Uncertainty [MGD Sections]

UNFCCC decisions and requirements
IPCC good practice guidance
Relationship to UNFCCC
GHGI coverage, approaches, methods and tiers
Design decisions relevant to national forest monitoring systems
Land cover, land use and stratification
Forest reference emission levels and forest reference levels
Quality assurance and quality control
Guiding principles – Requirements and design decisions
Estimation methods for REDD+ activities
Integration frameworks for estimating emission and removals
Selecting an integration framework
Activity data x emission/removal factor tools
Fully integrated tools
Practical considerations in choosing an integration tool
Guiding principles – Methods and approaches
Remote sensing observations
Coarse resolution optical data
Medium resolution optical data
High resolution optical data
L-band Synthetic aperture radar
C-band and X-band SAR
Global forest cover change datasets
Ground-based observations
National forest inventories
Auxiliary data
Guiding principles – Remote sensing and ground-based observations
Activity data
Methods for estimating activity data
Maps of forest/non-forest, land use, or forest stratification
Detecting areas of change
Additional map products from remote sensing
Estimating uncertainty of area and change in area
Estimating total emissions/removals and its uncertainty
REDD+ requirements and procedures
Reporting forest reference emission levels and forest reference levels
Technical assessment of forest reference emission levels and forest reference levels
Reporting results of REDD+ activities
Technical analysis of the REDD+ annex to the BUR
Additional advice on REDD+ reporting and verification
Guiding Principles – Reporting and verification of emissions and removals
Financial considerations
Country examples – Tier 3 integration
Use of global forest change map data
Relative efficiencies
Developing and using allometric models to estimate biomass

Record Keeping [MGD Sections]

Integration + Estimation [MGD Sections]

Ground Based Observations [MGD Sections]

1.3   Measurement, reporting and verification processes Previous topic Parent topic Child topic Next topic

MRV functions that require effective and documented institutional arrangements can be clustered into seven key stages (Figure 1). The corresponding processes apply to the preparation of FREL/FRL submissions as well as to the preparation of data and information for the REDD+ Annex to BURs.
In an effective NFMS these MRV processes are built on an in-depth design phase (Chapter 2) taking into consideration national and international reporting requirements (Chapter 6) and their periodic nature. These processes should be considered programmatic; learning from strengths and weaknesses identified as MRV experience accumulates in a continuous improvement process.
Figure 1: MRV functions requiring effective and documented institutional arrangements
Successful implementation of these processes requires recruitment and retention of qualified staff, and sufficient established positions. Sustaining sufficient human resource capacity is long-term and should have a base in national institutes, organisations and academic establishments. One-off or periodic training initiatives can be helpful but their long-term benefit is likely to depend on having a sustained basis. There should be sufficient funding to help to minimize staff turnover and for training of staff (including students and young professionals) at national, subnational and sectoral levels.
Documented decisions on scope, long term management approaches (Box 3) and desired outcomes assist in effective MRV budget setting, system operation and continuous improvement.

Box 3: Measurement, reporting and verification management options

Centralized vs. decentralized: The country's lead agency may maintain most control and decision-making authority. A centralized approach will probably include relatively few other institutions. By contrast a decentralized approach may include many different teams and/or institutions. Countries with a large administration and various institutions with relevant expertise are more likely to use the decentralized approach. In this case, the lead agency will have an essential coordinating role to ensure that consistency between methodological decisions made by different teams and/or institutions involved.
In-sourced vs. out-sourced: Government agencies and employees may prepare most, or all, of the REDD+ estimates, thus in-sourcing the process. Alternatively, the government may out-source the work to consultants, research organisations, academic institutions, or NGOs. Out-sourcing can be useful depending on the availability of in-sourced expertise, but has risks because out-sourced expertise may not be well integrated with government processes, may not continue to be available, and may give conflicting advice. To be useful outsourced expertise should be coupled with development of capacity of NFMS agencies with the aim of maintaining consistency and sustainability over time, particularly in respect of managing out-sourced resources whilst in-source capabilities are being developed.
Single agency vs. multi-agency: The lead agency may be housed within a single government agency, or the country's lead body may be composed of a multi-agency working group, committee, or other structure. Multi-agency structure requires clear delineation of roles and responsibilities to ensure that there is a clear line of reporting and decision-making on REDD+ estimation. Although the multi-agency approach may have some relative advantages in regard to plurality in the decision-making process, in practice it is usually best if one agency has the overall coordinating role to avoid conflicts.
Integrated vs. separate: The country's REDD+ estimation may be integrated with other related efforts (e.g., reducing threats to biodiversity, water management and avoiding soil erosion) to ensure the best use of resources and utilize available expertise.
Hewson, J.,M.K. Steininger & S. Pesmajoglou. (Eds.) (2014). REDD+ Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) Manual, Version 2.0. Opens in new window USAID supported Forest Carbon, Markets and Communities Program. Washington, DC, USA.