Finance vs. Verification?: Key issues in REDD+ verification


Published on

Dr Michael Dutschke gave this presentation in Bonn, Germany on 5 June 2013 at an event organized by CIFOR titled ‘REDD+ performance and verification: Insights from CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study (GCS) on REDD+’. This was an official side event to the 2013 Bonn Climate Change Conference.

Published in: Education, Technology, Design
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Finance vs. Verification?: Key issues in REDD+ verification

  1. 1. bioCarbon.netFinance vs.Verification?Key issues in REDD+ verificationMichael DutschkeSBSTA 38, CIFOR Side Event: REDD+ performance and verification: someinsights from CIFOR’s global comparative studyBonn, 5 June 2013
  2. 2. bioCarbon.netThe Doha impasse
  3. 3. bioCarbon.netAims and scope• 1. What are the key issues in theverification discussion in the UNFCCC?• 2. Who are the key actors and what aretheir motivations on the issues?• 3. What are the options for resolving theissues?
  4. 4. bioCarbon.netFinancing• REDD+ is not linked to a particular financemechanism• With REDD+ being part of their NAMAs,developing countries claim an adequateand predictable flow of funds (UNFCCC4(1))• REDD+ funding shall be “new andadditional”• States report REDD+ finance as ODA
  5. 5. bioCarbon.netFinancing• Many bi-/multilateral agencies withspecific rules & criteria• No long-term finance committed• Voluntary REDD+ activities: Hightransaction costs, low demand volume,uncertain insertion into future REDD+agreement
  6. 6. bioCarbon.netReporting dutiesType of reporting Frequency VerificationNationally AppropriateMitigation Commitments orActions (AI)IAR - InternationalAssessment andReviewNational AppropriateMitigation Actions (non-A)ICA - InternationalConsultation & AnalysisNational Communication(all Parties)4 years (all Parties)GHG Inventory Report Annual (AI)Biennial Progress Reporton progress in achievingemission reductions2 years (AI)Biannual Update Report 2 years (all Parties)
  7. 7. bioCarbon.netFinancing & Verification• Reporting duties are split between Annex Iand non-Annex countries• Diverging procedures for processing countryreports (IAR/ICA)• REDD+ activities are mainly ODA funded• REDD+ verification recalls aid conditionality• Why should REDD+ fulfill higher verificationrequirements than other NAMAs?
  8. 8. bioCarbon.netPhased approach• Phase I: REDD+ readiness building• Phase II: Results-based demonstrationactivities• Phase III: Results-based actionsIn Cancún, all Parties agreed onVERIFICATION for Phase III
  9. 9. bioCarbon.netBilateral verification• In bilateral REDD+, including UN-REDD and FCPF programs,verification is standard• In voluntary REDD+, verification isstandard procedure (VCS)• Donors are interested in aid orinvestment effectiveness
  10. 10. bioCarbon.netWhat are we talking about?• Verification as discussed in theGuidelines for REDD+– only relates to UNFCCC programs,like the Green Climate Fund– only in Phase III
  11. 11. bioCarbon.netMain actorsNorway• Representingmost developedcountry PartiesBrazil• RepresentingG77 & China
  12. 12. bioCarbon.netIntervening issues• Annex I discontent with ICA• Non-Annex discontent about long-termperspective of REDD+ policies• Non-Annex concern about increased NAMAaccountability resulting from the REDD+debate• Different opinions on REDD+ fundingprinciples (market-linked or strictly non-market)• Underlying differentiation between advancedand less-developed non-Annex countries
  13. 13. bioCarbon.netREDD+ accounting details• Forest definitions for REDD+• Attribution and accounting betweennational and subnational REDD+• Measurement uncertainties• Reference levels (trend-based / modeled /variable-adjusted)• Double-counting / REDD+ Registries
  14. 14. bioCarbon.netREDD+ accounting risksRisk ResponseInconsistency between nationalinventories and REDD+ reportingNational-level REDD+ verificationtakes into consideration NC or BUPDouble counting at national level undera nested approachClear national benefit sharing in placeInsufficient measurement capacities Offer incentives for moving to a higherIPCC tier levelRL is overstated Offer incentives to perform a voluntaryUNFCCC technical assessmentEffects of activity overstated Stringent ICA reviewsDouble counting at global level Centralized REDD+ registryManipulated reporting Establish a process as stringent as theIAR for Annex I countries or introducea separate REDD+ verification process
  15. 15. bioCarbon.netSolutionsFirst-best• ICA for developingcountries as stringent asIAR for Annex-Icountries• Building up capacitiesfor reviewers andreportersSecond-best• Avoid conflicting terms“review” and“verification”• REDD+ EffectivenessAssessment• REA carried out by– FCCC Roster of Experts– Peers– Third parties– Optional approach
  16. 16. bioCarbon.netResume• REDD+ is becoming an ODA mechanism• Verification is a generally agreed procedure forresults-based action• Bilateral activities are ruled by contractual lawanyway, including MRV procedures• Verification rules are only needed for UNFCCCmultilateral funding (GCF) in Phase III• Environmental integrity goes beyond verification• Room for provisional, experimental rules• REDD+ Effectiveness Assessment as a bridge• In the absence of clear procedures, there will befurther fragmentation of REDD+ finance
  17. 17. bioCarbon.netThank you for your