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 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+.
Highlights
International debate on the design of an international policy for Reducing Emissions fromDeforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) has been going on since 2003
As countries move from the basic capacity development phase into Phase 2 of REDD+ and start to envisage how performance-based activities could be built into national programmes, several important questions arise relating to community based monitoring (CBM), benefit sharing and how the related data will tie into national REDD+ data systems
We have argued that a transparent, legitimate and easy to understand benefit distribution system will be essential to the success of REDD+ as countries move into Phase 2 and start to implement activities at the local level, initially on a pilot scale but with a view to fully-fledged performance-based REDD+ in the near future
Summary
International debate on the design of an international policy for Reducing Emissions from. Which sell their carbon credits on the Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM) are rewarded in this way; their funds are, as might be expected, directly related to their carbon performance In those where credits are issued for reductions in deforestation (rather than for tree planting and other forest enhancement activities, which have different characteristics in terms of accounting [18]) the internal distribution of benefits among the project participants (say, between the members of participating communities at the local level) is not generally carried out according to individual performance [19,20]. Payments may be higher in areas with important ecological characteristics (“graded flat rates”), and may be restricted to areas which are genuinely under threat of deforestation This input-based system of distribution of benefits relies on calculation of overall carbon achievements of a large area (state or national level), the financial value of which form the basis of the fund to be distributed. Experience indicates that the suppliers of the environmental service prefer fixed payments [31]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
