated 0.4-0.7 GtCO2e/year, driven by Indonesia's emissions from peat drainage (approximately 0.5 GtCO2e/year from oxidation alone, plus episodic fire emissions of 0.5-1.5 GtCO2e in severe fire years such as 2015) [20]. |
| Co-benefits | Fire prevention (rewetted peatlands are far less fire-prone); transboundary haze reduction (major public health and economic benefit across ASEAN); water table regulation and flood mitigation; biodiversity conservation (peat swamp forest species); downstream water quality; community health improvements from reduced haze exposure. |
| Typical financing | Government peat restoration budgets (Indonesia BRG/BRGM); carbon credits (VCS peatland rewetting and conservation methodologies); bilateral climate finance (Norway-Indonesia REDD+ Partnership); Green Climate Fund; corporate commitments from palm oil and pulp companies (no-deforestation, no-peat policies); blended finance mechanisms. |
| Key risks | Scale complexity: Peatland hydrological units are large and require landscape-level intervention. Fire risk: Degraded peatlands remain fire-prone during rewetting transition periods. Economic pressure: Drained peatlands support palm oil, pulp, and agricultural production — rewetting implies land-use change costs. Technical challenge: Canal blocking and water table management require sustained engineering and maintenance. Carbon accounting: Below-ground emissions from peat oxidation are difficult to measure directly. Political economy: Competing interests between restoration and agricultural development. |
| Monitoring approach | Satellite-based water table monitoring (InSAR); fire hotspot detection (MODIS, VIIRS); greenhouse gas flux towers; piezometer networks for water table depth; aerial and satellite assessment of canal blocking effectiveness; ground-based peat depth and subsidence measurements; community-based fire patrols and monitoring. |
| Example projects | (1) Katingan Mentaya Project, Central Kalimantan, Indonesia — 149,800 ha peat swamp forest conservation and restoration, one of the world's largest REDD+ projects by carbon credit volume [21]. (2) Sebangau National Park Peat Restoration, Central Kalimantan — involving canal blocking and community fire prevention. (3) BRG/BRGM Peatland Restoration Programme across seven provinces in Indonesia — government-led large-scale rewetting and re-vegetation. |
| SEEA EA accounts applicable | Ecosystem extent accounts (peatland area, hydrological connectivity status — intact/drained/rewetted); ecosystem condition accounts (water table depth, peat depth, vegetation cover, fire frequency); carbon stock accounts (peat carbon stock, above-ground biomass, emissions from oxidation and fire); ecosystem services accounts (carbon storage, water regulation, fire risk regulation, air quality regulation). |
| Current rating coverage | Sylvera: Partial coverage (rated within REDD+ where projects include peatland). BeZero Carbon: Partial coverage. Calyx Global: Partial coverage. Verra Nature Framework: Partial (peatland-specific methodologies exist under VCS; ecosystem-level rating nascent). |
Typology 8: Seagrass / Coral Reef Restoration
| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| Typology name | Seagrass / Coral Reef Restoration |
| Overarching type | Wetlands & Coastal |
| Definition | Conservation and restoration of seagrass meadows and coral reef ecosystems for carbon sequestration (primarily seagrass), coastal protection, biodiversity conservation, and fisheries support. Seagrass meadows sequester carbon at rates comparable to terrestrial forests and store significant carbon in sediments. Coral reefs, while not major carbon sinks, provide critical ecosystem services including coastal protection and fisheries habitat [22]. |
| Intervention mode | Restoration / Enhancement AND Conservation / Avoided loss |
| Key ASEAN countries | Indonesia (Coral Triangle epicentre; extensive seagrass meadows across 3.09 million hectares), Philippines (Coral Triangle; Verde Island Passage), Malaysia (Semporna, Sabah), Thailand (Andaman Sea, Gulf of Thailand), Vietnam (extensive seagrass in central and southern coast), Myanmar (Myeik Archipelago). |
| Estimated scale | ASEAN is at the global centre of marine biodiversity (Coral Triangle). The region contains approximately 34% of the world's coral reefs and an estimated 5-7 million hectares of seagrass [23]. Carbon credit generation from seagrass/coral is extremely nascent: fewer than 5 registered projects globally as of 2024. Restoration programmes are more common but typically grant-funded rather than market-based. |
