Dr Michael Dutschke gave this presentation in Bonn, Germany on 5 June 2013 at an event organized by CIFOR titled ‘REDD+ performance and verification: Insights from CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study (GCS) on REDD+’. This was an official side event to the 2013 Bonn Climate Change Conference.

1. bioCarbon.net
Finance vs.
Verification?
Key issues in REDD+ verification
Michael Dutschke
SBSTA 38, CIFOR Side Event: REDD+ performance and verification: some
insights from CIFOR’s global comparative study
Bonn, 5 June 2013

2. bioCarbon.net
The Doha impasse

3. bioCarbon.net
Aims and scope
• 1. What are the key issues in the
verification discussion in the UNFCCC?
• 2. Who are the key actors and what are
their motivations on the issues?
• 3. What are the options for resolving the
issues?

4. bioCarbon.net
Financing
• REDD+ is not linked to a particular finance
mechanism
• With REDD+ being part of their NAMAs,
developing countries claim an adequate
and predictable flow of funds (UNFCCC
4(1))
• REDD+ funding shall be “new and
additional”
• States report REDD+ finance as ODA

5. bioCarbon.net
Financing
• Many bi-/multilateral agencies with
specific rules & criteria
• No long-term finance committed
• Voluntary REDD+ activities: High
transaction costs, low demand volume,
uncertain insertion into future REDD+
agreement

6. bioCarbon.net
Reporting duties
Type of reporting Frequency Verification
Nationally Appropriate
Mitigation Commitments or
Actions (AI)
IAR - International
Assessment and
Review
National Appropriate
Mitigation Actions (non-A)
ICA - International
Consultation & Analysis
National Communication
(all Parties)
4 years (all Parties)
GHG Inventory Report Annual (AI)
Biennial Progress Report
on progress in achieving
emission reductions
2 years (AI)
Biannual Update Report 2 years (all Parties)

7. bioCarbon.net
Financing & Verification
• Reporting duties are split between Annex I
and non-Annex countries
• Diverging procedures for processing country
reports (IAR/ICA)
• REDD+ activities are mainly ODA funded
• REDD+ verification recalls aid conditionality
• Why should REDD+ fulfill higher verification
requirements than other NAMAs?

8. bioCarbon.net
Phased approach
• Phase I: REDD+ readiness building
• Phase II: Results-based demonstration
activities
• Phase III: Results-based actions
In Cancún, all Parties agreed on
VERIFICATION for Phase III

9. bioCarbon.net
Bilateral verification
• In bilateral REDD+, including UN-
REDD and FCPF programs,
verification is standard
• In voluntary REDD+, verification is
standard procedure (VCS)
• Donors are interested in aid or
investment effectiveness

10. bioCarbon.net
What are we talking about?
• Verification as discussed in the
Guidelines for REDD+
– only relates to UNFCCC programs,
like the Green Climate Fund
– only in Phase III

11. bioCarbon.net
Main actors
Norway
• Representing
most developed
country Parties
Brazil
• Representing
G77 & China

12. bioCarbon.net
Intervening issues
• Annex I discontent with ICA
• Non-Annex discontent about long-term
perspective of REDD+ policies
• Non-Annex concern about increased NAMA
accountability resulting from the REDD+
debate
• Different opinions on REDD+ funding
principles (market-linked or strictly non-
market)
• Underlying differentiation between advanced
and less-developed non-Annex countries

13. bioCarbon.net
REDD+ accounting details
• Forest definitions for REDD+
• Attribution and accounting between
national and subnational REDD+
• Measurement uncertainties
• Reference levels (trend-based / modeled /
variable-adjusted)
• Double-counting / REDD+ Registries

14. bioCarbon.net
REDD+ accounting risks
Risk Response
Inconsistency between national
inventories and REDD+ reporting
National-level REDD+ verification
takes into consideration NC or BUP
Double counting at national level under
a nested approach
Clear national benefit sharing in place
Insufficient measurement capacities Offer incentives for moving to a higher
IPCC tier level
RL is overstated Offer incentives to perform a voluntary
UNFCCC technical assessment
Effects of activity overstated Stringent ICA reviews
Double counting at global level Centralized REDD+ registry
Manipulated reporting Establish a process as stringent as the
IAR for Annex I countries or introduce
a separate REDD+ verification process

15. bioCarbon.net
Solutions
First-best
• ICA for developing
countries as stringent as
IAR for Annex-I
countries
• Building up capacities
for reviewers and
reporters
Second-best
• Avoid conflicting terms
“review” and
“verification”
• REDD+ Effectiveness
Assessment
• REA carried out by
– FCCC Roster of Experts
– Peers
– Third parties
– Optional approach

16. bioCarbon.net
Resume
• REDD+ is becoming an ODA mechanism
• Verification is a generally agreed procedure for
results-based action
• Bilateral activities are ruled by contractual law
anyway, including MRV procedures
• Verification rules are only needed for UNFCCC
multilateral funding (GCF) in Phase III
• Environmental integrity goes beyond verification
• Room for provisional, experimental rules
• REDD+ Effectiveness Assessment as a bridge
• In the absence of clear procedures, there will be
further fragmentation of REDD+ finance

17. bioCarbon.net
Thank you for your attention
Michael@biocarbon.net