Options for a National Framework for Benefit Distribution and Their Relation to Community-Based and National REDD+ Monitoring

Abstract

Abstract:Monitoring is a central element in the implementation of national REDD+ and may be essential in providing the data needed to support benefit distribution. We discuss the options for benefit sharing systems in terms of technical feasibility and political acceptability in respect of equity considerations, and the kind of data that would be needed for the different options. We contrast output-based distribution systems, in which rewards are distributed according to performance measured in terms of carbon impacts, with input-based systems in which performance is measured in term of compliance with prescribed REDD+ activities. Output-based systems, which would require regular community OPEN ACCESSForests 2014, 5 1597 carbon inventories to produce Tier 3 data locally, face various challenges particularly for the case of assessing avoided deforestation, and they may not be perceived as equitable. Input-based systems would require data on activities undertaken rather than change in stocks; this information could come from community-acquired data. We also consider how community monitored data could support national forest monitoring systems and the further development of national REDD+.

Framing national REDD+ benefits, monitoring, governance and finance: A comparative analysis of seven countries

“…Some literature, however, suggests that technical aspects of MRV systems dominate national REDD+ policy developments, which inhibits local participation, even in countries with a long history of community-based forestry such as Nepal Paudel and Karki, 2014;Astuti and McGregor, 2015). Additionally, plans to involve local communities in REDD+ monitoring do not necessarily translate into an operationalization of community-based monitoring in national REDD+ MRV systems Skutsch et al, 2014;Paudel et al, 2013;Ojha et al, 2013;Pham et al, 2012). Though some countries have experience with community-based monitoring, this has not been nested effectively within national level MRV systems in any one country (Pratihast et al, 2013).…”

Towards integrated monitoring of REDD+

“…Advances in the development of systems for forest carbon monitoring elucidate the difficulties of linking local activities to carbon outcomes and including them in a seamless structure of reporting across levels [9]. Despite much financial and institutional investment and progress, a number of issues are still not fully overcome, from technical (e.g.…”

Special Issue: The Potential Role for Community Monitoring in MRV and in Benefit Sharing in REDD+

“…The informational burden of input based schemes is lighter; moreover, in these schemes local actors can provide supplementary data to national systems regarding the success of the implementation of different activities and policies. Skutsch et al [8] present a "dual" proposal where, firstly, reduced emissions could be assessed using data from national systems at regional level (i.e., Tier 2, following IPCC methods) to evaluate the effect of activities promoted via input based schemes. The second component of the system could use output based approaches to promote forest management and conservation where compensation could be based on the carbon stocks and enhancements measured at local level; this data can later feed into national systems to improve the estimates to produce regional and national information with lower levels of uncertainty.…”

“…The final article of this Special Issue discusses the data requirements of national monitoring systems for different benefit sharing schemes and potential role of CBM. Skutsch et al [8] evaluate the technical, political and equity implications of two types of benefit sharing schemes: Firstly, output based systems focused on the evaluation of carbon performance; and secondly, input based schemes where financing and compensation relate to the costs of implementing specific activities. The authors indicate that output based systems imply higher transaction costs since they require more information and with smaller uncertainty, and they require the development of local reference levels and a strong verification system since incentives for actors depend on the data reported and thus there could be an incentive to overestimate the figures.…”