| Carbon mitigation potential | Seagrass: approximately 0.03 GtCO2e/year globally from conservation and restoration (emerging estimates; not explicitly quantified in Griscom et al., 2017 but included in subsequent analyses) [22]. Sequestration rates: 1.5-4.0 tCO2e/ha/year in seagrass sediments. Coral reefs: negligible direct carbon sequestration but critical for associated ecosystem services. ASEAN potential: 0.01-0.03 GtCO2e/year from seagrass alone. |
| Co-benefits | Fisheries habitat and nursery function (supporting livelihoods for millions of coastal communities); coastal erosion protection; water quality improvement (seagrass filtration); biodiversity conservation (seahorses, dugongs, turtles, reef fish); tourism revenue; cultural and recreational value; sediment stabilisation. |
| Typical financing | Conservation and marine protection grants (GEF, bilateral donors); government marine protected area budgets; emerging blue carbon credit markets (seagrass); coral reef restoration philanthropy and CSR funding; eco-tourism revenue; payment for ecosystem services schemes (fisheries levies); blue bonds (emerging). |
| Key risks | Methodological immaturity: Carbon accounting methodologies for seagrass are still being developed and lack the robustness of terrestrial forest protocols. Measurement difficulty: Underwater carbon stock measurement is technically challenging and expensive. Environmental sensitivity: Seagrass and coral are highly sensitive to water quality, temperature (bleaching), sedimentation, and physical disturbance. Climate vulnerability: Ocean warming and acidification directly threaten coral reef survival. Scale: Individual restoration projects are typically small (tens to hundreds of hectares). Governance: Marine tenure and rights are often poorly defined. |
| Monitoring approach | Underwater visual census and photo-quadrat surveys; side-scan sonar and multibeam bathymetry; satellite remote sensing (limited to shallow waters — Sentinel-2, Planet); environmental DNA (eDNA) for biodiversity assessment; water quality monitoring; sediment core sampling for carbon stocks; fish biomass surveys; community-based reef monitoring (Reef Check). |
| Example projects | (1) Project Seagrass community monitoring programmes (UK-based, with expansion interest in Southeast Asia). (2) Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries, and Food Security (CTI-CFF) — six-country regional cooperation. (3) Mars Coral Reef Restoration Programme, Sulawesi, Indonesia — private sector-led coral restoration using reef star technology. Seagrass carbon pilot projects in the Philippines and Indonesia under Verra blue carbon methodology development. |
| SEEA EA accounts applicable | Ecosystem extent accounts (seagrass meadow area, coral reef extent, marine protected area coverage); ecosystem condition accounts (coral cover percentage, bleaching frequency, seagrass density, water quality indicators, fish species diversity); carbon stock accounts (seagrass sediment carbon); ecosystem services accounts (fisheries provisioning, coastal protection, tourism and recreation, water purification, carbon sequestration). |
| Current rating coverage | Sylvera: Not covered. BeZero Carbon: Not covered. Calyx Global: Not covered. Verra Nature Framework: Minimal (blue carbon methodology development in progress; no established rating framework for marine NbS). |
Summary Comparison Table
| Typology | Overarching Type | Intervention Mode | ASEAN Scale (est. ha) | Carbon Potential (GtCO2e/yr, ASEAN) | Rating Coverage | SEEA EA Readiness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Avoided Deforestation (REDD+) | Forests | Conservation | ~20M | 0.8-1.2 | High | High |
| 2. Reforestation/Afforestation | Forests | Restoration | ~5M active/yr | 0.5-1.0 | Medium | High |
| 3. Improved Forest Management | Forests | Hybrid | ~30-40M eligible | 0.05-0.15 | Low | Medium |
| 4. Agroforestry | Agriculture & Grasslands | Restoration | ~30-40M | 0.1-0.25 | Very Low | Medium |
| 5. Soil Carbon Management | Agriculture & Grasslands | Restoration | ~90M cropland | 0.1-0.2 | None | Low |
| 6. Mangrove Restoration/Conservation | Wetlands & Coastal | Hybrid | ~6.5M | 0.04-0.07 | Medium | High |
| 7. Peatland Rewetting/Conservation | Wetlands & Coastal | Hybrid | ~25M | 0.4-0.7 | Medium | Medium |
| 8. Seagrass/Coral Reef Restoration | Wetlands & Coastal | Hybrid | ~5-7M (seagrass) | 0.01-0.03 | None | Low |
Key Observations
Rating coverage inversely correlates with ecosystem complexity: Terrestrial forest projects (Typologies 1-3) have the most developed rating infrastructure, while marine and soil-based systems (Typologies 5, 8) have virtually none.
