This presentation, by Veronique De Sy, was given at a side event of COP20 on 1 December, 2014. The event, titled, "REDD+ Monitoring Needs to Support the Distribution of Benefits," discussed the evolving needs for monitoring to address national needs related to REDD+ implementation and benefit sharing.

1. Surveying opinions on REDD+ and
community monitoring
CoP 20 side event
Veronique De Sy

2. Survey CoP 19
 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?

3. 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

4. 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
● Feasability of involving communities in safeguards
and non-carbon benefits monitoring

5. Follow up: CoP 20 survey
1. Compensation to individual REDD+ implementers should be based
on carbon performance as measured within the national MRV system
2. Integration of community monitored data with national forest
inventory data (including standardized protocols) will decrease the
interest of communities in participation in monitoring
3. Communities should be paid for carrying out carbon monitoring
independently of any rewards for carbon 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
5. There is an urgent need to develop national protocols for
measurement of REDD+ efforts (inputs), in addition to
carbon performance

6. 6. A dual system for distribution of benefits is needed, with vertical
distribution based on carbon performance and a horizontal
distribution system (among local participants) based on other
metrics, such as REDD+ efforts (inputs)
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
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
9. The design of benefit sharing mechanisms and associated monitoring
should be left to national governments
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

7. Thank you!
Survey 2014:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/REDDplus2
Read more:
nikidesy.org/climate-change-
mitigation/dis-agreeing-on-
community-monitoring-for-
redd/

8. Survey 2014 results
CoP 20 side event
Veronique De Sy

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

10. Reasons
+ UNFCCC has decided this
+ REDD is supposed to be performance based.
+It ensures additionality
- REDD is not just about carbon.
- Could lead to perverse incentives in forest management,
needs to include safeguards
- Lack of capacity at national level to measure
performance,
- too expensive, corruption

11. 2. Integration of community monitored data with national forest
inventory data (including standardized protocols) will decrease
the interest of communities in participation in monitoring

12. Reasons
+Most communities do not identify with national
processes
- 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

13. 3. Communities should be paid for carrying out carbon
monitoring independently of any rewards for carbon
performance

14. 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.
+Price of carbon is uncertain but paying for monitoring
separately will give a fixed reward
- Communities should not bear the burden of monitoring.
- It would be a wrong incentive to pay them for
monitoring

15. 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)

16. 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
- Other parameters such as biodiversity could be used
- Will be insufficient as an incentive at the local level

17. 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

18. Reasons
+If well trained, and with suitable protocols, community
data can be up to highest standards.
+Will motivate and empower community groups.
+Will permit triangulation of teledetection data. More
points of measurement, and can include non carbon
metrics
- Communities (not just NGOs) have to be willing and
agree

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

20. Reasons
- Communities should have their say in this; international
actors should have a role too.
- Corruption is a risk.
- Governments could provide principles but not the
detailed procedure