Evaluating the performance of REDD-plus projects atthe national level
Ehara Makoto (Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute(FFPRI))

Session 2

Evaluating the performance of REDD-plus projects at the national level
Ehara Makoto (Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute (FFPRI))
Contents

Negotiations for the implementation of rules from Article 6 of the Paris Agreement have been slower thanexpected, so many may be frustrated, but this will be decided and resolved in the not so distant future.

Undersuch circumstances, private sector players already participating in REDD+ and those who are planning toparticipate in REDD+ will find the project-level activities evaluated by host country governments, and willcertainly hope their projects will be evaluated in an appropriate manner, especially when project outcomes will
be reported to UNFCCC.

The question here is how we can ensure good performance evaluation.

Today, as

FFPRI, we would like to propose solutions to make sure the evaluation is done correctly.

This is the agenda of my presentation today.

Performance can be interpreted as emission reduction or

the effort level to reduce emission.

How can we make sure the performance is evaluated in a right manner?

I believe there are four requirements.

In order to meet those four requirements, I have two sets of proposals

to make.

One is to allocate a national level reference level to lower level projects.

135

The second is Cookbook

Session 2
Annex Vol. 71.
Basic idea of REDD+

This is the background.

As you might already know, the basic idea of REDD+ is based on the predictionof deforestation and forest degradation of forest without REDD.
in the unit of carbon tons of GHG emissions per year.
actual emissions level after REDD+ for evaluation.

This reference level will then be compared to theUNFCCC will receive this reference level from the hostcountry, and the actual result will be compared to that.
based on that, incentives will be paid.

This will be converted to a reference level

The outcome or the results will be determined, andThat is why results-based payments have come up often.

Briggs mentioned that 12 countries have already come up with outcomes or results.
submitting their results.

Dr. Buszko-They are in the stage ofTo make these results-based payments work, other than reference levels, we have tohave safeguards to be regarded as part of the evaluation, but baseline is the reduction that is compared withthe reference level.
What is an appropriate evaluation of performance?

1

http://redd.ffpri.affrc.go.jp/pub_db/publications/cookbook_annex/_img/cookbook_annex_vol7_ja.pdf

136Evaluating the performance of REDD-plus projects atthe national level
Ehara Makoto (Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute(FFPRI))

Session 2

In order to evaluate the performance of REDD+ projects, when the outcome or credit is allocated, we
have to make sure the evaluation is done correctly.

How can we define a good evaluation?

To answer that,

I would like to define two elements of the evaluation, accuracy and propriety.
Accuracy evaluation can be understood as avoiding double counting.

Accuracy, as was mentioned in caseof forest carbon monitoring, includes the accurate measurement of carbon stock and evaluations of carbon
monitoring.

Propriety evaluation can be understood as correctly evaluating contribution.

The reduction

efforts of the REDD+ project should be understood in terms of how much it contributes to the national levelcontribution of emissions reduction.

The Paris Agreement clearly states the need to avoid double counting, meaning that in a specific period orarea, multiple entities such as REDD+ project proponents and REDD+ implementing countries use the same
reduction unit.

In other words, a single entity uses a unit twice.

137

Session 2

I would like to explain this in more detail with this diagram.

First, the national level evaluation is in thescope of evaluation, and as you can see, according to the REDD concept, we have sub-national level emissions
that compose the national level emissions reduction.

Sub-national level is often referred to as jurisdiction,and each country decides its definition, the discussion still continues on, but the sub-national emissions
reduction is made up of reductions contributed by specific projects.

Sometimes those projects do not exist,

but because there are forest areas, on a sub-national level, emissions reduction efforts must be done and theeffort contribution reported as part of national level emissions reduction.

If these impacts of REDD can becompared to your own REDD+ project, when you are able to reduce emissions, it will be converted to a credit,
which can then be transferred to your country.

On the other hand, at the same time, the host country may

count that same credit and report it as their own.

This is double counting.

With regards to contribution evaluation or propriety of emissions reduction evaluation, when there is ahigher level project and lower level projects existing at the same time, common accounting propriety can be anissue.

There are two big ones.

One has to do with the propriety of emissions reduction evaluation if acommon calculation approach is applied.

For example, as an implementer of REDD+, can it be justified tocalculate the amount of emissions reduction for a project that is already ongoing?

138

Evaluating the performance of REDD-plus projects atthe national level
Ehara Makoto (Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute(FFPRI))

Session 2

However, the yellow part of the program or the sub-national level has come up.

When you are running

your own project, you know how much emissions were reduced and you have already calculated the reductionof emissions.

Later on, there may be this sub-national level program introduced, and this may eventually

include your project and your project credit calculation may need to be adjusted.

As a result, your emissions

reduction may seem much less and you may run a risk of losing profits.

Secondly, in terms of the propriety of project contribution evaluation, if you have your own project andyour project had more effort than another project in a neighboring region, the payment may be exactly thesame when the national benefits are allocated. However, it is possible that the allocation amount will be thesame as that of the neighboring project that made relatively little effort.
Four requirements to ensure an appropriate evaluation

139

Session 2In order to overcome these issues, the FFPRI REDD Research and Development Center surveyed theREDD+ implementing countries and private sector participants about appropriate evaluation of the projectand requirements.

I have listed four requirements to ensure appropriate evaluation.

The first requirement is appropriate methodology.

For example, a REDD+ reference level methodology

like the Verified Carbon Standard2 (VCS) of the private sector.

UNFCCC reference levels need to be link

together with REDD+ reference levels for consistency.
The second requirement is the need to provide input to the governments of REDD+ implementingcountries.

In many of the developing countries, only a handful of people representing the government are in

charge of REDD+ projects.