Carbon potential does not determine rating readiness: Peatland conservation (Typology 7) has the highest per-hectare carbon impact in ASEAN but only partial rating coverage due to measurement complexity.
Co-benefit richness increases with ecosystem complexity: Coastal and marine typologies (6-8) deliver the broadest range of co-benefits but are the most difficult to quantify using existing carbon-centric rating frameworks.
SEEA EA alignment varies significantly: Forest typologies map well to existing ecosystem accounting frameworks; soil and marine typologies require further methodological development for account construction.
Financing maturity follows rating coverage: Typologies with established rating infrastructure attract carbon market finance; those without ratings depend on grants, government budgets, and concessional finance.
References
[1] Griscom, B.W., Adams, J., Ellis, P.W., et al. (2017). Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(44), 11645-11650.
[2] Roe, S., Streck, C., Obersteiner, M., et al. (2019). Contribution of the land sector to a 1.5C world. Nature Climate Change, 9, 817-828.
[3] Goldstein, A., Turner, W.R., Spawn, S.A., et al. (2020). Protecting irrecoverable carbon in Earth's ecosystems. Nature Climate Change, 10, 287-295.
[4] IUCN (2020). IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
[5] UNFCCC (2013). Warsaw Framework for REDD-plus. Decision 9-15/CP.19.
[6] West, T.A.P., Wunder, S., Sills, E.O., et al. (2023). Action needed to make carbon offsets from forest conservation work for climate change mitigation. Science, 381(6660), 873-877.
[7] Guizar-Coutiño, A., Jones, J.P.G., Sherren, K., et al. (2022). A global evaluation of the effectiveness of voluntary REDD+ projects at reducing deforestation and degradation in the moist tropics. Conservation Biology, 36(6), e13970.
[8] InfiniteEARTH (2024). Rimba Raya Biodiversity Reserve Project Description Document. VCS Project ID 674.
[9] Government of Indonesia (2022). Indonesia's FOLU Net Sink 2030 Operational Plan. Ministry of Environment and Forestry.
[10] FSC (2024). FSC Facts and Figures — Southeast Asia. Forest Stewardship Council.
[11] Zomer, R.J., Neufeldt, H., Xu, J., et al. (2016). Global tree cover and biomass carbon on agricultural land. Scientific Reports, 6, 29987.
[12] Nair, P.K.R., Kumar, B.M., Nair, V.D. (2009). Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science, 172(1), 10-23.
[13] FAO (2023). FAOSTAT — Land Use Statistics: Southeast Asia. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
[14] Minasny, B., Malone, B.P., McBratney, A.B., et al. (2017). Soil carbon 4 per mille. Geoderma, 292, 59-86.
[15] Donato, D.C., Kauffman, J.B., Murdiyarso, D., et al. (2011). Mangroves among the most carbon-rich forests in the tropics. Nature Geoscience, 4, 293-297.
[16] Richards, D.R. and Friess, D.A. (2016). Rates and drivers of mangrove deforestation in Southeast Asia, 2000-2012. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(2), 344-349.
[17] Menendez, P., Losada, I.J., Torres-Ortega, S., et al. (2020). The global flood protection benefits of mangroves. Scientific Reports, 10, 4404.
[18] Kodikara, K.A.S., Mukherjee, N., Jayatissa, L.P., et al. (2017). Have mangrove restoration projects worked? An in-depth study in Sri Lanka. Restoration Ecology, 25(5), 705-716.
[19] Page, S.E., Rieley, J.O. and Banks, C.J. (2011). Global and regional importance of the tropical peatland carbon pool. Global Change Biology, 17(2), 798-818.
[20] Miettinen, J., Hooijer, A., Vernimmen, R., et al. (2017). From carbon sink to carbon source: extensive peat oxidation in insular Southeast Asia since 1990. Environmental Research Letters, 12(2), 024014.
[21] Katingan Mentaya Project (2024). Project Description Document. VCS Project ID 1477.
[22] Fourqurean, J.W., Duarte, C.M., Kennedy, H., et al. (2012). Seagrass ecosystems as a globally significant carbon stock. Nature Geoscience, 5, 505-509.
[23] UNEP-WCMC (2021). Global Distribution of Seagrasses and Coral Reefs. UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre.