Dr. Mei LinSydney, AustraliaLive

Kelp Forest Restoration Network

Replanting and protecting kelp forests along temperate coasts to restore carbon-rich marine habitat and revive coastal fisheries.

Ecosystem ServicesBlue CarbonMarine Restoration

About this project

The proposal outlines a credible kelp restoration network using proven techniques (urchin removal, green-gravel) and continuous diver/ROV monitoring, giving it strong scientific grounding and likely ecological benefits. Gaps in documented monitoring protocols, carbon accounting methods, open-data commitments, and governance/benefit-sharing reduce scores and justify an overall integrity score of 79/100.

AI summary by the Ozeaon Climate Intelligence System

Why this integrity score?

The OCIS Integrity Report below explains the reasoning behind the headline score — dimension by dimension — and is readable in full here.

Score Reasoning — Dimensions

The headline score is a weighted sum of six integrity dimensions assessed by the Ozeaon Climate Intelligence System.

Scientific Rigor20% weight
88
Methods (urchin removal, green-gravel) align with peer-reviewed practice and ecological understanding of kelp recovery; however, the proposal lacks citations to specific trials, quantified success rates, and experimental design details (controls, replication).
Open Science15% weight
72
Monitoring is described (diver + ROV) but there is no explicit plan to publish raw data, protocols, analysis code, or pre-registered methods, limiting reproducibility and re-use.
Measurability (dMRV)20% weight
78
Continuous diver and ROV monitoring provide good data streams for abundance and coverage metrics, but the proposal lacks standardized metrics, baseline/control design, and a transparent carbon accounting protocol tied to accepted blue-carbon methods.
Additionality & Impact15% weight
82
Restoring kelp where canopy was lost yields clear biodiversity and fishery benefits and likely additional carbon uptake relative to barren states; long-term additionality depends on maintenance, addressing drivers (warming, urchin outbreaks), and permanence.
Transparency & Governance15% weight
72
The network model is promising, but the proposal does not specify ownership of sites, funding flows, decision-making bodies, or mechanisms for third-party verification and complaints.
Community & Equity15% weight
80
Project likely supports coastal fishers and local stakeholders and uses local divers, but lacks explicit benefit-sharing agreements, consent documentation, or social safeguard plans.

Strengths

Uses established, field-proven restoration techniques (urchin removal, green-gravel) with demonstrated kelp recovery potential.
Continuous in-field monitoring (diver + ROV) gives strong potential for time-series ecological data.
Network approach increases spatial replication and resilience compared with single-site projects.

Risks & Gaps

Carbon accounting and permanence are under-specified; kelp stores are transient and require clear, conservative methods to quantify sequestration.
No explicit open-data or protocol-sharing commitments; reduces reproducibility and external verification capacity.
Governance, site ownership, long-term funding and maintenance responsibilities are not detailed—creates risk of reversion or greenwashing.

dMRV Recommendation

Tier

Tier 2 — Operational dMRV

Cadence

Monthly in-field observations (diver/ROV) for growth and urchin checks; quarterly aggregated reporting; annual independent verification and public data release.

Recommended

Yes

The project generates frequent digital monitoring data and uses widely accepted restoration methods, so an operational dMRV (Tier 2) is appropriate to quantify ecological outcomes and enable credible carbon/benefit claims. Monthly monitoring captures short-term dynamics (urchin re-infestation, seeding survival); quarterly reporting supports adaptive management; annual independent verification and open-data publication are needed to support transparency, external validation, and any future claims of carbon sequestration.

Baseline and control site mapping using high-resolution satellite/drone orthomosaics and diver transectsRegular ROV and diver video/photo surveys on permanent transects for canopy % cover, density, and associated faunaAutomated image analysis (ML) for canopy extent and percent cover, with human QA/QCUrchin density and herbivory monitoring (standardized quadrats) to link intervention to mechanism

About this project

Generating OCIS summary & integrity report…