Transparent monitoring for climate and development goals (Hannes Böttcher)
1. www.oeko.de
From Independent to Transparent Monitoring for
Climate and Development
Building Trust and Consensus
around Greenhouse Gas Data
for Increased Accountability
of Mitigation in the Land Use Sector
Hannes Böttcher (Oeko-Institut)
Martin Herold, Erika Romijn, Rosa Maria Roman (WUR)
Steffen Fritz, Dmitry Schepaschenko (IIASA)
Christopher Martius, and David Gaveau (CIFOR)
Bonn, December 19, 2017
Funded by:
European Commission DG CLIMA,
Service Request
N° CLIMA.A.2/ETU/2014/0008
2. 2
www.oeko.de
Background
• Many activities and initiatives to improve emission factors and area
estimates at national and international levels (e.g. Global Forest Watch)
• Increased demand for independent land use monitoring information:
• National decision makers seeking to implement REDD+/LULUCF
• NGOs/local communities seeking to validate local activities
• Practitioners developing or improving AFOLU monitoring systems
• REDD+ donors and investors seeking tor reduce their risk
-> Politics of numbers!
-> Users’ perspective is often: more numbers = more confusion
• Project by European Commission DG CLIMA, Dec 2014 – Mar 2017: How
can independent monitoring build trust and consensus around GHG data?
Transparent monitoring│Böttcher et al.│Global Landscapes Forum│Bonn, December 19, 2017
3. 3
www.oeko.de
Definition of Independent Monitoring
And reported challenges
… authoritative, objective sources of information that are unbiased and
independent from national/industry interest, that are free and open and can
increase transparency and participation.
Transparent monitoring│Böttcher et al.│Global Landscapes Forum│Bonn, December 19, 2017
• Technical constraints
• Difficulties regarding data use and interpretation
• Issues of access and capacities
• Lack of awareness and capacities to use
Lack of
data
Data incon-
sistency
Low data
quality
Data
conflicts
Missing docu-
mentation
User confusion
about numbers
Unchecked self-
monitoring
Lack of
access
Lack of
interpretation
capacity
Lack of
participationLack of data
comparability
4. 4
www.oeko.de
Interest in data related to non GHG topics
Transparent monitoring│Böttcher et al.│Global Landscapes Forum│Bonn, December 19, 2017
Govern-
mental
N=141
Local
stakehol-
ders N=10
NGO’s N=91 Companies
N=48
Research
N=163
Other
N=44
Ecosystem
services
43.3% 50.0% 61.5% 52.1% 44.2% 63.6%
Natural
disturbances
36.9% 30.0% 34.1% 29.2% 28.8% 36.4%
Livelihoods
29.8% 60.0% 45.1% 20.8% 28.8% 47.7%
Agricultural
crop
productivity
28.4% 30.0% 41.8% 29.2% 33.1% 34.1%
Land tenure
28.4% 40.0% 38.5% 41.7% 30.7% 47.7%
Economic
data
24.8% 20.0% 48.4% 41.7% 20.9% 52.3%
Courtesy: Erika Romijn, WUR
5. 5
www.oeko.de
Many tools are available…
Examples
Transparent monitoring│Böttcher et al.│Global Landscapes Forum│Bonn, December 19, 2017
http://www.geo-wiki.org
Geo-Wiki for visualization,
crowdsourcing, validation
Online Atlas of deforestation for
documenting company activities
over four decades
http://www.cifor.org/map/atlas/
6. 6
www.oeko.de
Comparison of numbers is still a challenge for users!