Therefore, they often do not understand exactly how a specific projectcontributes to emissions reduction. It is necessary to regularly report and promote activities that contributeindirectly to emission reduction efforts, such as poverty reduction and livelihood improvement.
The third requirement is other non-emission benefits.

Indirect contributions such as technical transfer,livelihood improvement, and poverty alleviation also need to be accounted for.
methodologies need to be developed.

Appropriate benefit-sharing

A whole series of relevant activities need to be reflected in accounting.

In the morning, Dr. Dieterle of ITTO talked about the theory of change.
set firmly and referred to, as we examine the actual results.

The theory of change needs to be

It can be utilized to develop the methodology forbenefit sharing.
The fourth requirement is human resources.
JICA experts often are also involved.

When Japanese players are involved in REDD+ projects,

They are available in the field, so JICA’s connection is effectively utilized.

It is important to have appropriate human expertise available for the smooth operation of REDD+ projects.
In order to meet all of these four requirements, FFPRI proposes two major solutions.
Two proposed solutions to meet all four requirements
1. Development of a methodology to allocate national reference levels to lower levelprojects

2

https://verra.org/project/vcs-program/140Evaluating the performance of REDD-plus projects atthe national level
Ehara Makoto (Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute(FFPRI))

Session 2

The first solution is to try to develop methodology to allocate national reference levels to lower levelprojects.

The reference levels of countries can possibly be allocated to lower level projects in advance, even

before the results of national reference levels are determined.

How much emissions reduction efforts will berequired for each project can be clarified, and it is easier to avoid double counting. In fact, we have introduced
our research to the Kingdom of Cambodia, a research target country, and we are now considering such anapproach.

This diagram shows the reference level of the previous emissions reduction but configured differently.
The thinking is the same.

The national reference levels are divided by sub-national projects.

determining the allocation rate will be critical.

141

As you can see,

Session 2

In case of Cambodia, currently nothing has been decided for the sub-national level, but we have five lowerlevel projects.

Reference levels will be allocated directly to the five projects.

This is the most important slide and I would like to take my time to explain it.

The basic concept of theallocations for the national reference level projects can be explained with this diagram.
reference level times the allocation rate of the reference level of the country.
first line, this is the current forest area.

The FRL is the project

For example, if you look at theWe are going to allocate that to this area based on current forest area.

The allocation ratio can be calculated, and this will be multiplied with the reference level of the country.

It

could be based on carbon stock for a change of forest area or it could be the variation of carbon stock.
In terms of consistency, we have to consider the consistency with the concept of national reference levels.
In terms of consistency, number four, the allocation based on past forest carbon stock variation, would be thebest.

The reference level of Cambodia for the past nine years is based on the forest carbon stock change.

Itis calculated based on analyses of carbon stocks of different forest types and forest area changes from 20062014, so it is perhaps the most consistent.
other methodology, is less feasible.

However, allocation based on carbon stock change, compared toThe cost tends to be higher.

First of all, the national government shouldcollect current and historical carbon stock data and activity data of the entire country.

Unless this is available,choosing number four will result in a high level of inaccuracy of allocation percentage.
The second issue is that when reference levels are determined, a reference period needs to be set.

142

Evaluating the performance of REDD-plus projects atthe national level
Ehara Makoto (Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute(FFPRI))

Session 2

Considering that from the perspective of feasibility, the easiest way is to use forest area, but it simply requiresa snapshot data of foreign cover.

In regions where there is huge forest cover, this is advantageous.

In otherwords, other countries may suffer disadvantages using this forest cover data, so there is a risk of evaluating
emissions reduction efforts excessively, or underrate their efforts.
Finally, these four methods have only looked at the past and present, so depending on the project, the risk
may be different.

Considering the different natures of risk is also required to ensure propriety of evaluation.

We came up with this deforestation risk map.
risk from then.

This is most recently from 2014, so it shows deforestation

It is divided by five projects, but the red area tends to have a high risk of deforestation.

Depending on the higher risk area, we can apply weighting to the allocation percentage to be more realistic.

Although weighting is not applied now, this is the result of the calculation with the weighting included.
The ideal reference level that the project considers, the business-as-usual scenario, and the reference level that
we assign appropriately, the allocation results tend to be different when they are allocated based on the variance.
I do not have time to explain why the results are different, so if you are interested, please come to me during
the coffee break or I can maybe explain more during the Q&A session.
2. Cookbook Annex Vol. 7

143Session 2

The second solution to meet the four requirements is Cookbook Annex Vol. 7.
next floor or you can download it from our website later.

You can see it on thePlease take a look at it if you have time.

to ensure appropriate evaluation, we need to satisfy four requirements that I explained.

In orderThis is a support

guidance for you to meet those requirements.

In terms of procedures and timing of Japanese private company to talk with stakeholders, depending onwhether donor international organization or other assistant organizations are involved or not, they arerecommended to come up with multiple scenarios.
well.

They should create a checklist based on each scenario as

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) are the scheme

assistants available to the host nation or not, and we have three scenarios available.

For each scenario, private

sector participants can build their project and follow the procedures that they should follow.
use this flowchart.

144

They can simply

Evaluating the performance of REDD-plus projects atthe national level
Ehara Makoto (Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute(FFPRI))

This is an example of the flowchart of Scenario A.

Session 2

As a checklist, it can be checked for every step.

Theprivate sectors that belong to different industries, who should do what and when, what are the caveats, what
are the requirements, and the recommendations are listed here.

This can also function as safeguard checklist

as well.
Summary

For the private sector to have their efforts evaluated appropriately, we have to ensure propriety and accuracy,
as well as avoid double counting and have their contribution evaluated.

The first solution is to have an

allocation of the national reference level, and the second solution is the use of the Cookbook Annex Vol. 7,
and to make use of the checklist that is available for you to have your project evaluated correctly.

145