Challenges of Scaling for FREL/FRL and Monitoring:
Case Study of Several Countries
Kei Suzuki (Japan Forest Technology Association)

Session 2

Challenges of Scaling for FREL/FRL and Monitoring: Case Study of Several Countries
Kei Suzuki (Japan Forest Technology Association)

My presentation is comprised of two elements.
treated going forward towards 2020 and beyond.

The first part is in how reference levels will beThe second part is the role of REDD within theINDC process and how reference levels are going to be monitored and utilized.

I will be focusing on

monitoring in the second part of my presentation using several cases from various countries.
Submission Status of FREL/FRL

This shows the status FREL submissions.

There are only a few countries from Africa that havesubmitted FREL, but you can see that the submissions are ongoing.

165

Session 2

This is one recent example from Vietnam.

They have submitted their reference levels.

They

have used the data that JICA has provided support to compile. Removals and emissions have been
separated and adjustment made.

In the case of Vietnam, this data was created at the national level.

Future Challenges on FREL/FRL

This chart shows the future pat of reference levels past 2020.

Some countries that havesubmitted at the national level are going to scale down to the sub-national level in the future. On theother hand, those countries that have submitted at the project or sub-national level will have to scale
up to the national level.

Another important point is that the reference level itself is also going toimproved and will also be monitored.

Based on the step-wise approach, there will be scaling activities

going on past 2020.

166

Challenges of Scaling for FREL/FRL and Monitoring:
Case Study of Several Countries
Kei Suzuki (Japan Forest Technology Association)

Session 2

FREL/FRL under Different Scales

I will offer an example of what is happening with scaling.
This is an example from Vietnam that I am involved in.
already provided by Naomi in the previous presentation.
already been completed in Vietnam.
level has been developed.

There are three reference levels that have

One is in a province in the northwestern part where a reference

These were made for the purpose of the provincial REDD action plan.

The second is the reference levels for central six provinces.
that I just talked about.

The answer to the problem here wasThe third is the national reference levels

Three reference levels have already been developed in Vietnam.

Of course, they have different boundaries, so the results and form of the reference levels show
different trends.

How are they going to make adjustments among the three and how are they goingto distribute the benefits?

That will be a challenge. For example, the methodology for the national

level is from 1995, while the FCPF methodology dates from the year is 2000, so methodologies are
already different between the regional and national levels.

Looking at the numbers, reference levels at the national scale are shown at the top.

However, if

you look at the regional level, absorption is shown by the bars above the zero line and you can see thatthe regional trends differ from the national trend.

How are we going to make adjustments and how

are we going to make distinctions between the benefits?

167

One answer was provided already by Naomi.

Session 2Monitoring and Revision of FREL/FRL

The second point I would like to talk about is monitoring.
they would have to be improved in the future.

Once reference levels are submitted,

At a certain point in time the reference levels will bemonitored, which will then lead to results-based payments.

However, we can anticipate somechallenges in doing so.
First of all, what kind of reference level monitoring will be conducted?

As for the improvementof reference levels, you could increase the number of time points, increase its geographical size, andcreate an additional field inventory.
If this happens, it is an issue of how we are going to handle different scales when we first go into
an area and start our activities.

Taking the case of the maps from Vietnam, some are created locallywhile others are national, so are we going to use the same maps or are we going to use a differentmaps?

How is it going to be aligned with the national inventory?

This is something that has to beconsidered from a technical viewpoint.
What are the measures that are being taken?

Let me use some case studies from a few countries.

The Case of Indonesia

168Challenges of Scaling for FREL/FRL and Monitoring:
Case Study of Several Countries
Kei Suzuki (Japan Forest Technology Association)

Session 2

This shows the JICA REDD project in Indonesia, but it is not officially authorized and is just adraft.
If you take a look at this chart, you can see that you can divide the scales into national, province,district, and project levels.

Moving vertically, you see how maps are handled as well as emission

factors that cover aboveground available biomass in base units.
can be treated nationally and sub-nationally is an issue.

How those two different sets of data

In Indonesia there is the ‘one map policy’,

which is an idea that a consistent map should be made at a 50,000:1 scale for the entire country, which
will then become a common platform.
inventory is being done.

In addition, regarding field surveys, the national forest

However, at the regional level there are efforts being made to improveaccuracy, so supplementary measures are required to maintain the consistency of methodologies.
The Case of Vietnam

Next is the case of Vietnam.
The horizontal axis is time and the vertical axis is scale showing national, provincial level, district,and local levels.

In order to have uniform maps, in the center they will be revising the map every five

years at the national level.

For lower levels, annual revisions are done.

The residents and the forest

managers are in charge of revising the map on a local level every year so that national level can berevised every five years, but this is still a concept. However, this is just at the planning phase and has

169Session 2
not yet been implemented.

By doing so, data consistency can be maintained and monitoringenhanced.
This chart shows what happens at the regional level in Vietnam.

I said that revisions at thenational level in Vietnam every five years and regional level every year, so below the province level,
maps are renewed every year.
include forest rangers.

How will the data be collected?

Key players at the regional level

They have tablet PCs and they collaborate with the local residents to reporton changes in the forests.

This data is then submitted to the provincial level.

This system has

already been implemented, and through JICA’s support it is going to be expanded throughout thecountry.
The Case of India

Finally, let me show you the case of India.
The survey is currently underway.
Forest Survey of India 1.
data.

In the case of India, central data is handled entirely by theAt the regional level they have the forest service and foresters collecting

However, central data and regional data do not match quite yet.

enhance the collaboration between the regional and national levels.

1

http://fsi.nic.in/

170

Therefore, there is a need toChallenges of Scaling for FREL/FRL and Monitoring:
Case Study of Several Countries
Kei Suzuki (Japan Forest Technology Association)

Session 2Conclusions

When creating reference levels, you have to find a methodology that allows for different
frameworks and scales.

One solution was included in Naomi’s presentation earlier.

develop the reference level, you have to monitor and revise it.

Also, once you

Beyond 2020 those efforts would haveto be implemented.

In doing so, the regional and national levels would have to be linked effectively

and be monitored.

Unless you consider that linkage, reference level improvement and monitoring

will not be possible.

When you work on the ground, you have to always bear in the mind theconnection between national and regional levels.

171