Examples
Areas of agreement and
disagreement when comparing
three subnational datasets
Courtesy: Christopher Martius, CIFOR
Transparent monitoring│Böttcher et al.│Global Landscapes Forum│Bonn, December 19, 2017
Country level
agreement for different
sources of AFOLU
emissions
“Hotspot analysis”
Roman-Cuesta et al. 2016
7. 7
www.oeko.de
Key elements of independent monitoring
1: Transparency and clarity
2: Accuracy and uncertainty
3: Consistency and completeness
4: Comparability and interoperability
5: Complementarity and scale
6: Reproducibility and adaptability
7: Access and distribution
8: Participation and equity
9: Responsibility and accountability
Derived from stakeholder
survey, case studies and
literature
Ideally there should be no
negative effects on key
elements (trade-offs are
unavoidable, e.g. lower
accuracy for increased
comparability and
interoperability)
Transparent monitoring│Böttcher et al.│Global Landscapes Forum│Bonn, December 19, 2017
8. 8
www.oeko.de
Bubbles: influence on
monitoring
Arrows: positive
feedbacks (size =
impact of feedback)
From independent to transparent monitoring
Priorities for action
Own compilation with http://www.consideo.com/imodeler24.html
Transparent monitoring│Böttcher et al.│Global Landscapes Forum│Bonn, December 19, 2017
9. 9
www.oeko.de
Recommendations
To data and information providers
● Provide transparent data, incl. original data sources
● Definitions, methodologies and assumptions clearly described to facilitate
replication and assessment
● Include accuracy assessments and uncertainties
● Methods for data production publicly available and preferably published in
peer-reviewed papers
● Data systems require regular update of data and consistent estimates over
time; including long-term sustainability of production
● Institutional background of data producer needs to be visible and
understood by all stakeholders involved
Transparent monitoring│Böttcher et al.│Global Landscapes Forum│Bonn, December 19, 2017
10. 10
www.oeko.de
Recommendations
To government agencies, national inventory experts and reviewers
● Countries need to be aware of limitations of global datasets to avoid
misuse or misinterpretation, especially for open and ready-to-use data and
tools for independent monitoring
● Countries should build and maintain institutional capacity capable of
using independent monitoring approaches
● Data and tools and related documentation used in producing GHG
inventory should become open source as much as possible
Transparent monitoring│Böttcher et al.│Global Landscapes Forum│Bonn, December 19, 2017
11. 11
www.oeko.de
General conclusions from the project
● Independent information on GHG emissions from land use activities gets
more and more important and user needs are diverse (despite some
universal needs: e.g. open access and accuracy assessments)
● Independent monitoring can build trust. Trust can be built only slowly and
by presenting practical examples and increasing transparency of processes
how to get from data to information and decision making in general
● Increasing transparency requires consideration of all identified key
elements of independent monitoring, but priorities need be set for specific
stakeholders
● Important co-benefits with other SDGs provide opportunities for
decreasing costs and broadening participation
Transparent monitoring│Böttcher et al.│Global Landscapes Forum│Bonn, December 19, 2017
12. 12
www.oeko.de
Transparent monitoring│Böttcher et al.│Global Landscapes Forum│Bonn, December 19, 2017
Thank you!
Dr. Hannes Böttcher
Oeko-Institut e.V.
Office Berlin
Schicklerstraße 5-7
10179 Berlin
phone:+49 30 405085-389
email: h.boettcher@oeko.de
• Study to be published as EC Report
in early 2018
• Leaflets available at the door
The project was carried out for the European
Commission. However, this presentation reflects the
views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot
be held responsible for any use which may be made of
the information contained therein.
13. 13
www.oeko.de
Project references
● Sy, V. de; et al. (2016). Enhancing transparency in the land-use sector: Exploring the role of
independent monitoring approaches: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
● Schepaschenko D.G. et al. (2015) Estimation of Forest Area and its Dynamics in Russia Based on
Synthesis of Remote Sensing Products. Contemporary Problems of Ecology, 8(7): 811–817.
● Gaveau, D.et al. (2016). Rapid conversions and avoided deforestation: examining four decades of
industrial plantation expansion in Borneo. Scientific reports, 6, p.32017. doi:10.1038/srep32017.
● Roman-Cuesta, R et al. (2016). Multi-gas and multi-source comparisons of six land use emission
datasets and AFOLU estimates in the Fifth Assessment Report, for the tropics for 2000–2005.
Biogeosciences, 13(20), pp. 5799–5819. doi:10.5194/bg-13-5799-2016.
● Roman-Cuesta, R. et al. (2016). Hotspots of gross emissions from the land use sector: Patterns,
uncertainties, and leading emission sources for the period 2000–2005 in the tropics.
Biogeosciences, 13(14), pp. 4253–4269. doi:10.5194/bg-13-4253-2016.
● Romijn, E.; et al. (in prep.) Independent monitoring of GHG emissions from the land use sector –
What do stakeholders need and think? To be submitted to Environmental Science and Policy
Transparent monitoring│Böttcher et al.│Global Landscapes Forum│Bonn, December 19, 2017
Hinweis der Redaktion
Influence model and interdependencies of elements
Basic modelling was applied for analysing the relationship between the elements and challenges identified above. The results propose a prioritisation of independent monitoring approaches. We used interactive software (iMODELER provided by consideo) to build, based on expert knowledge, an exploratory, qualitative influence model.
The resulting model consists of a matrix of links of how these elements and challenges are causally linked to each other. The model explores the relative influence of these many overlapping linkages to generate a so-called “insight matrix” that provides an insight into the relative importance of each of the model elements, based on the number and nature of the linkages (e.g. if these are including positively or negatively reinforcing feedback loops).
