Linking requirements with capabilities for deforestation monitoring in the context of the UNFCCC-REDD process

Abstract

As the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change nears the end of a two-year period of evaluation of the issue of reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries, participating countries have agreed on the need to address this globally important source of greenhouse gas emissions. Negotiations on policy frameworks to monitor and reduce deforestation rely on an understanding of the scientific and technical capacity to support these efforts. Current UNFCCC programs to improve observation of land and forest cover change can provide valuable input to a future policy mechanism focusing on deforestation emissions from developing countries. Countries participating in the current debate have officially referenced the value of remote sensing tools and methods for deforestation monitoring, and have identified specific needs and goals related to their implementation. Based on these identified needs, this paper outlines recommendations for a monitoring framework that can be globally applied with sufficient levels of accuracy and certainty. This framework can serve as a starting point for monitoring programs, and can be modified in response to expected progress in establishing an international policy framework for reducing emissions from deforestation.

Mapping Deforestation and Forest Degradation Patterns in Western Himalaya, Pakistan

“…In addition to being timely and cost effective [18], satellite based monitoring enables a transparent and reliable [19] means to monitor forest cover conditions. Although errors in the interpretation of spectral response and human bias exist [20,21], remote sensing remains to play key role in identifying and estimating deforested and reforested areas [22,23].…”

Recommendations for the use of tree models to estimate national forest biomass and assess their uncertainty

“…The proposed approaches to the use of tree models will have to take the following into consideration: (1) data availability (raw data, metadata, models, and forest inventory data), (2) the biophysical and environmental context, and (3) the human, financial, and technical capabilities (Herold and Johns 2007), i.e., some countries do not have university courses in the field of forestry or do not have funds allocated to ensure data collection, storage, and management. Raw data are needed to allow the validation of the estimates and perform accuracy assessments.…”

The role of forests in climate change mitigation : a discursive-institutional analysis of REDD+ MRV

“…Many researchers Grainger and Obersteiner, 2011;Herold, 2009;Herold and Johns, 2007;Palmer Fry, 2011;Pratihast et al, 2013;Romijn et al, 2012;Skutsch and McCall, 2010) have examined the technical capacity of REDD+ countries to monitor REDD+ impacts. These researchers have concluded that most REDD+ countries not only have low technical capacity but also weak institutional capacity to monitor REDD+ impacts.…”

“…This is so because in most scholarly debates (e.g. Asner et al, 2009;GOFC-GOLD, 2013;Hansen et al, 2013;Hansen et al, 2008;Herold, 2009;Herold and Johns, 2007;Romijn et al, 2012; forest monitoring for REDD+ is considered a highly technical, value-free and apolitical activity. However, building on the work of others Kowler and Larson, 2016;Vijge, 2016;Visseren-Hamakers et al, 2012), this dissertation argues that the concept of forest monitoring, and MRV in particular, is largely political.…”

“…Chapter 4 has been accepted for publication with moderate revision, while Chapter 5 has been submitted for publication to a peer-reviewed journal. Although several studies have examined the capacity of REDD+ countries to measure, report and verify REDD+ impacts (Grainger and Obersteiner, 2011;Herold, 2009;Herold and Johns, 2007;Palmer Fry, 2011;Pratihast et al, 2013;Romijn et al, 2012;Skutsch and McCall, 2010) (3) exercising 'good governance' in MRV.…”