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+.
This work is licensed under CC-BY 4.0
Download:
This work is licensed under CC-BY 4.0
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3390/f5071596Altmetric score:
Dimensions Citation Count:
Export citation:
RIS (.ris)
TI - Options for a national framework for benefit distribution and their relation to community-based and national REDD+ monitoring
AU - Skutsch, M.
AU - Turnhout, E.
AU - Vijge, M.J.
AU - Herold, M.
AU - Wits, T.
AU - Besten, J.W. den
AU - Torres, A. B.
AB - 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+.
PY - 2014
UR - https://www.cifor-icraf.org/knowledge/publication/5176/
DO - https://doi.org/10.3390/f5071596
KW - community-based forest management, distribution, monitoring, redd+
ER -Endnote (.ciw)
%T Options for a national framework for benefit distribution and their relation to community-based and national REDD+ monitoring
%A Skutsch, M.
%A Turnhout, E.
%A Vijge, M.J.
%A Herold, M.
%A Wits, T.
%A Besten, J.W. den
%A Torres, A. B.
%D 2014
%U https://www.cifor-icraf.org/knowledge/publication/5176/
%R https://doi.org/10.3390/f5071596
%X 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+.
%K community-based forest management
%K distribution
%K monitoring
%K redd+
Publication year
2014
ISSN
1999-4907
Authors
Skutsch, M.; Turnhout, E.; Vijge, M.J.; Herold, M.; Wits, T.; Besten, J.W. den; Torres, A. B.
Language
English
Keywords
community-based forest management, distribution, monitoring, redd+
Source
Forests. 5(7): 1596-1617
