Implementation of IPCC and other carbon
certification guidelines in climate change
mitigation projects: Experiences from 20
subnational initiatives in six countries

Shijo Joseph, Louis Verchot, Martin Herold, William D.
Sunderlin and Christopher Martius
Center for International Forestry Research

IPCC Expert Meeting: Application of 2006 IPCC Guidelines to Other Areas
1-3 July 2014
Sofia, Bulgaria

REDD+ demonstration projects• REDD+ and non‐REDD+ forest carbon projects ‐ 340 sites in 52 countries• Key goal : to implement performance‐based rewards for increments incarbon against the baseline, while also achieving social andenvironmental co‐benefits.

Global Comparative Study on REDD+

MRV assessment
Questionnaire survey, Interview with MRV experts, Field visits, andRegional MRV workshops

Insights on implementing IPCC and other carbon
certification guidelines
2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories :Volume 4 – Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU)
http://www.ipcc‐nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html
2003 IPCC Good Practice Guidance for Land Use, Land‐Use Changeand Forestry (LULUCF)
http://www.ipcc‐nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gpglulucf/gpglulucf.html
are the world’s most authoritative source of methods to estimate
GHG inventories, and provide the methodological basis for thevoluntary carbon markets and the UNFCCC discussions on
methods for REDD+

Insights on implementing IPCC and other C GL
However, it is important to understand !!!
• Scale ‐ is primarily targeted to country level GHG
inventorying.
• Tiers ‐ Strength of Guidelines (i.e, explaining bestpractices, suggesting methods and supplying data)
weakens as it move from Tier 1 to Tier 3.
Tier 1

Tier 2Tier 3

Best practices

Best practices

Best practices

MethodsMethods

Methods

Data

Data

Data

• REDD projects require Tier 3 level analysis

Insights on implementing IPCC and other C GL₋ Whereas VCS provides additional directives on data and methods‐ However:VCS guidance on generating activity data

• Projects are structured
to target on carbon
credits and market. Less
importance inaddressing
deforestation beyond
project boundaries.
• Focus is on carbon, not
GHGs as such.
• Perceived as difficult toattain without
considerable
investment.
Shoch et al. (2011)

REDD proponents capacity and readiness to generate
activity data
CriteriaOverall capacity and readiness
2 (10%)

Availability of med. resolution RS data

5 (25%)

Availability of high resolution RS data

7 (35%)

Access to other higher end Aerial, SARand LiDAR data

6 (30%)HighMedium

Availability of ancillary GIS layers
Availability of RS & GIS softwares

Very HighLow

Region‐wise capacity and readiness
100%

Use of higher end classification andchange detection techniques
In‐house expertise for implementation

80%

32360%
40%

34220%
0%111Latin America

AfricaSouth East Asia

Observations ‐ activity data
• Landsat is the primary carrier for developing activity data inprojects.
• The availability of Landsat time series data varied with respect
to regions; High in Latin America, Medium in Southeast Asia,and Low in Africa.
• About half of the proponents had high‐resolution (>10 m)
satellite data.
• Majority of organizations (70%) showed good in‐house expertiseand used advanced techniques for generating activity data.

Emission Factors
IPCC GL• Five carbon pools and non‐CO2 greenhouse gases• Key category analysis is key

VCS GL• Relevant carbon pools• Methodologies mostly focused on AGB;
scarce data and methods on other C‐
pools and non‐CO2 GHGs.
• Site specific EF.

• Default factors for Tiers 1 & 2. • Permanent or temporary sampling units• Recommends mix ofpermanent and temporary
sampling units for monitoring

Shoch et al. (2011)

REDD proponents capacity and readiness to generate
emission factors
Overall capacity and readiness

Criteria

2 (10%)

Availability of allometric equations

7 (35%)
6 (30%)

Availability of carbon fraction
coefficients
Availability of other emission factor
datasets
Monitoring with respect to five carbon
poolsSampling scheme and methods

Very HighMedium

Region‐wise capacity and readiness

Low

100%
90%

1280%
70%

240%

3230%
20%
10%

1260%
50%

In‐house expertise for implementation

High5 (25%)

322Latin America

Africa0%South East Asia

Observations – emission factors• A few projects only monitor all five carbon pools• None of the projects inventoried N2O or CH4• About half of the projects had site‐specific allometric equations• Carbon fraction coefficients, biomass expansion factor and root‐shoot ratio were limitedly available for most sites.
• None of the projects used the mix of permanent and temporary
sampling units for monitoring additionality.

Reference emission level and Monitoring
IPCC GL• Not mentioned about REL• Best practices for monitoring(time series consistency,reporting, quality assurance,quality control andverification)

VCS GL• Methods are available for REL.
Uncertainty in the estimates remains
as an issue.

