Forests Sourcebook - HCV Resource Network

Discussions and proposals on how to set a reference level
have centered around identifying rates of deforestation or
land conversion (historical hectares per year deforested) by
looking at several years of deforestation data (most likely
interpreted from satellite images). The deforestation rates
would then be translated into a greenhouse gas emissions
rate (a reference level). New annual “rates of deforestation”
would be compared against the reference level. A reduction
in the rate of deforestation would, therefore, also translate
into a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, which might
then make the government or entity responsible for getting
emissions reduced eligible for financial compensation.
Countries interested in REDD will need to, among other
things, identify a baseline for carbon emissions and a rate of
forest-cover change. While specific guidance will become
available on determining baselines for forest cover and carbon
emissions, a country will clearly need to be able to set a
target that is based on a reduction from a certain reference
level and quantify how much reduction in deforestation
actually occurred if the government is to get credits. Historical
data and projected deforestation rates will be important
for determining baselines. Appropriately set baselines help
ensure that REDD initiatives are capturing and covering the
costs associated with reduced emissions but not creating
perverse incentives.
National and international reporting obligations.
Countries are obliged to report information related to their
forest sectors to a variety of international and regional conventions,
agreements, and bodies (Braatz 2002). There are
10 international instruments in force relevant to forests. 1
Parties to each of these instruments are asked to report on
measures taken to implement their commitments under
the instrument. In most cases, reporting consists of qualitative
information on activities and means of implementation
(for example, policy, legislative, or institutional measures).
In a few cases, reporting also includes quantitative
biophysical and socioeconomic data on forest resources or
resource use. These reports, and associated efforts to monitor
and assess status and trends in forest resources and progress
in meeting international commitments, help orient national
and international policy deliberations (Braatz 2002).
Accurate and consistent forest information at the global
scale is still needed, specifically information on how much
forest is lost annually and from where. The lack of such
information is partly because previous efforts depended on
inconsistent definitions of forest cover and used methodologies
that could not readily be replicated or were very
expensive and time consuming (see box 7.5).
The concern regarding national reporting burdens has
been acknowledged in international forums for forest dialogue.
Since 2000, various efforts have attempted to harmonize
national reporting on biological diversity (specifically
for CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity), CITES (Convention
on International Traded in Endangered Species),
CMS (Convention on Migratory Species), the Ramsar Convention,
and WHC (World Heritage Convention). In April
2002, CBD, by Decision VI/22, adopted the expanded work
program on forest biological diversity, which included as one
of its activities to “seek ways of streamlining reporting
between the different forest-related processes, in order to
improve the understanding of forest quality change and
improve consistency in reporting on sustainable forest management
(SFM)” (Conference of the Parties [COP] Decision
VI/22). These efforts all require reaching a common understanding
of forest-related concepts, terms, and definitions.
Monitoring framework design. What is being monitored,
how the information will be used and by whom, and
the sustainability of a monitoring system should all inform
its design. Monitoring systems should be designed to be
flexible and able to respond to a dynamic context, which can
change the scope and objective of monitoring. The monitoring
system design must consider the end user and sustainability
of the system. Engagement of end users in the
design and implementation of the system increases their
confidence in the system and ensures its utility.
Measurement framework. A measurement framework is
helpful in designing the monitoring system. A measurement
framework should have goals, criteria (the desirable endpoints),
indicators for each criteria (how well each criteria is
being fulfilled), and approaches (qualitative or quantitative)
for measuring the indicators. The goals and desired outcomes
should guide identification of specific indicators. In
systems that integrate conservation and production, a hierarchy
of goals can be established. Some may be broad, universal
goals and others may be more specific (yet have some
universal applicability).
When choosing a framework, various alternatives that
have been tested and implemented should be considered, as
should new ones. Ideally, preference should be given to the
framework already in use in the country, for example, the
Criteria and Indicators framework used by the nine regional
Criteria and Indicators processes (including the Ministerial
Conference on Protection of Forests in Europe), the Driver-
Pressure-State-Impact-Response model, or the Services
Model framework implemented by Millennium Ecosystem
252 CHAPTER 7: MONITORING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS FOR FOREST MANAGEMENT