![Page 1: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Surveying opinions on REDD+ and
community monitoring
Presented at the CoP20 Side Event:
¨REDD+ monitoring needs to
support the distribution of MRV
and benefit sharing¨
Lima, Peru, December 1 2014
Veronique De Sy ([email protected])
![Page 2: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Content
Introduction
Survey CoP 19 Warsaw
● Survey questions
● Survey conclusions
● Read more
Survey CoP 20 Lima
● Overview questions & results
● Read more - conclusions
● Detailed results per question
Contact
![Page 3: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Introduction
At the UN climate summit in Warsaw (CoP19) policy makers, practitioners and researchers were asked their opinions about some controversial issues of community forest monitoring for REDD+
This was followed up with a new survey before (e-survey) and during the UN climate summit in Lima (CoP20) which polled opinions on community forest monitoring and benefit sharing for REDD+
The results of these surveys highlighted some contentious issues that need to be considered in the design of a national forest monitoring framework, and indicated controversies and philosophical sticking points of REDD+
![Page 4: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Survey CoP 19 Warsaw - Questions
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?
![Page 5: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Survey CoP 19 Warsaw - 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
![Page 6: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Survey CoP 19 Warsaw - 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
● Feasibility of involving communities in safeguards and non-carbon benefits monitoring
![Page 7: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Survey CoP 19 – Read more
nikidesy.org/climate-change-mitigation/dis-agreeing-on-community-monitoring-for-redd/
Community monitoring in Kafa - Ethiopia with smartphone technology
Courtesy of Ben DeVries
![Page 8: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Survey CoP 20 Lima - Overview
![Page 9: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Survey CoP 20 Lima - Read more
Editiorial Special issue Forests
● Special issue topic:“The potential role forcommunity monitoring in MRV and benefit sharingfor REDD+”
● The aim of the Special Issue was to discuss and explore social, technical and political implicationsand the potential for including CB monitoring in national MRV and benefit sharing systems
Blog: Survey highlights REDD+ controversies over community monitoring
![Page 10: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Survey CoP 20 Lima – detailed results
reason for agreeing
reason for disagreeing
![Page 11: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
1. Compensation to individual REDD+ implementers should be based on carbon performance as measured within the national MRV system
![Page 12: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Reasons
• UNFCCC has decided this, and it is necessary for multi-scale consistency, although it may take time to build a good performance based system
• REDD is supposed to be performance based, the financial incentive needs to be strong
• It is transparent
• It ensures additionality
• REDD is not just about carbon.
• Could lead to perverse incentives in forest management, would not reward conservation; needs to include safeguards
• Lack of capacity at national level to measure performance, lack of technical possibilities to measure precisely enough
• Too expensive, corruption; rights are a mess at local level
![Page 13: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
2. Integration of community monitored data with national forest inventory data (including standardized protocols) will decrease the interest of communities in participation in monitoring
![Page 14: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Reasons
• Most communities do not identify with national processes
• Grassroots level do not understand the need
• 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
• Communities understand the importance of monitoring and
participation
• It just needs a way of monitoring that people can do
themselves, even if it follows a protocol
• They will do it if they see forest improving
![Page 15: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
3. Communities should be paid for carrying out carbon monitoring independently of any rewards for carbon performance
![Page 16: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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. It´s a job
• Price of carbon is uncertain but paying for monitoring separately will give a fixed reward
• So much money is going to REDD but little to communities; this is one good way; they may never get paid for carbon anyway
• Will develop a culture of care and observation of forests
• Will alleviate the inequities that result from possession of different forest resources (see proposition 4)
![Page 17: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Reasons
• Communities should not bear the burden of monitoring.
• It would be a wrong incentive to pay them for monitoring, it
should be intrinsic in the management
• Monitoring alone does not secure change. No payments
without performance.
![Page 18: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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
![Page 19: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Reasons
• Forests are about more than carbon
• Not possible to measure carbon sufficiently accurately at local level anyway
• Rewards should be based on activities undertaken not outcomes
• Communities should be rewarded equally, otherwise there would be less incentive to participate
• Enhances civil society
![Page 20: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Reasons
• Competition is good
• Performance based incentives are needed, plus something for conservation
• Community monitoring gives the most accurate results
• Rewards should promote efficiency and performance
• Variations are natural and communities should be rewarded for their land resources, whatever they are
![Page 21: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
5. There is an urgent need to develop national protocols for measurement of REDD+ efforts (inputs), in addition to carbon performance
![Page 22: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Reasons
• Since there is no support for carbon, this is essential
• Need to build feedback mechanisms – before and after
measurements
• Necessary to compensate non carbon achievements
• Necessary for comparison of one area with another. Need clear
guidelines, standardised
• Most funds will require this
• REDD monitoring is already too expensive and complicated
• Too burdensome
![Page 23: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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)
![Page 24: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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
• REDD+ is about more than just carbon, other values need to
be considered
• Local distribution of benefits should not be based on carbon at
all
• Most efficient system
![Page 25: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Reasons
• Other parameters such as biodiversity could be used
• Will be insufficient as an incentive at the local level
• The problem is that there may not be enough money coming
in at national level to distribute horizontal at the local level…
![Page 26: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
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
![Page 27: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Reasons
• Essential to address deforestation and deal with expanding
agriculture, mining etc.
• REDD+ should be multisectoral
• Very difficult to do in practice (how to identify them)
• Not if they are violating the law by deforesting (e.g. Mexico)
• Not at the cost of reducing benefits to communities
• Need two systems: incentives for non-forest drivers and
rewards for forest owners. They should not be ´key´
beneficiaries
• Non forest drivers should get positive incentives
![Page 28: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
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
![Page 29: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Reasons
• If well trained, and with suitable protocols, community data
can be up to highest standards. Has been shown to be
accurate and can improve credibility of national data; the
more ´organised´, the better.
• Will motivate and empower community groups.
• Will permit triangulation of tele-detection data. More points of
measurement, and can include non carbon metrics
• Will be difficult to integrate but we have to work on this
• Local people have the best knowledge of the forest, more in
touch with their surroundings, will be more accurate in data
![Page 30: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Reasons
• Communities (not just NGOs) have to be willing and agree
• Communities may not provide credible data, it depends on the
methodology
• Could be a vested interest in not reporting losses
![Page 31: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
9. The design of benefit sharing mechanisms and associated monitoring should be left to national governments
![Page 32: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Reasons
• Based on national circumstances (i.e. some countries could,
others not)
• Because it touches on national sovereignty
![Page 33: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Reasons
• Communities should have their say in this; international actors
should have a role too. Should be a joint decision of multiple
actors
• Corruption is a risk
• Governments could provide principles but not the detailed
procedure, they should be involved but not the only decision
maker involved
• Experts (international level) are needed to design distribution
system (in consultation)
• Needs some level of outside guidance, and some uniformity.
Options could be made available for governments to choose
from
• Governments may hinder REDD+ rather than promote it
![Page 34: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
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
![Page 35: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Reasons
• REDD will never be able to alleviate poverty
• Better off people will always get the most out of incentives,
whatever the programme; equity should not be the focus,
REDD+ is not designed for that purpose
• Most deforestation is caused not by communities but by
outside forces
• Depends on the strategy used and the local circumstances
• REDD should attempt to address poverty
• Most deforestation is caused by poor people in the community
![Page 36: CoP 20 Survey on REDD+ and community forest monitoring](https://reader031.vdocuments.mx/reader031/viewer/2022030319/58e9737a1a28abd2148b5b39/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Questions?
Contact Prof. Margaret Skutsch
Veronique De Sy