• Monitoring guidance are also provided.
Shoch et al. (2011)

REDD proponents capacity and readiness for REL andMonitoringCriteria

Overall capacity and readiness

Methods used for baseline estimate
6 (30%)

Understanding on the proximate driversof deforestation

9 (45%)

Very High

REDD+ intervention plans on proximate
drivers

5 (25%)HighMedium
Low

Understanding on the underlying driversof deforestation

Region‐wise capacity and readiness
100%
190%

REDD+ intervention plans on underlying
drivers

80%
70%
60%

32550%

140%

Long term monitoring plans to evaluate
the REDD+ interventions

30%
20%
10%

3

3

20%
Latin America

AfricaSouth East Asia

Observations – REL and Monitoring• None of the projects showed ‘very high’ readiness for REL andmonitoring.
• A few organizations had well‐defined strategy to slow and halt
proximate causes of deforestation.
• In most cases, the underlying causes of deforestation originate
outside the project boundary; intervention plans are beyond theproponent’s capacity.
• A few projects only showed reasonable monitoring plans, while
the rest had loosely defined monitoring plans or no plan at all.

Overall Synthesis
The future of REDD still unknown!
• slowness in international REDD+ policy
formulation• the unclear path of development of theforest carbon market• architectural issue of nesting ofprojects to larger jurisdictions• institutionalization of REDD within thecountry context• ambiguity in methodological guidelines(eg: REL, monitoring degradation etc.)• tenure and land right issues

Key questions• Do we need to have additional methodological guidelines
pertaining to REDD? If yes, how it should be the structured?
• Even if we recommend IPCC guidelines, capacity remains a key
issue. How to overcome?
• Is it the time for developing new guidelines? (1996 ‐2006 ‐2016??) by incorporating advances with the method
development on activity data, emission factor, monitoring andso on?
• Get ready for the 2020 implementation of climate agreement!.
How to develop an Integrated Monitoring and Reporting
framework applicable across scales (projects, subnational
jurisdictions, national and international)?

Methodological Guidelines ‐ Challenges andopportunities
With respect to best practices, data and methods, REDD still needto addresses many unresolved questions:• Key category analysis is key – Forest degradation, timber
logging, fuel wood collection are some key categories ofemission (key drivers) at the projects. Similarly regrowth andforest enhancements drives emission removal or sinking. Bestpractices are yet to be developed on addressing thesesources and sinks.
• Uncertainty and error management ‐ As we move up in
higher Tiers the complexity and uncertainty keep rising.
Additional guidelines on error management and uncertainty
reduction with demonstrated examples could be addressedby revising the existing guidelines.

Challenges and opportunities• Reference Emission Levels ‐ REDD differ from national GHG
inventories as they need to assess a reference emission level,
which has all of the problems associated with trying to quantifya counterfactual case (BAU deforestation or forest degradation).
REDD+ programs also need to assess net avoided emissions andenhanced sinks against a net reference level that includes sinks
and sources.
• Permanence and leakage ‐ REDD activities also need to address
issues of permanence and leakage.
• Jurisdictional counting ‐ Reporting of emission reduction
assessments need to be consistent with national GHG
inventories. Omission, double counting, and overlapping claimsof carbon rights need to be addressed.

Towards an integrated monitoring and reporting framework
in support of 2020 climate agreement implementation
IPCC / UNFCCC ‐SBSTABest practices
guidelines

UNFCCC reportingand evaluation

National nodal
agencyMethod review
and approval

National reporting ‐emission reduction

Provincial nodal
agencyDataassimilation

Province registry onprojects & estimates

Project Proponents
and carbon verifiers

Datageneration

Project levelemission reduction

Advancing the science and technology: multi‐scalemonitoring – CIFOR experience
RapidEyesatellite tasking

Airborne LIDAR
Unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAV)/Drones
Terrestrial LIDAR (TLS)

In‐situ monitoring
LIDAR
Biomass fieldmeasurementConclusion and recommendation
As the global community targets to have consensus on
climate agreement by 2015 and the corresponding
implementation by 2020, the lessons from CIFOR’s phase 1and Phase 2 REDD+ activities show that additional guidanceon applying the IPCC 2006 guidelines to areas other thannational

scale

inventories

wouldgreatlyfacilitate

implementation of emission abatement programs aimed atslowing, halting and reversing land use related emissions.

Further readings
Joseph, S., M. Herold, W. D. Sunderlin and L. V. Verchot (2013). "REDD+ readiness: early
insights on monitoring, reporting and verification systems of project developers."
Environmental Research Letters 8(3): 034038.
Joseph, S., M. Herold, W. Sunderlin and L. Verchot (2013). "Challenges in operationalizing
remote sensing in climate change mitigation projects in developing countries."
Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IGARSS), 2013 IEEE International: 2752 –2755.
Estrada, M. and S. Joseph (2012). Baselines and monitoring in local REDD+ projects.
Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices. Bogor, Indonesia, Center for International
Forestry Research (CIFOR): 247‐260.

Acknowledgement
Part of a larger initiative, the Global Comparative Study on REDD+, undertaken by theCenter for International Forestry Research with funding support from: