Surveying opinions on REDD+ and

community monitoring

CoP 20 side event

Veronique De Sy

Survey CoP 19

Can we trust community monitored data?

Should the data be used as a basis for financial benefits?

Can community monitored data be integrated into the national forest monitoring system?

Are new digital technologies a panacea or a pain-in-the-neck?

Should communities be involved in safeguards and non-carbon benefits monitoring?

Conclusions

Respondents generally agreed that:

● Community monitored data can be sufficiently accurate

● Successful engagement of communities in carbon monitoring is possible if their own interests are embedded

● New technologies should be supported

● Communities should be involved in safeguards and non-carbon benefits monitoring

Conclusions

However, there was some debate about:

● Whether reported carbon impacts can be trusted and taken at face value

● Whether community monitoring of carbon performance can form the basis for financial rewards for REDD+

● Whether the data can be integrated into national forest monitoring systems

● Feasability of involving communities in safeguards and non-carbon benefits monitoring

Follow up: CoP 20 survey

1. Compensation to individual REDD+ implementers should be based

on carbon performance as measured within the national MRV system

2. Integration of community monitored data with national forest

inventory data (including standardized protocols) will decrease the

interest of communities in participation in monitoring

3. Communities should be paid for carrying out carbon monitoring

independently of any rewards for carbon performance

4. Rewards should not be based on monitored carbon

performance because this would result in inequalities as a

result of large regional and other variations in physical

potential of forest areas

5. There is an urgent need to develop national protocols for

measurement of REDD+ efforts (inputs), in addition to

carbon performance

6. A dual system for distribution of benefits is needed, with vertical

distribution based on carbon performance and a horizontal

distribution system (among local participants) based on other

metrics, such as REDD+ efforts (inputs)

7. Key non-forest sectors and actors that drive deforestation

and forest degradation (e.g. agriculture, mining) should be

key beneficiaries of REDD+ if they reduce pressure on forests

8. Community-based carbon (and other) measurements will strengthen

national forest databases and national MRV systems, allowing more

credible claims to international carbon funds/markets

9. The design of benefit sharing mechanisms and associated monitoring

should be left to national governments

10.REDD+ will be ineffective and inefficient in alleviating

poverty since at local level most forest loss is caused by

community members who are better-off and not by the poor

Thank you!

Survey 2014:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/REDDplus2

Read more: nikidesy.org/climate-change-mitigation/dis-agreeing-on-community-monitoring-for-redd/

Survey 2014 results

CoP 20 side event

Veronique De Sy

1. Compensation to individual REDD+ implementers should be

based on carbon performance as measured within the national

MRV system

Reasons

+ UNFCCC has decided this

+ REDD is supposed to be performance based.

+It ensures additionality

- REDD is not just about carbon.

- Could lead to perverse incentives in forest management, needs to include safeguards

- Lack of capacity at national level to measure performance,

- too expensive, corruption

2. Integration of community monitored data with national forest

inventory data (including standardized protocols) will decrease

the interest of communities in participation in monitoring

Reasons

+Most communities do not identify with national processes

- Communities are very willing to participate in MRV, as long as protocols recognize local knowledge.

- Monitoring will increase community participation in REDD and their interest

3. Communities should be paid for carrying out carbon

monitoring independently of any rewards for carbon

performance

Reasons

+ Because carbon performance may be impacted by outsiders; it may not be the community´s fault if the project fails

+Monitoring takes time and should be compensated.

+Price of carbon is uncertain but paying for monitoring separately will give a fixed reward

- Communities should not bear the burden of monitoring.

- It would be a wrong incentive to pay them for monitoring

6. A dual system for distribution of benefits is needed, with vertical

distribution based on carbon performance and a horizontal distribution

system based on other metrics, such as REDD+ efforts (inputs)

Reasons

+Best way because difficult to assess individual carbon performance at local level

+Will stimulate benefit distribution to one and all.

+Will ensure payments reach areas that are not high performing in REDD terms

- Other parameters such as biodiversity could be used

- Will be insufficient as an incentive at the local level

8. Community-based carbon (and other) measurements will strengthen

national forest databases and national MRV systems, allowing more

credible claims to international carbon funds/markets

Reasons

+If well trained, and with suitable protocols, community data can be up to highest standards.

+Will motivate and empower community groups.

+Will permit triangulation of teledetection data. More points of measurement, and can include non carbon metrics

- Communities (not just NGOs) have to be willing and agree

9. The design of benefit sharing mechanisms and associated

monitoring should be left to national governments

Reasons

- Communities should have their say in this; international actors should have a role too.

- Corruption is a risk.

- Governments could provide principles but not the detailed procedure