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 (niki.desy@wur.nl)

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

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+

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?

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

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

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

Survey CoP 20 Lima - Overview

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

Survey CoP 20 Lima – detailed results

reason for agreeing

reason for disagreeing

1. Compensation to individual REDD+ implementers should be based on carbon performance as measured within the national MRV system

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

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

• 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

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. 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)

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.

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

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

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

5. There is an urgent need to develop national protocols for measurement of REDD+ efforts (inputs), in addition to carbon performance

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

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

• 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

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…

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

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

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. 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

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

9. The design of benefit sharing mechanisms and associated monitoring should be left to national governments

Reasons

• Based on national circumstances (i.e. some countries could,

others not)

• Because it touches on national sovereignty

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

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

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

Questions?

Contact Prof. Margaret Skutsch

mskutsch@ciga.unam.mx

Veronique De Sy

niki.desy@wur.nl