When using the “influence matrix” (not shown), Transparency and Clarity (Element 1), Comparability and Interoperability (Element 4) and Consistency and Completeness (Element 3) – one social and two technical factors - show remarkable constancy as the foremost influence factors for effective IM approaches on the short run (timeline not specified), while on the long run, Accuracy and Uncertainty (Element 2), one of the technical factors, is losing importance to the more social factor Access and distribution (Element 5). This shows that focusing on the technical aspects of monitoring alone will not provide a complete problem understanding and could lead to failure in implementing IM approaches.
The comparison of influences of the various elements towards the overall goal of accountability of mitigation actions emphasizes that Element 1, Transparency and Clarity, is central in many aspects and heavily influences many of the others elements as well as being influenced strongly by them (see Figure). This is leading us to conclude that transparency and clarity are in many ways essential for independent monitoring. Independent monitoring should be considered an important mechanism for enhancing particularly one high-level goal: transparency in the land-use sector. Stakeholders can engage and benefit from independent monitoring approaches to achieve transparency when starting to implement the Paris Agreement and it underpins in crucial ways the Paris Agreement’s Transparency Framework, because monitoring achievements, at the heart of the Agreement, requires independent approaches to be effective, efficient and allow for equity (Sy et al. 2016).
http://www.consideo.com/imodeler24.html
Recommendations to all data providers
In order to qualify the main recommendations and provide some prioritization of recommended actions we provide more concrete suggestions for implementation. We give an indication of the time horizon needed (from short (1-2 years), to medium (3-5 years), and long (5-10 years)). We also give an indication of costs. Low costs means there are multiple benefits, use cases for other purposes, international coordination processes, guidance developments etc. of recommended activities. Medium costs occur for demonstration and collaboration projects, such as H2020 or Cost Actions. High costs are expected if significant investments are needed or long-term operation of services and new space assets are required.
The availability of open and ready-to-use data and tools for independent monitoring increases opportunities for GHG reporting, planning and implementation of land-based mitigation policies. But such approaches might also be subject to misuse or misinterpretation. Independent monitoring opportunities for inventory compilers and reviewers, especially in developing countries, emerge from freely accessible tools for remote sensing analysis, such as the stratification of sampling for national forest inventories, data processing and modelling etc. However, national experts need to be aware of the limitations of global datasets to be able to integrate them appropriately into national inventory work. Specific recommendations to government agencies national inventory experts and reviewers are:
For the countries seeking to implement REDD+ or LULUCF
For the financing institutions supporting land mitigation
For practitioners developing or improving AFOLU monitoring systems
For stakeholders interested in participative monitoring
For UNFCCC negotiators preparing more harmonised guidance and modalities for transparency and accounting in the land sector, post 2025.
*The ESA Biomass mission is the seventh ESA Earth Explorer to be launched in 2021. It will be able to estimate forest biomass, canopy height and changes with a P-band synthetic aperture radar (SAR). Specific recommendations for biomass mapping from space using such technologies are: https://earth.esa.int/web/guest/missions/esa-future-missions/biomass
According to IPCC guidance, verification of GHG inventories is key to improve scientific understanding and to build confidence on GHG estimates and their trends. The global modelling and carbon science community can help in building confidence in land use emission estimates by providing independent references for GHG inventories. This will increase transparency, accuracy, consistency, completeness and comparability, especially in countries with limited own capacities. Meaningful verification requires improving mutual understanding and cooperation between the scientific community and compilers of national GHG inventories. A successful partnership between results from global models of GHG cycling and requirements for MRV and policy needs a clear formulation of the technical requirements for reporting purposes to be addressed by models. For specific recommendations to global modelling and carbon science community see slides
- Consider reporting as application of models and make them consistent with current IPCC guidelines and country GHG reporting
- Establish infrastructure that allows models be independently parametrized, calibrated, run, and evaluated, this would increase transparency of model application and allow continuous improvement of model and data by users
- Advance IPCC guidance, contribute to improved emission factors
- Reconcile large differences between AFOLU databases, scientific studies and country reported data. IPCC should facilitate such a dialogue and develop consensus to ensure that AFOLU estimations in the following scientific assessment reports are consistent and comparable with those provide by countries and independent remote sensing and modelling studies
incorporate findings in methodological update of the IPCC GPG
- improve data sources and approaches underpinning complete, comparative, timely, consistent and reproducible assessment of AFOLU flux estimations; including the use of Copernicus assets