Moving from Measuring, Reporting, Verification (MRV) of Forest Carbon to Community Mapping, Measuring, Monitoring (MMM): Perspectives from Mexico.

There have been many calls for community participation in MRV (measuring, reporting, verification) for REDD+. This paper examines whether community involvement in MRV is a requirement, why it appears desirable to REDD+ agencies and external actors, and under what conditions communities might be interested in participating. It asks What's in it for communities? What might communities gain from such an involvement? What could they lose? It embraces a broader approach which we call community MMM which involves mapping, measuring and monitoring of forest and other natural resources for issues which are of interest to the community itself. We focus on cases in México because the country has an unusually high proportion of forests under community communal ownership. In particular, we refer to a recent REDD+ initiative-CONAFOR-LAIF, in which local communities select and approve local people to participate in community-based monitoring activities. From these local initiatives we identify the specific and the general drivers for communities to be involved in mapping, measuring and monitoring of their own territories and their natural resources. We present evidence that communities are more interested in this wider approach than in a narrow focus on carbon monitoring. Finally we review what the challenges to reconciling MMM with MRV requirements are likely to be.

Dealing with locally-driven degradation: A quick start option under REDD+.

The paper reviews a number of challenges associated with reducing degradation and its related emissions through national approaches to REDD+ under UNFCCC policy. It proposes that in many countries, it may in the short run be easier to deal with the kinds of degradation that result from locally driven community over-exploitation of forest for livelihoods, than from selective logging or fire control. Such degradation is low-level, but chronic, and is experienced over very large forest areas. Community forest management programmes tend to result not only in reduced degradation, but also in forest enhancement; moreover they are often popular, and do not require major political shifts. In principle these approaches therefore offer a quick start option for REDD+. Developing reference emissions levels for low-level locally driven degradation is difficult however given that stock losses and gains are too small to be identified and measured using remote sensing, and that in most countries there is little or no forest inventory data available. We therefore propose that forest management initiatives at the local level, such as those promoted by community forest management programmes, should monitor, and be credited for, only the net increase in carbon stock over the implementation period, as assessed by ground level surveys at the start and end of the period. This would also resolve the problem of nesting (ensuring that all credits are accounted for against the national reference emission level), since communities and others at the local level would be rewarded only for increased sequestration, while the national reference emission level would deal only with reductions in emissions from deforestation and degradation.

Options for monitoring and estimating historical carbon emissions from forest degradation in the context of REDD+.

Measuring forest degradation and related forest carbon stock changes is more challenging than measuring deforestation since degradation implies changes in the structure of the forest and does not entail a change in land use, making it less easily detectable through remote sensing. Although we anticipate the use of the IPCC guidance under the United Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), there is no one single method for monitoring forest degradation for the case of REDD+ policy. In this review paper we highlight that the choice depends upon a number of factors including the type of degradation, available historical data, capacities and resources, and the potentials and limitations of various measurement and monitoring approaches. Current degradation rates can be measured through field data (i.e. multi-date national forest inventories and permanent sample plot data, commercial forestry data sets, proxy data from domestic markets) and/or remote sensing data (i.e. direct mapping of canopy and forest structural changes or indirect mapping through modelling approaches), with the combination of techniques providing the best options. Developing countries frequently lack consistent historical field data for assessing past forest degradation, and so must rely more on remote sensing approaches mixed with current field assessments of carbon stock changes. Historical degradation estimates will have larger uncertainties as it will be difficult to determine their accuracy. However improving monitoring capacities for systematic forest degradation estimates today will help reduce uncertainties even for historical estimates.