Transparent monitoring for climate and development goals (Hannes Böttcher)

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
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
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.
• 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
www.oeko.de
Interest in data related to non GHG topics
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
www.oeko.de
Many tools are available…
Examples
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
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
Country level
agreement for different
sources of AFOLU
emissions
“Hotspot analysis”
Roman-Cuesta et al. 2016

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)

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

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

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

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

12
www.oeko.de
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
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 for climate and development goals (Hannes Böttcher)

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Transparent monitoring for climate and development goals (Hannes Böttcher) (20)

More from Global Landscapes Forum (GLF) (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Transparent monitoring for climate and development goals (Hannes Böttcher)

Editor's Notes