SESSION 8: How do we implement a reporting and verification scheme for results-based finance
Channel: CD REDD
Date: 13/02/2014

Presentation: Thelma Krug, Brazil - What was decided on reporting and verification in Warsaw?
Presentation: Kiyoto Tanabe, IPCC - The potential role of the IPCC guidelines in verification of results-based REDD+
Presentation: Zoltán Somogyi - Some experiences from the CD-REDD review process
Panel Discussion

All presentations available at http://cdredd.org/content/reporting-conference

Thelma Krug, Head of the International Cooperation Office, National Institute for Space Research, presented a detailed overview on decisions made on reporting and verification in Warsaw (Refer to detailed citations directly in the presentation). During COP19 seven important decisions were taken, which was exiting after many COPs without agreements. She highlighted the decision on modalities for MRV and guidelines and procedures for reference levels. The decision states that the REL/RL should be consistent with the national GHG inventory. The achievement in Warsaw was the agreement on technical guidelines for these processes.

Kiyoto Tanabe, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Consultative Group of Experts, speaks about the potential role of IPCC guidelines in verification of results-based REDD+. His presentation outlined how the IPCC guidelines can help to meet the mentioned requirements. First guidelines were developed in 1995, now the most recent version is from 2006. The guidelines help inventory compilers to produce a high quality National GHG Inventory. They present 6 principles for quality, i.e. transparency, comparability, consistency, completeness and accuracy (TCCCA criteria). Developing countries are encouraged to use the most recent guidance and guidelines adopted by the COP and parties are requested to establish National Forest Monitoring Systems that provide estimates in line with the TCCCA criteria. Using the guidelines helps to achieve these requirements. The guidelines play a key role in the results-based REDD+ process to ensure TCCCA and reducing uncertainties in estimations of forest-related GHG emissions and removals. IPCC guidelines may also be useful in taking a step-wise approach.

Zoltán Somogyi, encouraged the countries to be as accurate as possible with their inventory efforts, on providing and using more/better national data, and on making good use of the review process. Accuracy is very important in the ongoing discussions. One should only consider measurements that are independently checked to secure the accuracy which can be named a "Review". In that sense, the CD-REDD review assists countries, simulate independent quality assurance. Zoltán mentioned some important findings of the CD-REDD review; in most cases few national data sources were available, therefore country-specific data should be improved, more communication within and between the countries is needed with all institutions involved. Archiving is highly necessary -- all data and their sources used should be made available for a time to always allow a recalculation of estimations. Domestic quality checks are important and can improve the inventory, too. Among the most important findings of the review is the effort and motivation of the inventory teams.

Panel Discussion
The panel discussion was moderated by Jagdish Kishwan (Wildlife Trust of India) with panelists Akintayo Adedoyin (Deputy Director, Focal Point NFRA, Botswana), Robert Bamfo (UN-REDD Focal Point, Ghana), Thelma Krug (Head of the International Cooperation Office, National Institute for Space Research [INPE], Brazil), Eduardo Reyes (Senior Advisor, CfRN), Zoltán Somogyi, Kiyoto Tanabe (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Consultative Group of Experts). Questions of the panel discussions and some notable answers are reported below.
1/ Which are the most important aspects to focus on within the framework of REDD+ which can enable the countries to receive results-based payments on time? Which was the most important decision at COP Warsaw on REDD+?
The problem is ambiguity of definitions. The access to data and the question of to whom the data belongs and how to include the data in the national GHG inventory system have to be addressed. The drivers of deforestation have to be identified. All seven decisions taken in Warsaw are very important. But for implementation and improvement countries need technical and financial support.